KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F
DIGEST: Even if the Judge erred in one of his findings, the error did not affect the outcome of
the case and, therefore, was harmless.  Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 13-00175.a1
DATE: 03/20/2014
DATE:  March 20, 2014
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 13-00175
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 17, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On January 9, 2014, after considering the
record, 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was born, raised, and educated in Pakistan.  He earned a bachelor’s degree there
in the mid-1980s.  He came to the U.S. in the late 1980s and became a U.S. citizen several years
later.  In the early 2000s he married his current spouse, who is a citizen of Pakistan who holds
permanent residence in the U.S.  Applicant’s mother and three of his siblings are citizens and
residents of Pakistan.  Since becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant has traveled to Pakistan on eight
occasions to visit members of his family.  Applicant maintains monthly to quarterly contact with his
family members in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a parliamentary federal republic.  Pakistan provided support to U.S. efforts to
combat terrorists following the attacks of September 11, 2001.  However, there is anti-U.S.
sentiment among certain political parties in Pakistan.  An extensive terrorist network operates within
the borders of that country.  Senior Taliban leaders enjoy a safe haven there.  These terrorist groups
target U.S. and other western interests, as well as officials of the Pakistani government.  In May
2011, U.S. military personnel raided a compound in Pakistan and killed al-Quaida leader Osama bin
Laden.   That he was found in a residential neighborhood illustrates the security concerns regarding
Pakistan.  There are reports that authorities in Pakistan use wiretaps and intercept mail without court
approval, in addition to monitoring cell phone and electronic communications.
Applicant has incurred a number of delinquent debts since 2009, for such things as auto loans
and credit card services.  Applicant also had a judgment against him based upon a debt.  He
attributes his financial problems to a job loss three years ago.  However, from 2005 until the present
he was employed for all but nine months, that is, from October 2011 until the following June.  He
presented no evidence of credit counseling or debt consolidation, nor did he provide evidence of
repayment plans approved by any of his creditors.  His financial statement reported a monthly
remainder of $1,037 after expenses.
Applicant enjoys a superb reputation for the quality of his work.  This reputation is
evidenced by several character references and by a certificate of achievement.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under both Guidelines
alleged in the SOR.  In further concluding that Applicant had not mitigated these concerns, the Judge
stated that there is little evidence in the record about his relatives, as a consequence of which the
potential significance of his contact and visits with them cannot be discounted.  None of Applicant’s
contacts with his Pakistani family members can be viewed as casual or infrequent.  The Judge stated
that Applicant’s close family connections in Pakistan raise a heightened risk that he could become
subjected to coercion, a risk that his favorable evidence was not sufficient to mitigate.  
3
Regarding Applicant’s finances, the Judge stated that, while his problems may have been
affected by his job loss, which was beyond his control, there is insufficient information about his
efforts at repayment to permit a conclusion that he had acted responsibly.  He stated that the
evidence in the record was limited, providing little insight into the origin of Applicant’s debts, his
payment history, and his attempted efforts since having received the SOR.  Given evidence that
Applicant has been gainfully employed for several years, he could be expected to have initiated
more timely and substantial payments than are shown in the record.  The Judge also stated that the
paucity of record evidence undermined a favorable whole-person assessment. Though crediting
Applicant with some measure of debt resolution, he stated that Applicant’s apparent lack of attention
to older debts left him with doubts as to his fitness for a clearance.
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that his wife holds permanent resident status in the
U.S.  He states that, to the contrary, she is a naturalized U.S. citizen, as he is.  Although Applicant’s
security clearance application states that his wife is a U.S. citizen (Item 5 at 22-23), in his interview
he described her as a citizen of Pakistan.  Item 7 at 2.  A Judge’s task includes resolving conflicts
in the evidence, and it is not clear that the Judge erred in this matter.  However, Department
Counsel, in the memorandum accompanying the File of Relevant Material, states that Applicant’s
wife is a U.S. citizen.  Moreover, her citizenship status was not alleged in the SOR, and the Judge
did not discuss this matter in his analysis, or otherwise give the appearance of having relied on it.
Therefore, even if this finding is erroneous, the error is harmless in that it did not likely exert a
material effect on the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-04565 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct.
28, 2013).  
In his appeal brief, Applicant cites to record evidence, such as his mother’s age and physical
condition and that some of his debts have been resolved.  To the extent that he is arguing that the
Judge did not consider this evidence, he has failed to rebut the presumption to the contrary.
Moreover, as we have stated before, a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to
demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10695 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2014).  
Applicant states that his remaining debts will be addressed one after another.  Applicant’s
argument is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s conclusion that the record contained insufficient
evidence to demonstrate mitigation.  Promises to resolve debts in the future are not a substitute for
“a meaningful track record” of debt resolution.  ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 10 (App. Bd. Jan. 7,
2010).  
 The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  The presence of terrorist activity in a foreign
country is a significant factor in Guideline B cases.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-12172 at 4 (App.
Bd. Jan. 9, 2014).  In addition, the Judge’s conclusions about a paucity of evidence in mitigation of
the concerns under both Guidelines reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record that was before
4
him.  “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: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board