1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 12-09418
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq. Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s security concerns under the
foreign influence and personal conduct guidelines. Eligibility for access to classified
information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on January 23, 2012. On August 20, 2012, the Department of
Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under foreign influence (Guideline B) and personal conduct (Guideline E). 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 answer to the SOR on September 13, 2012. He elected
to have his case decided on an administrative record. A copy of the Government’s File
of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government’s evidence in support of the allegations
of the SOR, was sent to Applicant on December 9, 2013. In an attachment to the
FORM, Applicant was advised he could object to the information in the FORM or submit
additional information in explanation, mitigation, or extenuation. He received the FORM
on December 30, 2013. His response was notarized on January 8, 2014, and received
by DOHA on January 22, 2014. On January 24, 2014, the Government indicated it did
not object to Applicant’s responses to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on
January 31, 2014.  
Rulings on Procedure
The Government requested that I take administrative notice of facts about the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Government provided a memorandum citing the
source documents, e.g., Government reports, that confirm these facts. Administratively
noticed facts are limited to matters of general knowledge that are not subject to
reasonable dispute. I take administrative notice of facts related to Afghanistan. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR has six allegations under the foreign influence guideline (¶ 1) and two
allegations under the personal conduct guideline (¶ 2). Applicant admitted all allegations
under SOR ¶ 1. He denied SOR ¶ 2.a, explaining that he did not know about any
judgments except the one alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b, which he admitted. He explained that
the judgment in SOR ¶ 2.b was filed against him, his wife, and the corporation for not
paying rent after he closed his failing business and deployed to Afghanistan in February
2012. 
After a review of the record in this case, including Applicant’s answer to the SOR,
the FORM and Applicant’s response to the FORM, I make the following additional
factual findings. Applicant is 45 years old and married with two children. The e-QIP that
he certified on February 8, 2012, is his first application for a security clearance.
Foreign Influence 
Applicant was born in Afghanistan in 1968. He enrolled in an Afghan nursing
school in 1985 and was awarded a nursing degree in January 1989. His enrollment in
the nursing school exempted him from Afghan military service. After receiving his
degree in January 1989, he paid a Pakistani smuggler to forge an Afghan passport
which Applicant used to immigrate to the United States (U.S.) for additional education
and more opportunities. His parents financed the forged passport and his airline
transportation to the United States.
 Item 3 at 7.1
 Pursuant to E3.1.17, Enclosure 3 of the Directive, the allegation is amended to read SOR ¶ 1.f. 2
3
In October 1992, Applicant married a South Korean citizen in the United States.
She has a degree in social work that she received in the 1980s. She gave birth to a
daughter in May 1995 and a son in November 1996. The children were born in the
United States and are U.S. citizens. The children are now 18 and 17 years of age,
respectively. On May 3, 2001, Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen.  In May1
2006, he traveled to Afghanistan and three other countries to visit his family members. 
Applicant’s father, a resident citizen of Afghanistan, was employed as a
cosmetics salesman. He passed away in approximately August 2013. Applicant’s
contacts with his father were about once every two months. Applicant’s mother, a
resident citizen of Afghanistan, is 66 years old. (SOR ¶ 1.a) She is an unemployed
housewife whom Applicant contacts about once every two months. 
Applicant has three brothers who are resident citizens of Afghanistan. (SOR ¶
1.b) His 44-year-old brother is an unemployed nurse that Applicant contacts about once
a month. His 40-year-old brother operates a grocery store. Applicant contacts him about
once every two months. His 32-year-old brother is a business contractor that Applicant
contacts about once every two months. 
Applicant’s 42-year-old sister is a resident citizen of Afghanistan. (SOR ¶ 1.c)
She is an unemployed housewife that Applicant contacts about once every two months.
Applicant’s three sisters-in-law (married to his three brothers identified at SOR ¶ 1.b)
are resident citizens of Afghanistan. (SOR ¶ 1.d) His 42-year-old sister-in-law is a
teacher. He contacts her about once every three months. His 40-year-old sister-in-law is
a housewife, and he contacts her about once every three months. Applicant’s 28-year-
old sister-in-law is a housewife that he contacts once every three months. Applicant has
an uncle, a resident citizen of Afghanistan, who is a truck driver. (SOR ¶ 1.e) Applicant
contacts him about once every six months. Between 1990 and the present, Applicant
provided about $11,000 in financial support to his family in Afghanistan. (SOR ¶ 1.f).  It2
does not appear that any of Applicant’s relatives are associated with or employed by the
Afghan or any foreign government. 
In his response to the FORM dated January 8, 2014, Applicant indicated his
uncle’s family of six lives in the United States. The uncle’s name does not appear on
Applicant’s relatives and associates questionnaire which he submitted to his employer
on January 23, 2012. Applicant identified a second uncle that has a family of five living
in the United States, and has children attending college. This uncle’s name does not
appear in Applicant’s relatives and associates questionnaire. There is no way to
determine whether either uncle is the same uncle that is alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e. Finally,
Applicant noted that his cousin and family of six, and his cousin and family of five, live in
the United States. However, their names do not appear on the relatives and associates
 Item 11. 3
 Item 10.4
 Items 11-14.5
 Item 12.6
 Item 13.7
 Item 14.8
 Items 5-9, 18-32.9
4
questionnaire Applicant submitted on January 23, 2012. Applicant’s mother-in-law is a
naturalized U.S. citizen. His brother-in-law is a permanent resident of the United States.
(FORM; Response to FORM)
Applicant did not believe the money he provided his mother and father over the
last 20 years came close to what the average amount that an American spends during
the December holidays each year. Applicant did not comment on the $4,000 that he
provided to one of his brothers since 2007, and $7,000 he provided to the other brother
between 1990 and 2006. See SOR ¶ 1.f.
Applicant noted that the relatives identified in the SOR are not aware he is
present (and working) in Afghanistan. He stated that he only contacts them through
Skype communication about once every six to eight months. (Response to FORM)
Personal Conduct
In November 1997, Applicant became manager of a restaurant in the United
States. This business dissolved in August 2000.  On January 12, 2006, the restaurant3
was reincorporated and reopened under a different name at the same business address
location when the business dissolved in August 2000.  (SOR ¶ 2.a) Corporate4
documents filed with the secretary of state indicate that Applicant’s wife is the registered
agent. Coincidentally, the restaurant’s name when the restaurant reopened in 2006 is
the same as Applicant’s 18-year-old daughter. As of January 2013, the business was
still active. Three additional food businesses were incorporated and reopened at the
same address between 2006 and 2011.  (SOR ¶ 2.a) The second opened in January5
2007 and dissolved in July 2011.  The third opened in March 2008, and dissolved in6
July 2011.  The fourth opened in December 2010, and is still in an active status at the7
same address.  State and federal tax liens were filed against the restaurant businesses8
between January 2007 and November 2011. The liens and unpaid judgments, including
a $36,750 state workers compensation judgment filed on September 29, 2008, total
more than $60,000.  9
 Item 31. 10
 Items 30, 32. Applicant did not disclose his May 2010 federal tax lien on his February 2012 e-QIP. 11
5
In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated that none of the businesses
between 1999 and July 2010 were registered in his name. However, he stated:
But I was running the business starting from 2006 and I admit I am
responsible for all the charges starting from [business named after
Applicant’s daughter][.] [My] wife and my accountant are working on all of
them to clear one by one starting from [alternate name of business] and
she already star[t]ed making payments since 2012 but most of the
charges are filed either by mistake [or] are over charged but they are
working on it to clear every thing out the soonest. 
(Response to FORM) Applicant indicated that the accountant told his wife that there
were misstatements regarding the restaurant workers’ compensation insurance
judgment. Applicant stated that while he had the appropriate workers’ compensation
insurance in place when he operated the business, he was new to the business and did
not know he had to send a copy of the insurance form (proof of coverage) to the state
agency. He provided no documentation to support his claims that the sales tax liens
were mistakenly filed or overcharged. There is no evidence in the FORM to show the
worker’s compensation judgment of $36,750 (Item 28) filed in September 2008, was
vacated or reduced. The FORM does reflect that a state tax lien of $3,544, filed in
September 2009, was released in November 2009. Likewise, a state tax lien of $1,568,
filed in October 2010, was released in April 2013.  However, a federal tax lien of10
$5,738, filed on May 4, 2010, and a federal tax lien of $6,912, filed January 31, 2011,
have not been addressed.11
Applicant explained that one business was registered in his name from March 3,
2010, until its closure on December 31, 2010. Another business began at the same
business location in March 2011, and was closed on December 31, 2011. Applicant
provided several cancelled checks that indicate he has paid some debts related to the
two businesses in which he was the registered agent. On September 17, 2012, he paid
$2,170 in sales tax to the state tax agency and was informed he still owed a $32
balance. He also paid $1,978 on October 22, 2010, to the state finance agency. He paid
$132 to the state finance agency on January 18, 2013. He noted that he could only
resolve a limited number of debts at a time. Both of these businesses were located at a
business address not connected to the restaurants involved in SOR ¶ 2.a. (Response to
FORM) 
In March 2010, Applicant signed a lease that was scheduled to end in March
2020. (SOR ¶ 2.b) The business was registered in Applicant’s name. He broke the lease
and informed the landlord that he could keep the three-month deposit. The landlord filed
a lawsuit and obtained a judgment for $35,750. The judgment was vacated on
 Short Form Order dated November 29, 2012, and journalized in the clerk’s docket on December 4, 2012.12
6
November 21, 2012, because Applicant had not been effectively served.  SOR ¶ 2.b is12
resolved in Applicant’s favor. 
Character Evidence
Applicant admitted that he had some feelings for Afghanistan, his birth country,
but he could not live there again. He indicated he had some concerns for his own safety
and his family’s safety if he were to work for the United States in Afghanistan, but he
would comply with the appropriate regulations to ensure his safety. 
Applicant explained that the remaining members of his family want to come to the
United States, but every time he applied for his brothers, the immigration requirements
changed. 
Applicant believes he has been doing a good job while working as a linguist in
Afghanistan since February 2012. He considers himself a loyal American who deserves
a security clearance to continue to perform his job. 
On December 6, 2013, Applicant received a certificate of merit for his
deployment in Afghanistan between February 2012 and December 2013. The certificate
commended Applicant for his dedicated attitude, willingness to contribute to the success
of the mission, and continual acceptance of additional responsibility. 
Administrative Notice
Afghanistan is an Islamic republic. Formerly a possession of Great Britain, the
country received its independence in August 1919. In December 1979, the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan. Resistance to communist rule led by the Afghan freedom fighters
led to the Geneva Accords, signed by Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United States, and the
Soviet Union. The middle 1990s saw the rise of the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal.
The Taliban grew in strength and imposed a strict interpretation of the Koran, leading to
the commission of serious human rights violations. 
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a coalition of countries headed by
the United States, drove the Taliban out of power by November 2001. Following a few
years of an interim government, a democratic presidential election took place in October
2004. Despite the election, the government still had to contend with the Taliban and
also al-Quaida, and other terrorist organizations who were continuing to target U.S. and
Afghan interests through hostage taking, bombings and assassinations. An increasing
amount of terrorist support has been infiltrating Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran. The
potential for random or targeted violence against Western interests in any part of
Afghanistan at any time cannot be underestimated. In February 2012, an officer of the
7
Afghan government killed two American officers in the city where Applicant’s relatives
live.  
Afghanistan’s human rights record is poor due to the extrajudicial killings, official
corruption, ineffective investigations by government security forces, discrimination
against women, and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and press. 
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. 
Analysis
Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 sets forth 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.
8
citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of
terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 contains two 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; and 
(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. 
Applicant’s mother, three brothers, sister and three sisters-in-law, and an uncle,
are resident citizens of Afghanistan, a country where terrorist organizations like the
Taliban and al-Quaida frequently target U.S. and Afghan interests through suicide
operations, bombings and hostage taking. Applicant has provided approximately
$11,000 to members of his family between 1990 and the present. If the Afghan
government or insurgents wanted to expose Applicant to undue influence, it could direct
pressure on his foreign family members. His ties and contacts with his family members
between once a month and once every six to eight months raise a heightened risk of
foreign exploitation, and a potential conflict of interest between his ties to his family and
his desire to protect them in Afghanistan and his obligations to safeguard classified
information. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) apply.
The burden shifts 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 pertinent 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
9
(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. 
Applicant has six immediate family members who are resident citizens of
Afghanistan, a country with a poor human rights record and an elevated risk of
terrorism. One of those immediate family members could be pressured in a way that
would put Applicant in a position of having to choose between his family member and
the interests of the United States. AG ¶ 8 (a) does not apply. 
In determining the applicability of AG ¶ 8(b), I have considered whether
Applicant’s sense of loyalty to his immediate family members in Afghanistan is minimal
compared to his relationships to the United States. Applicant’s sense of loyalty and
affection to his immediate family members is demonstrated by his continuing financial
support to his family between 1990 and the present. The first prong of AG ¶ 8(b) is
inapplicable. 
Applicant has lived in the United States since January 1989. In 1992, he married
his wife, a resident alien. His two children are U.S. citizens. Though he mentioned that
two uncles and two cousins have family in the United States, Applicant provided
insufficient personal information about their citizenship status, the period of time they
have resided in the United States, and other probative personal information. Other than
his restaurants that he has operated from 2006 to 2011, he has submitted negligible
information concerning relationships and loyalties developed in the United States since
his immigration to this country in 1989. It is not clear that his relationships in the United
States are sufficiently strong enough to expect him to consistently resolve any conflict of
interest in favor of U.S. interests. AG ¶ 8(b) is only partially applicable. 
AG ¶ 8(c) does not apply. Applicant has been in contact with his immediate
family members on a fairly frequent basis. Even though the frequency of contact may
have decreased when he deployed in February 2012, the contact is not casual and
infrequent to the point that there is “little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign
influence or exploitation.” Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the
foreign influence guideline. 
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth in AG ¶ 15:
AG ¶ 15. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide
truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any
other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
10
AG ¶ 16 contains two disqualifying conditions that are relevant to Applicant’s
conduct:
AG ¶ 16(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative areas that
is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard classified information; and 
AG ¶ 16(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered
under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an
adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available
information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable
behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary
information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent, or other behavior
in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and (4)
evidence of significant misuse of government or other employer’s time or
resources.
The record reflects that Applicant operated at least four restaurant businesses
between 2006 and 2011. Between 2007 ands 2011, the state and federal tax agencies
filed liens against his businesses for failure to pay taxes. In September 2008, the state
workers’ compensation board filed a judgment for $36,750. Applicant owes more than
$60,000 in liens and judgments. Applicant demonstrated a pattern of poor judgment and
rules violations. AG ¶¶ 16(c) and 16(d) apply.
There are two mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 that are potentially applicable
to the circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: 
AG ¶ 17(c) the offense was so minor, or so much time has passed, or the
behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and
AG ¶ 17(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained
counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to
alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy,
11
unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to
recur.
After initially indicating in his answer to the SOR that he did not know about any
judgment except for the leasehold judgment identified in SOR ¶ 2(b), Applicant admitted
his responsibility for liens and judgments enumerated in SOR ¶ 2(a). His payment of
several sales tax obligations related to other businesses not referenced in SOR ¶ 2.a is
acknowledged. However, coupled with his acceptance of responsibility for the listed
state and federal liens and judgments is his claim that most of the liens and judgments
are based on incorrect or flawed information. The lack of documentary support
undermines Applicant’s contention. The total in listed taxes and judgments he owes is
not minor. In addition, he has taken no documentary steps to pay off the liens and
judgments. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply. AG ¶ 17(d) has only limited application. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have evaluated the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the foreign influence and personal conduct guidelines. I have also weighed this case
within the context of the nine general factors of the whole-person concept. Those
factors, set forth in AG ¶ 2(a) are: 
(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 is 45 years old. He immigrated to the United States in 1989, and
became a naturalized U.S. citizen in November 2001. He is married to a U.S.
permanent resident. He and his wife have raised two children who are U.S. citizens. He
has two uncles and two cousins with families in the United States. Applicant’s mother-
in-law is a naturalized citizen of the United States, and his brother-in-law is a permanent
resident of the United States. In December 2013, Applicant was recognized for his good
performance as a linguist since February 2012. However, he still has ties and contacts
to six immediate family members who are resident citizens of Afghanistan, a country
where government operatives, terrorists, and criminals continue to target U.S. and
Afghan interests, and would not hesitate to exert pressure on Applicant through his
12
family members if they determined it was advantageous to do so. The foreign influence
concerns have not been mitigated.
The personal conduct concerns have not been mitigated either. Between 2007
and 2011, Applicant accumulated over $60,000 in state and federal liens and judgments
because of his poor business practices. He initially denied knowing that he had any
judgments other than the landlord judgment described in SOR ¶ 2.b. Although a federal
tax lien was filed against him in May 2010, he denied owing any federal debt in his
February 2012 e-QIP. Claiming that most of the liens and judgments are incorrect is not
credible due to the absence of evidence that explains why the liens judgments are
incorrect. Considering all the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions
in the context of the whole-person concept, Applicant has not mitigated security
concerns associated with the foreign influence and personal conduct guidelines. 
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Personal Conduct) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
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