1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-04918
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 27, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On February 13, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline B for Applicant. (Item
1.) 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing on February 26, 2015, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 4.)
On November 17, 2015, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits. (Items 1-7.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on December 25, 2015. Applicant
submitted an additional document, which has been identified and entered into evidence
as Exhibit A. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on February 19, 2016.
2
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel requested in the FORM that I take administrative notice of
certain facts relating to the country of Somalia that were reviewed in the FORM. The
documents upon which the facts were based have been referred to in the FORM as
source documents I through IV. The brief summary of the facts administratively noticed
are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including the
SOR, Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the FORM, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 44 years old, and he was born in Somalia. He lived in Kenya for
some time, and then came to the United States in 1998. Applicant became a naturalized
United States citizen in December 2007. Applicant is married, and his spouse, who was
born in Somalia, is now a naturalized United States citizen. (Item 5.)
Applicant is employed by a DoD contractor, and he seeks a DoD security
clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
The SOR lists five allegations, (1.a. through 1.e.) regarding Foreign Influence,
under Adjudicative Guideline B, which will be reviewed in the same order as they were
listed on the SOR.
1.a. The SOR states that Applicant’s mother is a citizen and resident of Somalia.
Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He wrote that his mother, whose health
is continuing to deteriorate, depends on him for support, and the minimum support that
he provides to her helps her to survive. (Item 4.) In Applicant’s Electronic
Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), signed by him on September 16,
2013, Applicant wrote that he has contact with his mother on a monthly basis. (Item 5.)
Applicant completed and signed interrogatories on August 23, 2014, that were
propounded to him by the DoD. (Item 6.) On the interrogatories Applicant answered
questions confirming that the report of investigation (ROI) provided to him by an
authorized investigator for the DoD, and based on an interview that had been held on
October 17, 2013, were accurate and that he adopted the investigator’s summaries as
accurately reflecting his interviews. 
3
On the ROI, Applicant indicated that he and his mother had monthly contact by
telephone, and that she is a housewife, who had never been employed outside of the
home. His mother has no affiliation with any foreign government. (Item 6.)
1.b. The SOR states that Applicant’s brother is a citizen and resident of Somalia.
Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. (Item 4.) He wrote that it has been a few
years since he had contact with him, and he does not provide support to him. (Item 4.)
In his e-Qip, Applicant wrote that he has contact with his brother on a quarterly basis.
(Item 5.)
On the ROI, Applicant indicated that he and his brother have quarterly contact by
telephone, and that he is a self-employed salesman. His brother has no affiliation with
any foreign government. (Item 6.)
1.c. The SOR states that Applicant’s sister is a citizen and resident of Somalia.
Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He wrote that it has been a few years
since he had contact with her, and he does not provide support to her. (Item 4.)
On the ROI, Applicant indicated that he and his sister have no contact, and that
she is unemployed. His sister has no affiliation with any foreign government. (Item 6.)
1.d. The SOR states that Applicant’s stepbrother is a citizen and resident of
Somalia. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He wrote that his stepbrother is
the only caretaker of his mother, and he does not provided financial support to him.
(Item 4.) In his e-Qip, Applicant wrote that he has contact with his step-brother on a
quarterly basis. (Item 5.)
On the ROI, Applicant indicated that he and his step-brother have monthly
contact by telephone, and that he is employed as an accountant for a delivery service.
His step-brother has no affiliation with any foreign government. (Item 6.)
1.e. The SOR states that Applicant provides financial assistance to his family in
Somalia. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He wrote that he provides the
minimum support of $100 every month or every two months, solely for the support of his
mother. (Item 4.)
Current Status of Somalia
I take administrative notice of the following facts regarding Somalia.  Somalia is a
federal government, recently established in 2012. The United States initially established
diplomatic relations with Somalia in 1960, after Somalia gained independence from
British and Italian administrations. However, following a 1969 coup, Somalia’s elected
government was replaced with military rule. In 2012, a political transition occurred with
the election of a new federal government, the adopting of a provisional constitution, the
election of a new president, and the naming of a prime minister. The new government
was formally recognized by the United States in January 2013. 
4
The Somali based terrorist group, al-Shabaab, remained the primary terrorist
threat in East Africa in 2014. The ability of the federal, local and regional authorities to
prevent and preempt al-Shabaab terrorist attacks remain limited. In addition to the
threats posed by al-Shabaab, government security forces committed human rights
abuses, and civilian authorities were unable to maintain effective control over these
forces. 
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 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
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.
5
 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 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 applicable conditions in this case include: AG ¶ 7(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.” This applies
because Applicant’s mother, brother, sister and step-brother are citizens and residents
of Somalia, a country of heightened risk.
I find AG ¶ 7(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  . . . and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or
country by providing that information,” is also applicable in this case.
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Because of
Applicant’s close and continuing relationship with his mother, who is a citizen and
resident of Somalia, and because limited evidence was submitted as to Applicant’s
relationships in and loyalties to the United States, I cannot find that AG ¶ 8(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,” is applicable to
this Applicant. I also do not find that any other mitigating factor is applicable to this case.
 
Whole-Person Concept
6
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. 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
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on the reasons cited above
as to why the disqualifying conditions apply under Guideline B, and why no mitigating
conditions apply, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions
and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the
whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns under the whole-person concept. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.e.: Against Applicant
Conclusion
7
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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge