1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02781
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 7, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his most recent Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on June 15, 2011. (Government Exhibit 1.) On August 12, 2014, the
Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on September 18, 2014, and
requested a hearing. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on November 5, 2014.
The case was assigned to me on November 13, 2014. Applicant was stationed
overseas until May 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a notice of hearing on March 2, 2015. The hearing was held on May 20, 2015. The
Government submitted two exhibits, which were admitted without objection.
(Government Exhibits 1 and 2.) Applicant testified. Applicant requested that the record
2
remain open for the admission of additional exhibits. He submitted Applicant Exhibits A
through D, which were admitted without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was received on
May 29, 2015. The record closed on that date.
Procedural Rulings
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice
of certain facts relating to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. (Tr. 18-20.) Applicant did
not object. The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 52, married, and has two adult children. He has been employed by a
defense contractor since November 2004 as a linguist, and seeks a security clearance
in connection with his employment in the defense industry. Applicant admitted
allegations 1.a and 1.b in the SOR. These admissions are findings of fact. He denied
allegation 1.c.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence)  
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has foreign contacts and interests that could. Applicant was born
and raised in Afghanistan. He left Afghanistan in 1981, living as a refugee in Pakistan
until 1984. At that point he and his wife were sponsored by his mother-in-law and
immigrated to the United States. (Government Exhibit 2 at 15; Tr. 22-23.)
Applicant became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1991. His wife is
also a naturalized citizen of the United States. He has two adult children, one of whom
was born in Afghanistan and is a naturalized citizen of the United States. His other child
is a native-born American citizen. (Government Exhibit 1 at Sections 9, 17, and 19.)
Before beginning work with his current employer he returned to Afghanistan once, in
1992. He has had no contact with his family in Afghanistan since that time. In particular,
Applicant has had no contact with his family members while he has been working in
Afghanistan. He stated, “Since I jointed the company, they advised me not to contact
anybody.” (Tr. 30-31.)
After arriving in the United States Applicant went to school and had various jobs.
(Applicant Exhibit A; Tr. 25-26, 36-37.) Applicant was honored by his local community in
1992 for his help in apprehending a burglary suspect. (Applicant Exhibit B.)
3
In 2004 he began work with his current employer and has been employed by
them continually ever since. Applicant deploys overseas for six months, then has one
month back in the United States before being deployed again. (Tr. 28.)
1.a. Applicant had seven brothers. His oldest brother, who was in the Afghan
Army in the 1970s, has passed away. One of his brothers is a British citizen living in
England. A second brother is a Dutch citizen living in the Netherlands. The other four
surviving brothers live in Afghanistan. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 19.) As stated,
Applicant has had no contact with any of his family members in Afghanistan for over 20
years.
1.b. Applicant has two sisters who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. As
stated above, Applicant has had no contact with any of his family members in
Afghanistan for over 20 years. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 19.)
1.c. Applicant denied this allegation. As stated, Applicant’s oldest brother was in
the Afghan Army in the 1970s, but has since passed away. (Tr. 32-33.) In his Answer
Applicant stated that in 1992 his father had told him that one of his siblings was trying to
get a job with the Afghan government. Applicant did not know which of his siblings was
applying for the job. He further stated in his Answer, “I do not recall what position in the
government he was applying for, I do not have any type of information regarding the
matter.”
Applicant’s financial situation is stable. He owns a house in one state, and a
vacation home in a second state. His net worth is between $400,000 and $500,000.
Neither he or his family have any assets in Afghanistan. (Tr. 26-27.)
Applicant has had a successful and rewarding career as an interpreter and
cultural liaison. He is knowledgeable of security requirements. From 2007 through 2010,
due to the nature of his work, he took and successfully passed counter-intelligence
polygraph examinations. Applicant has been in combat situations, and was hurt on a
mission. When asked whether he had ever been shot at, Applicant replied, “Yes, sir. It
happens.” Applicant is proud of his job, of the work he does, and the people he works
with. (Tr. 28, 38-39, 41-44.)
Applicant submitted various letters and certificates he received for his work in
Afghanistan. (Applicant Exhibit C.) These documents span the entire time he has been
in Afghanistan.
In March 2006 his supervisor wrote a letter of recommendation for Applicant. He
stated:
[Applicant] was selected for involvement in a specialized classified
program placing him in a position requiring trust and responsibility for the
United States Government. His performance to date has been
outstanding. In fact, he is credited with not only providing accurate
4
linguistic interpretation and general cultural awareness, but he is also
credited with providing sound recommendations to decision makers,
thereby enhancing mission accomplishment. (Applicant Exhibit C at 7.)
In February 2007 Applicant was commended for his work in another operation. A
task force commander wrote, “While supporting a highly sensitive operation, [Applicant
and two other interpreters] worked for over 36 straight hours in difficult and often
dangerous circumstances. Their contribution was the key component leading to the
operation’s successful conclusion.” (Applicant Exhibit C at 11-13.)
Finally, Applicant presented a letter of recommendation from a senior officer he
worked for in 2013. This officer states:
I picked [Applicant] to serve as my command interpreter because of his
maturity and willingness to serve the unit in any capacity. . . . I found
[Applicant] to always be honest and insightful when conducting his job; he
would go out of his way to serve the Task Force and never complained
about the mission. . . . He was a valued member of the team. . . . I would
gladly work with [Applicant] in the future; I trust him. (Applicant Exhibit C at
17.)
He also offered the coin presented to him by the Director of Operations of a
unified command. This coin was presented to Applicant for his help in a specific
operation. (Applicant Exhibit D; Tr. 39-41.)
I also take administrative notice of the facts concerning the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. Of particular significance are the poor human rights situation; and the
active and hostile presence of Al Qaida, the Taliban, and other militant extremist groups
that generate instability and openly attack police and military forces of the Afghan
government, as well as the local populace and U.S. persons and interests.  
 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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
5
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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant's circumstances
and the granting or continued holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been
established, the burden then shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in
rebuttal, explanation or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the
Government's case. The applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security
clearance.
6
Paragraph 1 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
The concern under Guideline B is styled as follows under AG ¶ 6:
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 United
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a
risk of terrorism.
Applicant has family connections to Afghanistan. Accordingly, this requires an
analysis under the heightened risk standard. The following disqualifying conditions
under AG ¶ 7 apply to this case based solely on the facts: 
(a) contact 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; and
(b) connections to a foreign person . . . 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 . . . by
providing that information.
Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the following mitigating
conditions under AG ¶ 8 apply to this particular case, given his particular background: 
(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 has submitted considerable evidence to show that he has substantial
family and financial ties in the United States that outweigh his relationship to
7
Afghanistan and his relatives there. His evidence also shows that he does not have a
conflict of interest between his loyalties to Afghanistan, the country of his family and
birth, and the United States. His immediate family lives in the United States.
Applicant has worked hard at his job, as shown by the letters and certificates of
appreciation that he has received. His job is of particular importance, and he is
acknowledged to be one of the best practitioners. His service in Afghanistan is
unblemished. There is no indication that he had breached security policies or
procedures. While that fact is not normally to be considered a factor in granting a
clearance, the Appeal Board stated the following in ISCR Case No. 05-03846 at 6 (App.
Bd. Nov. 14, 2006):
As a general rule, Judges are not required to assign an applicant’s prior
history of complying with security procedures and regulations significant
probative value for purposes of refuting, mitigating, or extenuating the
security concerns raised by the applicant’s more immediate disqualifying
conduct or circumstances. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-03357 at 4 (App.
Bd. Dec. 13, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02-10113 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 25,
2005); ISCR Case No. 03-10955 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 30, 2006).
However, the Board has recognized an exception to that general rule in
Guideline B cases, where the applicant has established by credible,
independent evidence that his compliance with security procedures and
regulations occurred in the context of dangerous, high-risk circumstances
in which the applicant had made a significant contribution to the national
security. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-12363 at 2 (App. Bd. July 14,
2006). The presence of such circumstances can give credibility to an
applicant’s assertion that he can be relied upon to recognize, resist and
report a foreign power’s attempts at coercion or exploitation.  
See also, ISCR Case No. 12-09326 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 18, 2013). Without being
more specific than is appropriate, I find that Applicant’s service in his present
employment occurred under such circumstances and produced such contributions. 
Based on my analysis of the available information, Applicant has overcome the
adverse inference of his family members’ presence in Afghanistan. Guideline B is found
for Applicant.
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 consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
8
(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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. My Guideline B analysis is
applicable to the whole-person analysis as well. Applicant is a patriotic American citizen,
whose work has been of particular value to our military mission in Afghanistan. He
presented considerable evidence showing that his preference is for the United States
and not Afghanistan. Accordingly, I find that there is little to no “potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress” as set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)(8). Using the whole-person
standard, Applicant has mitigated the security significance of his foreign connections.
He is eligible for a security clearance. 
On balance, it is concluded that Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance. Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding for Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations
expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge