1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03789
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 29, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on February 28, 2013.  On November 6, 2014, the Department of Defense
(DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline B for Applicant.  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), effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 11, 2014.  She
answered the SOR in writing on December 16, 2014, and requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
received the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on March 4,
2015.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 5, 2015, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on April 9, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 and 2, which
2
were received without objection.  Applicant testified on her own behalf, as did her
spouse, and submitted Exhibit (AppX) A, which was received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 16, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until May 8, 2015, to submit additional matters.  On
May 8, 2015, she submitted AppXs B and C, which were received without objection.
The record closed on May 11, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits,
and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice
of certain facts relating to Syria.  The request was granted.  The request, and the
attached documents, were not admitted into evidence, but were included in the record.
The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations. 
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
The 52 year-old Applicant immigrated to the United States from Syria at the age
of 28.  (TR at page 27 lines 3~10.)  She became a U.S. citizen in 2000.  (GX 1 at page
8.)  She’s been married to her current husband for 17 years, and they have two
children.  (TR at page 31 line 24 to page 32 line 10.)  She also has a stepson from her
husband’s former marriage.  (TR at page 32 lines 13~18.)  Applicant last visited Syria in
2008, to attend a “niece’s wedding.”  (TR at page 32 lines 19~22.)
1.a.  Applicant’s oldest brother is a citizen and resident of Syria.  (GX 1 at pages
32~33.)  He has been in the Syrian Merchant Marines for 30 years.  (TR at page 39 line
2 to page 40 line 23.)  She last saw him in 2005, and they communicate on “special
occasions . . . holidays.”  (TR at page 41 lines 7~24.)
1.b.  Applicant’s middle brother is also a citizen and resident of Syria.  (GX 1 at
pages 33~34.)  In January of 2015, just two months before her hearing, he retired as a
general officer from the Syrian air force.  (TR at page 42 lines 4~22.)  He served in the
Syrian armed forces for about 39 years.  (TR at page TR at page 42 line 23 to page 43
line 3.)  Applicant has spoken to her brother “probably two times” since his retirement.
(TR at page 43 lines 6~9, see also at page 54 line 1 to page 55 line 10.)
1.c. and 1.f.  Applicant’s third, and youngest brother, is a citizen of Syria, but he
and his wife reside in Egypt.  (GX 1 at pages 35~36, and TR at page 45 lines 22~24.)
“When the war started [current civil war in Syria], they went to Turkey.  They stayed
3
there for a few months.  Spent all his money, very expensive, and then he moved to
Egypt.”  (TR at page 46 lines 1~4.)  Applicant sent monies to this brother to help with his
family’s transition from Syria to Egypt by way of Turkey.  (TR at page 44 line 24 to page
46 line 11.)  He, like her oldest brother, is in the Merchant Marines.  (TR at page 45
lines 14~17.)  She last saw him in 2005; and in the last year, they communicated
“probably two, three times” on “holidays.”  (TR at page 45 lines 6~21.)
1.d and i.e.  Applicant’s older sister is a citizen and resident of Syria.  (GX 1 at
pages 36~37.)  She is a retired teacher, living on a retirement pension.  (TR at page 47
lines 6~9.)  In 2014, her sister visited Applicant in the United States “for about four or
five months.”  (TR at page 47 lines 10~13.)  This sister’s “husband’s really sick . . . with
bad asthma.”  (TR at page 48 lines 1~19.)  Applicant supports her sister financially,
sending her $100~$300 on a monthly basis.  (TR at page 48 lines 12~18, and at page
55 lines 11~18.)
I also take administrative notice of the following facts.  Syria is ruled by an
authoritarian regime.  Due to the continuing civil war, the security situation throughout
Syria is very likely to remain volatile and unpredictable for the foreseeable future.  Syria
is also designated by the U.S. Department of State as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.”
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised 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 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 over-arching
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.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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
4
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. 
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 the 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
Paragraph 6 of the adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concern relating
to 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
a foreign interest.
Here, Paragraph 7(a) is applicable: “contacts with a foreign family member . . .
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.”  Three of
Applicant’s four siblings are citizens of and reside in Syria.  Her youngest Syrian brother
resides in Egypt.  She supported, financially, his move to Egypt.  She also provides
continuing financial support to her sister.  She has spoken to her middle brother, a
recently retired Syrian general officer, twice in 2015.  In light of Applicant’s close and
continuing family connections with her Syrian national siblings in both Egypt and in
Syria, I find Foreign Influence against the Applicant.
5
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 the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  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 Administrative Judge should also 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.
I have considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Although Applicant is clearly well respected
by current and former members of the U.S. military (AppXs A~C), overall, the record
evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability
for a security clearance.  For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
security concern arising from her Foreign Influence.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
6
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge