KEYWORD:  Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST:  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  The balance of her arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in
a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. 
CASE NO:  15-01024.a1
DATE:  02/24/2017
DATE:   February 24, 2017  
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01024
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 27, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B
(Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On November 30, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact 
Applicant, who is 36 years old, has worked for a defense contractor since 2009.  She was
born in Colombia, came to the United States on a student visa in 2005, and became a U.S. citizen
in 2014.  She has received an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and master’s degree in the
United States.  She married a U.S. citizen in 2006 and has no children.  
Applicant’s mother, father, and brother are citizens and residents of Colombia.  She has daily
phone contact with her parents and has sent approximately $400 a month to her father for the past
five years.  She has another brother who is a dual citizen of Colombia and Canada and resides in
Canada.  She possesses a Colombian passport that was issued in 2008 and expires in 2018.  She has
not taken any steps to renounce her Colombian citizenship.  
Colombia is a democracy.  It has experienced half a century of conflict with illegal armed
groups, including Marxist guerillas and international criminal organizations involved in illegal drug
trafficking.  The U.S. has designated two Colombian groups, The Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) and The National Liberation Army (ELN), as foreign terrorist organizations.  In
2016, the Government of Colombia and FARC announced they reached a final peace accord after
four years of negotiation.  The ELN, however, continues to engage in terrorist activities and
condemns any U.S. influence in Colombia.  No one in Colombia is immune from kidnapping on the
basis of occupation, nationality, or other factors.  Colombia has a plan that seeks to re-establish state
control and legitimacy in strategically important areas previously dominated by illegal armed
groups.  Colombia’s human rights problems include an ineffective judiciary, extrajudicial and
unlawful killings, corruption due to the availability of drug trafficking funds, and societal
discrimination.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that Applicant’s contacts with her family members in Colombia raised
security concerns under disqualifying conditions 7(a)1 and 7(b),2 noting the existence of Marxist
guerillas, the influence of strong organized crime gangs involved in international drug trafficking,
and a poor human rights record in Colombia places on Applicant a heightened risk of exploitation,
1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 7(a) states, “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[.]” 
2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 7(b) states, “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[.]” 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.  Applicant has close and continuing contacts with
her immediate family members in Colombia.  She did not present evidence that negated the
heightened risk concerns and none of the mitigating conditions apply.  Even though her family
members appear to be ordinary citizens, the situation in Colombia is such that anyone living there
is vulnerable to be exploited, pressured, or induced to provide protected information by guerillas and
narco-terrorists. 
Applicant possesses a Colombian passport that does not expire for a few more years.  She
has not mitigated the foreign preference security concerns.  Her dual citizenship and possession of
a current Colombian passport shows there is a preference for Colombia over the United States and
a potential divided loyalty to Colombia and the United States.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all the evidence in the record.  In arguing
that her circumstances do not raise security concerns, she cites to, among other things, the location
where her parents live in Colombia, their age, their occupations, her lack of property or professional
affiliations in Colombia; her accomplishments in her career, and her value as a U.S. citizen.  The
Judge made findings about some of the evidence that Applicant has cited.  She has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec 4, 2015).  Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, we also conclude that
the Judge’s whole person analysis satisfies the requirements of Directive in that the Judge evaluated
Applicant’s security-significant circumstances in light of the entirety of the record evidence.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015).   The balance of Applicant’s arguments
amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. 
The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted
only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning
personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the
national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed:  Michael Ra’anan      
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed:  James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board