1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-00967
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, Applicant’s eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on September 11, 2013. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on April 24, 2014, detailing security concerns
under Guideline B, foreign influence, and Guideline F, financial considerations. The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information (AG), implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Item 5; Response to FORM - personal essay.1
2
Applicant received the SOR on May 2, 2014. He submitted a notarized, written
response to the SOR allegations dated May 12, 2014, and he requested a decision on
the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on August 28, 2014. Applicant received the FORM on
September 5, 2014. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He submitted a response, with
attachments, dated October 1, 2014. DOHA assigned this case to me on October 20,
2014. The Government submitted eight exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-8
and admitted into the record. Applicant’s response to the SOR has been marked as
Item 4, and the SOR has been marked as Item 1. His written response to the FORM is
admitted into the record as Applicant Exhibit A (AE A).
      
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a request that I take administrative notice of
certain facts relating to Pakistan. The request is not admitted into evidence, but is
included in the record as Hearing Exhibit (HE) 1. The facts administratively noticed are
limited to matters of general knowledge and matters not subject to reasonable dispute,
and they are set out in the Findings of Fact below. 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a-1.f
and 2.b-2.f of the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He
denied the factual allegations in ¶ 2.a of the SOR. He also provided additional
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete
and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 39 years old, was born and raised in Pakistan. He graduated
from a Pakistani high school and a university with a degree in electrical engineering. He
emigrated to the United States in December 1999 on a student visa. He graduated from
a U.S. university in 2001 with a master’s degree in computer information systems. He
received a second master’s degree in telecommunications from another U.S. university
in 2006. He continues to upgrade his technology skills through various network
certificate programs.1
 
In 2001, Applicant obtained work in the United States and a H-1B worker’s visa.
He obtained his permanent residency (green card) and became a naturalized United
States citizen in 2013. Applicant and his wife married in July 2004. She is a permanent
resident (green card) of the United States, who will be eligible for U.S. citizenship in
2015. She currently attends a U.S. university, where she is studying for a doctorate
Item 5; Response to FORM - personal essay.2
Item 4; Response to FORM.3
Item 4; Response to FORM.4
Item 5.5
Response to FORM.6
3
degree. They have a 9-year-old son, who was born in the United States and resides in
the United States.  2
Applicant’s father, mother, two brothers, one sister, father-in-law, and mother-in-
law are citizens and residents of Pakistan. One sister is a citizen of Pakistan, residing in
Saudi Arabia. This sister resigned her position as the deputy director of a Pakistani
government agency when she moved to Saudi Arabia. Applicant’s father works as an
accounting and finance advisor, Chief Financial Officer, to the board of directors of large
industrial company. His mother is a house wife. His parents have applied for permanent
U.S. residency. One brother is a certified financial analyst, who works as an investment
manager for a private investment foundation in Pakistan. The foundation is a
corporation established as a charitable trust for the welfare of former Pakistani
serviceman and their dependents. This brother has applied for permanent residency in
Canada in the Federal Skilled Worker class, and Canada has approved the processing
of his application. Applicant’s other brother is a team leader and network and systems
administrator for a private Pakistani telecommunications company. His youngest sister
does not work and lives with his parents. His father-in-law is retired and his mother-in-
law does not work outside the home.3
Applicant talks with his parents, mostly his mother, about once a month. He talks
with his brothers and sister when he calls his parents. He occasionally talks with his in-
laws. Over a 15-year period of time, Applicant sent approximately $10,000 to his family
members as birthday and holiday gifts. He did not provide financial support to his family
members as his family members are financially independent. His family members are
not employed by the Pakistani government or involved in political parties or movements.
They comply with the laws of Pakistan and the United States.4
Applicant traveled to Pakistan twice in 2004 and 2007. He also traveled to
Pakistan in 2006, 2008, and 2010. He traveled to Canada in 2011. He traveled to
Pakistan for family weddings and to visit family members.5
Applicant is involved in community activities, such as feeding the homeless and
mentoring individuals, in the United States. Since becoming a United States citizen, he
cast his first vote, an activity he did not do in Pakistan. He plays softball and golf in his
spare time.  6
Item 5.7
Item 5.8
Response to FORM.9
Item 4; Response to FORM.10
The September 28, 2013 and the April 7, 2014 credit reports reflect that Applicant continues to pay his11
mortgage on this property, so it is assumed that he rents this property. He has not provided information on
how he pays the monthly mortgage or the amount he receives for rental income. Items 6 and 7.
4
Applicant and his wife purchased a new house in 2005. He used credit cards to
pay the down payment. He refinanced the mortgage on the house in 2007 and used
money from the refinance to pay the balances on a few of his high balance credit cards.
He did not pay all his credit card debts.  In July 2009, Applicant was laid off from his job.
He did not have an any savings and was unable to pay his mortgage or credit card
debts. He returned to work in November 2009.7
When his financial problems began, Applicant contacted the holders of his credit
cards and his mortgage and requested assistance. His mortgage company reduced his
interest, which enabled him to continue paying his mortgage. He is current on his
mortgage. The credit card companies raised his interest rates after he stopped making
his payments.   8
Applicant contacted the six creditors listed in the SOR in 2013 and began
negotiating a resolution of his debts. He negotiated a reduced payment on the $2,784
debt identified in SOR allegation 1.a. He provided documentation, which shows that this
debt has a zero balance. He disputed the $29,750 (S0R allegation 1.c) with the
collection agency which purchased the debt from a bank. The collection agency notified
him by letter dated July 24, 2014 that it had investigated his dispute, that it was closing
this account, and that it would be reported to the credit reporting agencies. This debt
has been deleted from his credit report. The two debts in SOR allegations 1.a and 1.c
are resolved.9
In his response to the SOR, Applicant provided information about his debts,
showing the results of his efforts to negotiate a resolution of his debts. He indicated that
he had resolved the $30,481 debt in SOR allegation 1.b for $7,630, which had to be
paid by July 31, 2014. He did not provide any proof of this payment. He has not
provided documentation that he had reached a conclusive settlement offer on the debts
in SOR allegations 1.d ($18,900), 1.e ($5,035), and 1.f ($7,909) or paid these debts.10
Since 2009, Applicant advises that he had changed his spending habits. He does
not live in his large townhouse.  Instead, he rented a smaller condo. More recently, he11
moved to a smaller residence for $1,950, which reduced his monthly rental expense by
$250 and his utility expense by an unknown amount. He and his wife own a 2007 Honda
and 1999 Chevy Prizm, which are debt free. He and his wife moved their son from
Item 4; Response to FORM.12
Response to FORM.13
Response to FORM.14
Hearing Exhibit 1.15
5
private school to public school and use public transportation. He last traveled to
Pakistan in 2010 because the trips are expensive.12
Applicant’s wife receives $1,800 a month in a stipend while working on her
doctorate. Applicant’s monthly income is unknown as are his monthly expenses.
Applicant has not explained how nor has he shown that he has sufficient income to pay
any taxes he may incur as a result of his negotiated settlements.13
I take administrative notice of the following facts. Pakistan is an Islamic
parliamentary democracy with a poor human rights record. The United States’
relationship with Pakistan has strengthened since September 11, 2001. Pakistan
remains a principal ally of the United States on the war on terrorism and has actively co-
operated with the United States in the global war on terrorism. Despite this, terrorist
groups, such as the Taliban and al-Qaida, operate in Pakistan, making safety and
security an issue. These terrorist organizations target not only Pakistani interests, but
United States and Afghan interests by suicide operations, bombings, assassinations,
car-jacking, assaults, or hostage taking. The Pakistan Army, with United States support,
recently increased its efforts to contain and eliminate terrorists operations within its
borders.  At this time, the risk of terrorist activities remain extremely high, especially in14
the NWFP province and Northwestern Pakistan, which borders Afghanistan. Political
violence remains a problem in Karachi.
Pakistan is not on the National Counter Intelligence Center’s list of most active
nations engaging in foreign economic collection and industrial espionage. It is not
known to be an active collector of United States intelligence information, nor is it known
to target its expatriates or former citizens to obtain United States information. The
United States provides substantial financial aid to Pakistan.15
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
6
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” 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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding foreign influence:
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
 The Government has not raised a concern about Saudi Arabia.16
7
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.
AG ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(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 the individual's desire to
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information; and
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.
Applicant’s wife is a permanent resident of and living in the United States. His
son is citizen and resident of the United States. Thus, no security concern is raised by
these family members. Applicant’s parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers,
and one sister are citizens and residents of Pakistan. His second sister is a citizen of
Pakistan, residing in Saudi Arabia. Applicant maintains a normal familial relationship
with his family members in Pakistan. He talks with them by telephone about once a
month. His family relationships are not per se a reason to deny Applicant a security
clearance, but his contacts with his family members must be considered in deciding
whether to grant Applicant a clearance.
In determining if security risk exists, I must look at Applicant’s relationships and
contacts with his family, as well as the activities of the Pakistani Government and of
terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The risk that an applicant could be targeted for
manipulation or induced into compromising classified information is real, not theoretical.
Applicant’s relationship and contacts with his family in Pakistani and the Pakistani
government create a heightened risk and a security concern because of the ongoing
terrorist activities in Pakistan and the poor human rights record in Pakistan. There is no
evidence that the Pakistan government engages in espionage activities in the United
States or targets American-Pakistan citizens by exploiting, manipulating, pressuring, or
coercing them to obtain protected information.  16
8
Under the guideline, the potentially conflicting loyalties must be weighed to
determine if an applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of U.S.
interests. In determining if Applicant’s contacts in Pakistan cause security concerns, I
considered that Pakistan and the United States have a close working relationship in the
war on terrorism. However, terrorists still occupy parts of Pakistan and continue to
conduct activities from their location. The human rights issues in Pakistan continue to
be a concern. While none of these considerations by themselves dispose of the issue,
they are all factors to be considered in determining Applicant’s vulnerability to pressure
or coercion because of his family in Pakistan. Applicant’s contacts with his family raise a
heightened risk under AG ¶¶ 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c).
The Foreign Influence guideline also includes examples of conditions that can
mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 8(a) through ¶ 8(f),
and the following are potentially applicable:
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in
which these persons are located, or the positions 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.; and
(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
so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding 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.
Applicant’s family members work in private industry. His father and one brother
work to assure that the finances of these companies are solid. This brother is seeking to
move to Canada and has started the process to emigrate.  His parents are seeking
permanent U.S. residency. His other brother works in telecommunications. At the
present time, neither of his sisters work nor does his mother. His father-in-law is retired,
and his mother-in-law is a homemaker. His family members are not politically active and
live quietly. Their jobs do not place them in the public eye, which would make them
possible targets of terrorists. There is little likelihood Applicant’s family members work
and activities in Pakistan would place him in a position of having to chose between the
interests of the United States and the interests of a foreign individual, group,
organization, or government. Likewise, Applicant’s family contacts do not create a
conflict of interest because his loyalties are with the United States. He has mitigated the
security concerns under AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b).
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
9
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant had extensive credit card debt, which he managed until 2009.  He lost
his job in July 2009, which created excessive unpaid debts and his current financial
problems. Most of the debts have not been resolved. These two disqualifying conditions
apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person=s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
When Applicant lost his job in 2009, he was unable to pay his mortgage and
credit card bills. He negotiated a reduction in his mortgage interest rate, which enabled
him to resume paying his mortgage. He was unsuccessful in reducing his payments on
his credit cards. Since 2009, Applicant has reduced his living expenses, relied upon
older, debt-free cars and public transportation, and moved his son from private school to
public school. Applicant acted reasonably by taking steps to reduce his living expenses.
AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable because he waited until 2013 or later to contact the
creditors about his debts.
In assessing whether an applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F, the Appeal Board provided17
the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007).
However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off
each and every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd.
10
Applicant contacted his creditors in an effort to resolve his debts. He reached an
agreement with one creditor and paid the agreed upon settlement offer. He has not
reached a settlement agreement and paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.b and 1.d-1.f
AG ¶ 20(d) applies to SOR allegation 1.a.
Applicant disputed the debt in SOR allegation 1.c. As a result of his dispute, the
creditor closed its account and deleted the account from his credit report. AG ¶ 20(e)
applies to SOR allegation 1.c.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
 In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  Except for17
Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established
a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.”
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can reasonably
consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the
extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is
credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a
determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding
debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for
the payment of such debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.
11
his wife and son, most of Applicant’s family are citizens and residents of Pakistan. His
father and brothers work in the private sector. His mother, sisters and parents-in-law are
not working. His relatives are not political activists, and they are not actively involved in
the activities of the Pakistani government. They prefer a low profile, making them less
vulnerable to coercion and exploitation which could be used to pressure Applicant to
reveal classified information. Applicant came to the United States for an education then
decided to remain. He became a U.S. citizen and has followed the laws of this country,
as do his family members when in the United States. His loyalties are to the United
States, not Pakistan. There is little likelihood that his family members will be targeted by
terrorists.
Applicant submitted evidence which reflects that he has taken steps to control his
living expenses and to reduce his debts. However, he has not provided evidence of his
income and ability to pay the remaining debts. He did not submit a budget which would
help determine his ability to pay his remaining debts. Likewise, he has not outlined a
plan to resolve his remaining debts and to pay any tax liabilities he may incur for debt
forgiveness. Without this information, it is difficult to determine the status of his finances.
Thus, he is not entitled to full mitigation for the security concerns raised about his
finances.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline B, but he has not
mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under Guideline F.
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.f: For Applicant
12
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.d-2.f: Against 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge