KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: An applicant with family members living in a hostile country has a “very heavy
burden” to show that they are not a means through which the applicant could be coerced into
revealing classified information.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of
affection for immediate family members of his or her spouse.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-12659.a1
DATE: 05/30/2013
DATE: May 30, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-12659
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Julia Szafraniec, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 21, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March
13, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his application
of the mitigating conditions and whether the whole-person analysis was in error.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s Iranian wife immigrated to the U.S. in the late 1970s, becoming a U.S. citizen
in the 1990s.  She has retained her Iranian citizenship and has an expired Iranian passport.  Her
parents are Iranian citizens who live in Iran.  She also has several siblings who are Iranian citizens.
Applicant’s wife communicates daily with her mother.  Her parents sent money to Applicant and
his wife for them to invest on the parents’ behalf.  Applicant and his wife spent the funds on a rental
townhouse near their home.  
The Judge made extensive findings about Iran, based on official-notice documents submitted
by the Government.  These findings include the following: Iran has long been designated by the U.S.
as a state sponsor of terrorism.  It has provided weapons, training, and funding to terrorist groups
and to militant groups that target U.S. forces.  Iran has a poor human rights record.  Foreign visitors
may be placed under surveillance, their hotel rooms and telephone conversations monitored and their
belongings searched.  It considers U.S.-Iranian dual nationals as Iranian citizens.  It is seeking the
capability to produce nuclear weapons.  There have been numerous cases of persons attempting to
export U.S. technology to Iran.  Monetary remittances from Iran must take place through the Iranian
banking system.  Remittances that occur through non-banking channels can expose the person in
Iran to monitoring and penalties if detected.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s Iranian relatives raised security concerns under
Guideline B.  He cited to evidence that Iran supports terrorism and abuses human rights, concluding
that the country is more likely to use improper or illegal means to obtain classified information.  He
concluded that Applicant’s in-laws in Iran present heightened security risks.  He stated that the
means whereby the parents transferred funds to Applicant and his wife are unknown, but the
evidence raises a real possibility that the transfer could be tracked.  The Judge also stated that
Applicant’s wife’s contacts with her parents are significant and ongoing, and, considering
Applicant’s family circumstances in the context of the geopolitical situation of Iran, a heightened
security risk exists.  Although noting Applicant’s significant ties within the U.S., the Judge
concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns raised by his foreign in-laws.  The Judge
noted Applicant’s having held a clearance for many years and his lengthy service to the Defense
industry.  However, he concluded that the risks inherent in Applicant’s family circumstances
militated against granting him a clearance.
Discussion
After considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge examined the relevant
data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  An applicant with family members
3
living in a country hostile to the U.S. has a “very heavy burden” to show that they are not a means
through which the applicant could be subjected to coercion or exploitation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 10-09986 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 15, 2011).  There is a rebuttable presumption that a person has
ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the persons’ spouse.  The
presence of terrorist activity in a foreign country is a significant factor in Guideline B cases, as is
the geopolitical situation of the foreign country.  Id.  The decision is sustainable on this record.
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See
also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access
to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board