1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-15125
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government, Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has seven siblings who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. The
foreign influence security concerns raised by Applicant’s siblings are mitigated by his
infrequent contact with them and his 21-year allegiance to the U.S. Eligibility for access
to classified information is granted.  
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on May 31, 2011. (GE 1) On August 13, 2012, the Department of
Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under foreign influence (Guideline B). The action was taken pursuant to Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960),
as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective in DOD on September 1, 2006.
2
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on September 14, 2011.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on
November 15, 2012 and the hearing was held as scheduled on December 20, 2012. At
the hearing, the Government submitted one exhibit (GE 1) which was admitted into
evidence without objection. Applicant and his supervisor testified at the hearing. His four
exhibits (AE A through AE D) were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
also provided a two page statement explaining the contents of his four exhibits. (HE 1)
References to the transcript will be cited as (Tr.), followed by the page number. DOHA
received the transcript on January 3, 2013. The record in this case closed on January 3,
2013. 
Rulings on Procedure
Early in the hearing, Department Counsel requested that I take administrative
notice of facts about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (Tr. 18-20) The request and ten
attachments relating to Pakistan are identified as HE 2. Applicant testified that he had
no facts and supporting documents that I should take administrative notice of
concerning the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (Tr. 20) 
Findings of Fact
The SOR has three allegations under foreign influence (Guideline B). Applicant
admitted he has three brothers who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. (SOR 1.a)
Applicant admitted he has three sisters who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.
(SOR 1.b) Applicant admitted that he had two stepsisters who were citizens and
residents of Pakistan. (SOR 1.c) His oldest stepsister died on January 20, 2012.
(Answer to SOR) His mother and father, who were citizens and residents of Pakistan
are also deceased. (GE 1)
Applicant was born in Pakistan in 1961 and is 51 years old. In April 1984, he
married his wife, a citizen and resident of Pakistan. After receiving his bachelor’s degree
in public education, he received his master’s degree in political science in August 1986.
Applicant immigrated to the United States (U.S) in 1991 by applying for and
receiving political asylum from a military dictatorship in Pakistan. (AE A) He became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in July 1999. (GE 1; Tr. 72) His wife immigrated to the U.S. in
approximately 1992 and received her naturalized U.S. citizenship in about 2000. (Tr. 72;
GE 1) 
Applicant has been employed in information technology with five U.S. employers
since 1992. He has been a senior network engineer for a defense contractor since
March 2011. He held a public trust position in 2009. He currently seeks his first security
clearance. (GE 1)
3
Applicant’s three brothers are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Because
Applicant’s testimony is not clear about the chronological ages of his three brothers, I
am relying on the information he supplied in his e-QIP (GE 1). Applicant’s oldest brother
is 49 years old. He works for a paint company. Applicant’s second oldest brother, 44
years old, owns a shoe store. Applicant’s youngest brother, 34 years old, also owns
another shoe store. He has owned the store for several years. In 2001, Applicant began
the sponsorship process of his youngest brother’s immigration application. The three
brothers, who are all married, have never had a connection to the government of
Pakistan and they have never served in the Pakistani military. (Tr. 44-49, 52-55)
Applicant has contact with his youngest brother by phone. Sometimes the
contact is once a month when there is some sponsorship activity to accomplish. The
youngest brother’s visa was recently approved. (Tr. 52) Otherwise, the contact is once
every six months. Applicant’s contact with the second oldest brother is once a year by
phone. Applicant contacts his oldest brother about once every six months. 
Applicant has three sisters who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Because
his testimony is unclear regarding the age of his sisters, I am relying on the information
he supplied in e-QIP. Applicant’s oldest sister is 62 years old, a widower, and a
housewife. His second oldest sister is 46 years old, married, and a housewife. His
youngest sister, is 38 years old, married, and a housewife. Applicant’s telephone
contacts with his sisters occurs on the two major Arab holidays. (Tr. 59-60)
Applicant had two stepsisters, but one passed away. He does not communicate
with his oldest stepsister because she has severe hearing problems. He tried to contact
her six or seven months ago, but she could not hear him. (Tr. 61)
None of Applicant’s siblings have ever traveled to the United States to see him.
They know he is an engineer but they do not know where he works or his job
responsibilities. They are not aware he is applying for a security clearance. In addition,
they live in a rural location in Pakistan and have no knowledge of technology. Applicant
currently provides no support to any of his siblings. He provided some money to his
deceased stepsister. Two years ago, he paid a $400 immigration fee for his youngest
brother as a part of the continuing sponsorship process. (Tr. 62-66)
Currently, Applicant has a one-eighth property interest in his parents’ home
where his three brothers are residing. He does not know what the property is worth, but
he has no intention of trying to sell or take his share of the property. He has no other
assets in Pakistan. (Tr. 66-69) He has stocks and a retirement plan from previous U.S.
employers and stocks from his current U.S. employer. He owned his own U.S. home,
but sold it. (HE 1; 88-91) 
Applicant has traveled to Pakistan every four or five years. In 2008, he visited his
family during his attendance at two major Arab holiday events in the middle east. In
2004, he returned for a family reunion. (Tr. 69-70) 
4
Applicant has six children ranging in age from 13 to 26. The three oldest children
were born in Pakistan and naturalized in the United States. Applicant’s youngest three
children were born in the U.S. The oldest child just completed medical school. The
second oldest child is a technical support engineer. The third oldest child just completed
her undergraduate degree in psychology and aspires for a master’s degree and
ultimately a post graduate degree in public health. Applicant’s three youngest children
live with Applicant. (HE 1; GE 1; Tr. 75-79)
Applicant chose to come to the United States because of the freedoms and
democratic way of life. He has no intention of returning to live in Pakistan because the
United States is his home. Applicant has been briefed by his security office to resist and
disclose any attempts by outside influences. (HE 1; Tr. 83-85) 
Applicant and his wife have voted in almost all U.S. elections. He has been active
in his children’s education through the parent-teacher’s association. (Tr. 88)
There is no derogatory information in the record showing that Applicant has
criminal or financial problems. There is no evidence of drug or alcohol use and no
record of offenses related to substance abuse by Applicant. (Answer to SOR; GE 1; HE
1)
Character Evidence
Though he did not personally hire Applicant, witness A reviewed Applicant’s
application. Witness A has supervised Applicant on two previous occasions since
Applicant began working for his current employer in March 2011. Currently, witness A is
Applicant’s second-line supervisor and has been thoroughly impressed with Applicant’s
reliability and dedication in ensuring projects are completed in a satisfactory manner.
Witness A recommends Applicant for a security clearance. (Tr. 33-39)
Between 2000 and 2005, three of Applicant’s children were recognized for
academic achievement in elementary, middle, and high school. (AE B) 
Applicant received three undated training degrees from a major U.S. computer
software company. In 1997, Applicant became an exam-certified technician for
computer programs and platform environments. Between 2000 and 2005, Applicant
received four computer certifications from another major software company. (AE C) 
Applicant’s performance evaluation from his U.S. employer for the period April
2000 to March 2001 was “exceeding expectations.” His performance from another U.S.
employer for 2004 through 2007 was rated as “commendable.” (AE D)
5
Administrative Notice
Pakistan is a parliamentary Islamic republic with significant internal problems
caused by terrorist organizations concentrated in several locations within the country.
Following the attack on the United States on September 2001, Pakistan promised to
increase its commitment to bolster counterterrorism efforts through extensive
campaigns against various terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida and other extremist
groups. There are still extensive terrorist networks within Pakistan that create ongoing
security problems by targeting western interests, U.S. citizens, senior Pakistani officials,
minority political groups, and religious entities. In September 2012, the U.S. officially
declared the Haqqani Network a foreign terrorist organization. 
The human rights record of Pakistan is not good. Extrajudicial killings, torture,
and disappearances have been reported, along with intrusive government surveillance
of politicians, political activists, and the media. Government and police corruption is
prevalent. Pakistan is not known to be an active collector of U.S. intelligence
information.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines must be considered in the context of the nine general factors
known as the whole-person concept to enable the administrative judge to consider all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
6
Analysis
Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern of the foreign influence guideline:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this guideline can and should
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target U.S.
citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of
terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 contains three disqualifying conditions that may be pertinent in this case:
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to
protect sensitive information or technology and individual’s desire to help a
foreign person, group, or country by providing that information; 
(e) substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country,
or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which could subject
the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation.
The mere possession of close ties and contacts with a family member in a
foreign country is not disqualifying under Guideline B. On the other hand, if an applicant
has close contact with a relative or friend living in a foreign country like Pakistan, this
single factor may create a potential for foreign influence that is disqualifying under the
guideline. 
The foreign influence guideline is not limited to countries hostile to the United
States, but applies to friendly nations whose disagreements with the United States may
or may not motivate them to engage in espionage against the United States. 
Applicant’s three brothers, three sisters, and one stepsister are citizens and
residents of Pakistan. He traveled to the country in 2004 for a family reunion and in
7
2008 for religious activities when he also visited his family. The Government has
produced sufficient evidence that Applicant’s seven siblings create a potential
heightened risk of foreign exploitation and a potential conflict of interest. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and
7(b) apply. 
AG ¶ 7(e) does not apply to Applicant’s 1/8 interest in his parent’s home located
in Pakistan. Though Applicant could not estimate the value of the home, it is highly
unlikely that 1/8 interest could rise to the level of a substantial property interest that
would subject Applicant to a heightened risk of foreign influence. Applicant credibly
testified that he has no desire to return to Pakistan and collect his interest in the home. 
The Government having presented sufficient evidence under AG ¶¶ 7(a) and (b),
the burden then moves to Applicant to present evidence under AG ¶ 8 that
demonstrates he is unlikely to be placed in a position of having to choose between his
family members and U.S. interests. The mitigating conditions are:
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in
which these persons are located, or the position or activities of those
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the
U.S.; 
(b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of
loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is
minimal, or the individual has such deep and long-lasting relationships and
loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any
conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest; and
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign
influence or exploitation.
The type of government in the foreign country, the government’s relationship to
the United States, and the government’s record for protecting human rights, are relevant
concerns in evaluating the chances an applicant’s family members may be subject to
government coercion. The risk of coercion is greater when the foreign government has
an authoritarian government, the family member is affiliated or dependent on the
government, or the government is known to engage in the collection of intelligence
against the United States. Because terrorism and human rights problems are prevalent
in Pakistan, Applicant must show that his siblings in the country do not create a
potential heightened risk of foreign exploitation or potential conflict of interest. 
None of Applicant’s siblings have been employed or affiliated with the Pakistani
government or military. None of his siblings have come to the United States to visit him.
8
They know he is an engineer, but they do not know where he works or what he does at
work. None of the siblings know he has applied for a security clearance. Because they
live in a rural area, they have no knowledge of  technology. Applicant’s contacts of one
to three times a year with his siblings under the foregoing circumstances suggests it is
unlikely that Applicant will be placed in a position of having to choose between his
siblings over the interests of the U.S. I reach the same conclusion concerning
Applicant’s younger brother even though Applicant’s contact with him has been more
frequent over years. Since Applicant’s youngest brother received his visa, Applicant’s
contact with him has decreased to about twice a year, a level of contact that should
remain the same. AG ¶ 8(a) applies in part. 
Applicant’s connections to the United States are a pivotal factor in finding
Applicant’s sole loyalty is to the United States. He has lived in this country since 1991
when he was granted political asylum. His spouse is a U.S. citizen. His six children are
U.S. citizens. Applicant has been employed by five U.S. employers since 1992. He
provided credible testimony of his love for this country. AE ¶ 8(b) applies in part. 
Regarding AG ¶ 8(c), an applicant’s contacts with his immediate family members
are presumed to be close. However, considering the evidence as a whole, the minimal
level of contacts that Applicant has with his siblings, combined with the negligible
information they have about his job and security clearance status (as discussed under
AG ¶ 8(a)), I conclude that AG ¶ 8(c) has limited applicability. Applicant’s two visits to
Pakistan in 2004 and 2008 before applying for his security clearance have no security
significance. 
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge
should consider the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which the participation was
voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based on careful
consideration of the specific guidelines and nine factors under the whole-person
concept.
Applicant immigrated to the United States and was granted political asylum in
1991. (AE A) He has lived in this country for 21 years. He has been working for U.S.
employers since 1992 and his current supervisor recommends him for a security
clearance based on his diligence and reliability in completing tasks. Applicant was
9
naturalized in the U.S. in 1999 and his wife in 2001. His three older children are
naturalized U.S. citizens and his three younger children were born in this country.
Applicant’s eight certifications in computer technology underscore his proficiency as a
network engineer. (AE C) HE 1 and AE B confirm that Applicant has firmly instilled the
importance of education in his children.
In reaching my decision in this case, I have carefully considered the dangers
present in Pakistan, particularly the terrorist and human rights problems. At any time,
terrorists or government operatives could attempt to exert influence through Applicant’s
siblings. However, Applicant credibly testified that he will be able to successfully resist
any attempted foreign influence. His loyalty and love for this country are much stronger
than his ties to his siblings in Pakistan. His affinity for the United States. convinces me
that he will resolve a potential conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest.
Considering all the evidence under the foreign influence guideline in the context of the
whole-person concept, Applicant has mitigated the security concerns of foreign
influence. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 (Foreign Influence, Guideline B): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a-1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge