1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 13-00507
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Given Applicant’s deep and longstanding relationships in the United States, he
can be expected to resolve in favor of the U.S. interest any potential conflict of interest
that may arise based upon his family ties to Pakistan. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On August 9, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD)  issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines B, foreign influence, and
F, financial considerations. The action was taken under 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).
Applicant answered the SOR on September 29, 2013, admitting all of the
allegations and requesting a hearing. On October 29, 2013, I received the case
2
assignment. DOD issued a notice of hearing on November 8, 2013, scheduling it for
January 5, 2013. I held the hearing as scheduled. During the hearing, I received 5
Government exhibits, marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, and 16
Applicant exhibits, marked as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through P. Also, I received the
testimony of Applicant and one character witness, and took administrative notice, at
Department Counsel’s request, of the adjudicative facts set forth in nine documents,
marked as Hearing Exhibit (HE) I through IX.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.)
on December 13, 2013.
At the close of the hearing, I left the record open for Applicant to submit additional
exhibits. He timely submitted five exhibits that I marked and received as AE Q through U.
Also, after the hearing, I received two character references via e-mail. Department
Counsel did not object to their admissibility. I printed and incorporated them into the
record as AE V and AE W. 
Preliminary Ruling
Department Counsel and Applicant stipulated that the Guideline F security
concerns, as set forth in Paragraph 2, had been mitigated. Consequently, I resolve
Paragraph 2 in Applicant’s favor.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 62-year-old married man with four sons and one daughter, all of
whom are adults. Applicant has been married since 1977. He was born and raised in
northwest Pakistan, approximately 40 miles from the Afghan border. (Tr. 59)  He is a
high school graduate, and has taken two years of college courses. He immigrated to the
United States in 1999, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2010. (Tr. 57)
Applicant speaks three languages native to the region where he was raised. (Tr.
70) His request for clearance is being sponsored by a company that provides linguist
services for the Department of Defense. (Tr. 16)
Applicant’s wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She lives with him and works as a
nanny. (Tr. 82) Applicant’s daughter and three of Applicant’s sons are U.S. citizens and
residents. His other son is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. He and his wife are
attending a seminary school there. (Answer at 1) Applicant speaks with this son
approximately once per month. (Tr. 60) He sends him money each month, and he is
sponsoring his application for a visa to immigrate to the United States. (Tr. 78, 80)
Applicant’s son-in-law is a Pakistani citizen who lives in Applicant’s home with
Applicant’s daughter. He is in the process of becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. (Tr. 58)
Applicant’s parents are deceased. His brother is a citizen and resident of
Pakistan. His occupation is unknown from the record. Applicant has not talked with him
3
in two years. (Tr. 60) Applicant’s sister is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. She is a
retired nurse. Applicant has spoken to her twice in the past year. (Tr. 62) 
Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. (Tr. 63) Applicant’s
wife speaks with her regularly, but Applicant typically does not speak with her.
Applicant’s wife has two brothers and a sister who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.
One brother-in-law is a retired nurse. Applicant has talked to him twice during the past
year. (Tr. 62) Applicant’s other brother-in-law is a street cleaner. He has not talked to him
in several years. (Tr. 64) Applicant’s sister-in-law teaches in a primary school. Applicant
has not talked with her in several years. (Tr. 64-65)
Applicant has visited Pakistan twice since immigrating to the United States. (Tr.
81) The first trip was in 2010. Most recently, he visited in 2013.  He stayed for two to
three weeks during each visit. He did not see his brother on his last visit. (Tr. 60)
During Applicant’s early childhood, he lived in dire poverty. As a Christian in an
Islamist country, his family was treated like second-class citizens. When Applicant was in
third or fourth grade, a U.S. Air Force officer from a local base befriended his family. He
helped them financially, both personally, and through a Christian charity group. (Tr. 89)
As a result of this assistance, Applicant and his siblings were able to receive an
education. (Tr. 66) Since then, Applicant has profoundly admired the United States.
In 1986, Applicant began working for a contractor with a U.S. aid organization that
had an office in his home town.  (Tr. 67) He began as a driver. In 1988, he was promoted
to a warehouseman. (AE U at 2) Later, he was promoted to a supply assistant. (AE B)
Applicant was highly regarded on the job. Applicant’s supervisor characterized him as a
person “with a myriad of skills who willingly step[ped] in wherever [he was] needed.” (AE
B)
In 1991, the beginning of the Gulf War prompted a wave of anti-American
extremism in the Muslim world. (AE A) Consequently, the U.S. aid organization where
Applicant worked evacuated all of its employees except critical management personnel.
Applicant was tasked with securing fuel and other commodities, and hiding them in
locations where the remaining Americans could have prompt access to them in the event
of an emergency. (AE A) He performed these tasks in a “prompt, tireless, and efficient”
manner. (AE A) 
In 1994, the United States closed the aid office where Applicant worked. This
angered the local community because the office employed many local Pakistani citizens.
One day after the Americans left, a mob approached the office with the intent of tearing
the U.S. flag from the wall and burning it. Before the mob could arrive, Applicant
removed the flag, smuggled it out of the building, and hid it in his home.  (Tr. 68, 86-87)
Since immigrating to the United States, Applicant has actively lobbied his local
Congressman for legislation to prohibit flag desecration. (AE E) He has involved himself
with other political issues, frequently writing Congressmen. (AE D-G) On one occasion,
4
he wrote an editorial in a local newspaper. (AE K at 2-3) He has frequently hosted local
politicians in his home. (Tr. 96)
Applicant is also actively involved in charities. He volunteers at a food bank, and
feeds homeless people during holidays. (Tr. 92-93)
Applicant is highly respected in the community. According to his pastor, “com[ing]
from a nation that lacked freedom and the democratic process ha[s] given [Applicant] an
advantage over those of us who have only known ‘the home of the free and the land of
the brave.’” (AE R) Through church, Applicant is friends with the deputy director of a U.S.
intelligence agency. According to this deputy director, Applicant is a man of “upstanding
character - profoundly grateful and loyal to the U.S., a man of his word, and committed to
service in whatever he does.” (AE V)
Applicant is a homeowner. He has owned his home for eight years. (Tr. 83)
Administrative Notice
Pakistan is a parliamentary federal republic. (HE VIII at 1) Pakistan is battling
several terrorist groups throughout Pakistan, particularly in its northwest province near
Afghanistan where groups such as Al-Qa’ida and the Taliban are present. (HE III at 2-3;
HE VIII at 3)  Also, the United States is working with Pakistani scientists and engineers
with expertise in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or WMD-applicable expertise to
develop surveillance capabilities to detect and identify possibly catastrophic biological
and chemical events. (HE I at 3) However, parts of Pakistan remain terrorist safe
havens. This problem is particularly acute in Pakistan’s northwest province bordering
Afghanistan. (HE I at 1) Most important, the question of whether elements of the
Pakistani government were sheltering Osama bin Laden remains unresolved. (HE VIII at
2)
Pakistan is a developing country. The military continues to have a pervasive
influence on the government, and Pakistan’s human rights record remains poor. (IX at
13-14) Police often failed to protect members of religious minorities from attacks. (HE IX
at 13)  
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.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied together with the factors
listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.”
5
The administrative judge must 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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
Under this 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 the U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest” (AG
¶ 6). Moreover, “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
United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of
terrorism” (Id.).
Pakistan has a paradoxical relationship with the United States. The government is
allied with the United States in the fight against terrorism, working to prevent the spread
of WMD, and aggressively fighting terrorists in its northwestern province. Conversely,
terrorists and other insurgents fighting against the U.S. coalition in Afghanistan receive
aid and comfort from local Pakistani communities near the Afghan border.
Although Pakistan has a mixed record against fighting terrorism and a sometimes
shaky alliance with the United States, there is no record evidence that it is a global
competitor seeking to project its power worldwide through the intimidation or coercion of
its citizens living abroad. Consequently, Applicant’s son-in-law, with whom he shares
living quarters, does not trigger the application of AG ¶ 7(d), “sharing living quarters with
a person, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of
foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.” I resolve SOR subparagraph
1(e) in Applicant’s favor.
Applicant’s relatives who are both Pakistani citizens and residents trigger the
application of AG ¶ 7(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
AG ¶ 8(b).1
6
contact creates a risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, or coercion.”
Applicant has not talked with either his brother or sister in more than a year. Applicant
has talked to none of his siblings-in-law more than twice in the past year. AG ¶ 8(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,” applies.
Applicant talks to his son approximately once per month and sends him money.
AG ¶ 8(c) is not applicable to this relationship. Although Applicant does not talk to his
mother-in-law, there is a presumption that relationships with one’s parents-in-law are not
casual. AG ¶ 8(c) does not apply to this relationship.
Applicant has only returned to visit Pakistan twice in the past 15 years since
immigrating to the United States. He is a homeowner who is well-respected in his
community and is actively involved in civic affairs. 
Most important, before immigrating to the United States, Applicant twice worked to
advance the interests of the United States under dangerous conditions. The first time, he
was working for a U.S. agency to secure fuel and other commodities for embattled U.S.
staff that remained after an evacuation during a particularly volatile period when anti-U.S.
tensions were high in Pakistan. The second time, Applicant secured the U.S. flag and hid
it in his home before a marauding mob could take it and destroy it. This was particularly
significant because Applicant, a man who was particularly vulnerable to persecution as a
Christian living in an Islamist country with a history of persecuting Christians, voluntarily
placed himself in harm’s way to protect a venerable symbol of U.S. values – the values
he had grown to admire as a child after a U.S. service member befriended his family and
helped them rise out of abject poverty. Under these circumstances, Applicant has no
conflict of interest,  because he “has such deep and longstanding relationships and
loyalties in the U.S., that [he] can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor
of the U.S. interest.”   Applicant has mitigated the foreign influence security concerns.1
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(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 participation is 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.
7
I discussed Applicant’s favorable whole-person attributes in the Foreign Influence
section of the Decision in reaching the conclusion that AG ¶ 8(b) applies. 
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, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge