1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 13-01215
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Cheryl Van Ackeren, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s two half-brothers and cousin live low-profile lives in Somalia. He
provided modest financial assistance to the cousin and a family friend between 2010
and 2013. The evidence is sufficient to mitigate resulting security concerns. Based upon
a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on August 21, 2012.
On February 21, 2014, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to Applicant, detailing 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 for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 29, 2014 (Answer), and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on March 31, 2015. The case was assigned to me on April 2, 2015. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on July 21,
2015, and I convened the hearing, as scheduled, on August 12, 2015. The Government
offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. The
Government also offered Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, a request for administrative notice
concerning Somalia, with five supporting documents that were marked and attached to
the record as Administrative Notice exhibits (AN) I through V. Applicant had no objection
to my taking administrative notice of the facts set forth in HE I. I found that the
information contained in AN V was immaterial and irrelevant to either the Government’s
administrative notice request or Applicant’s eligibility for a clearance, and held that it
would not be considered for either purpose. I granted the administrative notice request
concerning Somalia, and the facts set forth in HE I concerning that country are hereby
incorporated as findings of fact by reference. (See Tr. 31-37.) Applicant offered Exhibits
(AE) A through H, which were also admitted without objection, and testified on his own
behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 20, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old multilingual interpreter who is pending employment
with a defense contractor. He is married, with three children ages 18, 14, and 7. He has
attended classes at several community colleges since entering the United States on a
student visa in 1984, but never earned a degree. He earned a Microsoft Certified
Solutions Expert certification in 2000. He has never served in the armed forces, or been
granted a security clearance. However, as further discussed below, he deployed to
Somalia with the U.S. Army as a contract interpreter from January 1993 to March 1994.
(GE 1; GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 40-41, 44-46, 83.) 
In his Answer, Applicant denied the factual allegations in the SOR, with
explanations. Applicant’s explanations and other statements contained in the record
evidence are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant was born in Somalia in 1963 and moved to the United States in 1984 to
attend college. He overstayed his student visa, and eventually applied for asylum on the
basis that the Somali government had jailed him for about a week in 1981 for engaging
in an anti-government demonstration. His application was initially denied in 1990, and
he appealed. After returning from his service as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in
Somalia in 1994, he applied for and was granted political asylum in Canada in 1995. He
was unable to find work there, however, and soon returned to the U.S. where he was
granted his appeal for political asylum in 1997. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in
June 2012. (GE 1; GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 40-44, 48-50.)
Applicant’s wife was also born in Somalia. They were married in the United
States in 1996, and she became a naturalized U.S. citizen in August 2010. Her parents
left Somalia and live in Kuwait. Applicant’s mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen in
This region was colonized by the British. The rest of Somalia was an Italian colony until 1960, when those1
European powers granted independence to Somalia. HE I; Tr. 39-40, 71-72.
The exact amounts and duration of Applicant’s contributions to this half-sister, and to his cousin as set out2
above, are difficult to fix based on various descriptions of these payments Applicant provided in responses
to various questioners after initially disclosing them on his SF-86.  He has made no effort to conceal any of
these payments,  and the different recorded interpretations are attributed to language difficulties instead of
any deception or minimization.  All were very modest amounts, and for honorable purposes in his attempts
to assist family members in need.  There is no evidence of any such payments after 2012 or 2013.  (GE 1;
GE 2; GE 3.)
3
September 2012. His father died in 1984. All three of Applicant’s children were born as
citizens in the United States. Applicant has two older half-brothers and four half-sisters.
The four half-sisters all left Somalia, and the eldest now lives in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Two others are citizens and residents of Canada and the United
Kingdom, respectively. His youngest sister resides in the United States, and became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in 2007. His two half-brothers still live in the northern region of
Somalia that asserts a separate, but internationally unrecognized, identity as
“Somaliland.”  (GE 1; GE 2; GE 3; AE G; Tr. 60, 74.)1
Applicant’s father was a tribal chief in the family’s home town in northern
Somalia. A tribal chief is the principal leader and mediator of disputes within the
community. When he died, Applicant’s eldest half-brother was elected to replace him in
that role. This brother has no affiliation with the national government of Somalia, but
serves as the chief within his tribal community. Applicant’s other half-brother lives in the
same town, and married one of Applicant’s cousins. They had six children together.
Around 2011, they divorced and Applicant’s brother stopped providing support for his
former wife and their children. Applicant argued with both of his brothers about this,
because their culture requires the family to support children who are under age 16. After
that disagreement, he stopped communicating with either of them, and described them
as “losers” for failing to meet their obligations as the children’s father and tribal chief,
respectively. He had only sporadic communications with them before this issue arose,
and none with either brother since 2011 or 2012. (GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 60-67, 86.)
Applicant provided some financial support for the subsistence of his cousin and
her children because his brothers in Somalia were failing to do so. He made one direct
transfer of $200 in July 2011, and funneled other assistance through his U.S. citizen
half-sister, who also helped them financially. Applicant was informed during his
September 2012 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interview that providing
financial assistance to people in other countries could cause security concerns, so he
stopped providing any financial assistance to his cousin and her children in late 2012 or
early 2013. (GE 2; GE 3; AE H; Tr. 67-68, 74-79, 87-90.) 
Between 2010 and 2012, Applicant also sent at least two contributions of $50
each to his eldest sister, who lives in the UAE. These payments were made to help her
pay for the services of a family friend who had agreed to move into her former home in
Somalia to act as a watchman/caretaker to prevent looting and theft after the collapse of
the Somali government. (Answer; GE 1; Tr. 68-69, 80-81.)  2
4
Applicant earned authorizations from his state’s Department of Social and Health
Services, Language Testing and Certification division, to provide medical and social
services interpreting in the Somali language. He performs interpreting services in those
areas and others, including work for the local USCIS Federal Immigration Court. (AE A;
AE B.) 
During his deployment to Somalia as a uniformed civilian contract interpreter for
U.S. Army forces in support of Operation Restore Hope during 1993 and 1994,
Applicant earned several awards for his dedicated service under daily hazardous
conditions in the field. These include four Certificates of Appreciation for his outstanding
contributions and extraordinary personal commitment, signed by the Marine Corps
lieutenant general commanding the Operation and the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia,
the Army lieutenant general serving as Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, and two
colonels who commanded different units he directly supported. (AE C; AE D; AE E.)
       Applicant has no financial interests, property, or income source in any foreign
country. All of his assets and immediate family members are, and have been, in the
United States for many years as described above. (GE 1; GE 2; GE 3.)
Somalia has no history of enduring or effective national governance in its post-
colonial history. It is home to a major East-African terrorist group. Government security
forces have also committed human rights abuses.  The other facts set forth in HE I are
incorporated herein by administrative notice. (Tr. 31-37.)
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
5
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, “[t]he 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.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
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
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. The SOR allegations and evidence in this case raised potential security
concerns under two foreign influence DCs: 
6
(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 the individual’s desire to
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information. 
Applicant has two half-brothers and a cousin, who was formerly married to one of
those brothers, who are resident citizens of Somalia. One brother is a tribal chief, which
potentially raises his public profile, but connotes no connection with the Somali
government. Applicant provided modest financial support between 2010 and 2013 to the
cousin and her children, and to a family friend who looked after a home in Somalia that
is owned by his half-sister who lives in the UAE. Somalia is home to a major terrorist
organization, and its government does not provide effective security or protection of
human rights. Accordingly, the presence of these individuals in Somalia theoretically
creates a heightened risk of pressure or coercion, and a potential conflict of interest that
could arise from a desire to help them.
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Those with
potential application in mitigating security concerns in this case are:
(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.;
(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; and
(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’s relationships with his half-brothers, cousin, and family friend are so
minimal, and they live such low-profile lives in Somalia, that he clearly established
mitigation under AG ¶¶ 8(a) and (c) with respect to those relationships. His immediate
family members are all U.S. citizens residing here. His social and financial connections
7
are entirely within the United States, not Somalia, so AG ¶¶ 8(b) provides further
mitigation of any potential security concerns under AG ¶¶ 7(a) or (b).
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 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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature and
responsible individual, who testified in a sincere and credible manner. He is estranged
from his two half-brothers in Somalia due to his disdain over their abandonment of his
cousin and her children. He ceased providing the modest financial contributions to his
cousin, her children, and the caretaker of his sister’s house after being informed that
security concerns could result. He has neither communicated with, nor provided
assistance to, any of them since 2012 or 2013. 
Applicant’s mother, wife, children, and another sister are all U.S. citizens and
residents. He has lived in the United States since 1984, except during the 15 months
when he accompanied U.S. Army forces to Somalia in support of Operation Restore
Hope in 1993 and 1994, and his brief period of asylum in Canada thereafter. He earned
impressive formal recognition for his service under dangerous and arduous conditions
during that deployment. See ISCR Case No. 05-03846 at 6 (App. Bd. Nov 14, 2006).
Overall, the record evidence creates no question or doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
8
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
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge