1 
     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 15-08267 
) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Phillip Stackhouse, Esq. 
February 28, 2017 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant is a naturalized citizen of the United States. He has a sister, two 
brothers, parents-in-law, and a friend, who are resident citizens of Iraq. He is estranged 
from his siblings in Iraq as a result of family conflicts and has not spoken to them in over 
nine years. He severed his friendship with his friend in 2015 and has not spoken to him 
since that time. He speaks to his in-laws approximately once per year, but his wife 
remains close to her parents. Applicant’s tireless service during armed conflict, as an 
interpreter with the U.S. forces, demonstrates that he will resolve any potential conflict 
in favor of the United States. The security concerns raised under Foreign Influence are 
mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Statement of the Case 
On April 25, 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under the guideline for Foreign 
Influence. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
 
2 
 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG) effective after September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on May 27, 2016, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA). The case was assigned to me on December 20, 2016. DOHA issued 
a notice of hearing on December 20, 2016, scheduling the hearing for February 6, 2017. 
The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 
through 4, which were admitted without objection. The Government also offered 
information pertaining to Iraq for administrative notice, marked Hearing Exhibit (HE) I. 
Applicant offered Exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. Applicant 
testified and called one witness. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on 
February 14, 2017. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted all of the allegations in the SOR. After a thorough and careful 
review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is 39 years old. He is married to a naturalized U.S. citizen. He has two 
children, ages 12 and 6. His 6-year-old daughter is a natural born U.S. citizen and his 
son acquired U.S. citizenship at the time his mother was naturalized. (GE 1; Tr. 57-58.) 
 
Applicant was born in Iraq. He grew up listening to American music and taught 
himself English listening to Mariah Carey. On April 9, 2003, the United States began 
military action in Applicant’s neighborhood. Applicant saw a patrolling unit of Marines 
and volunteered to help them. He translated Arabic into English for them as they 
interviewed his neighbors. Later that day, the Marines introduced him to their 
commander, and he was offered a job as a translator for $5 per day. He worked as a 
translator in Iraq for various U.S. forces from 2003 to 2006, and came under almost 
daily fire during that time. He still has shrapnel imbedded in his lower left rib as the 
result of one conflict. (GE 1; GE 4; AE A; Tr. 28-32, 36, 55.) 
 
In 2006 Applicant fled Iraq due to death threats he received from insurgents. He 
went to Syria, which was Iraq’s only open boarder. He lived in Syria for 17 or 18 
months, while he applied for refugee status through the United Nations. He was granted 
permanent residency in the United States, and moved here in August 2008. He became 
a naturalized U.S. citizen in September 2014. (GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 28-32, 55-57.) He 
testified that he and his wife have renounced their Iraqi citizenship, and “completely cut 
off all - - any things that would tie me to Iraq.” (GE 1; Tr. 66.)  
 
After immigrating to the United States, Applicant has continued his work with the 
U.S. Forces. He served as a cultural advisor to senior Army officers at two different 
domestic Army bases. After he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he returned to Iraq 
with the U.S. Army as a contract linguist and spent 23 months deployed there. (GE 1; 
Tr. 33.) 
 
 
3 
 
Applicant has a large extended family, which includes seven brothers and two 
sisters.1 Five of Applicant’s brothers and one sister are U.S. residents. Of his siblings 
that reside in the United States, two are U.S. citizens and four have legal permanent 
residency. Their mother is also a U.S. resident. They live within one-square mile of each 
other and are a close family. (GE 1; GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 68-69.) 
 
Applicant has one sister and two brothers who are residents and citizens in Iraq. 
A third brother, alleged on the SOR to be a resident and citizen of Iraq, was granted 
permanent residency status and moved to the United States in 2016. He worked as a 
senior communication technician for the ministry of communication in Iraq prior to 
immigrating to the United States. (GE 1; GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 36-42.) 
 
Applicant is estranged from his three siblings that remain in Iraq. He has not 
spoken to his sister since 1994, after they had a disagreement related to Applicant 
dating his wife. Applicant has not seen that sister since he left Syria and immigrated to 
the United States. She is unmarried and cares for the children of their deceased sister. 
Both of his brothers in Iraq are retired Iraqi colonels. One was an Iraqi Air Force 
communications officer and one was an infantry officer. They both retired from the Iraqi 
military in approximately 1999. After Applicant’s father passed away in 1989, tensions 
mounted between Applicant and these two brothers. Applicant has not spoken to either 
of them since approximately 2005. He did not discuss their military careers with them. 
Applicant believes they might receive military retirement pay from the Iraqi government. 
(GE 1; GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 36-42, 60-64.) 
 
Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. In 
2014 they visited Applicant and his wife in the United States, “because neither me [n]or 
my wife wanted to go and see them.” Prior to that visit, Applicant had not seen his in-
laws since he fled Iraq in 2006. They are both retired civil engineers and are supported 
by their pensions. Applicant speaks to them approximately “once a year, whenever 
there’s a celebration” and says hello. His wife is close to her parents. Neither Applicant 
nor his wife provide his in-laws with financial support. (GE 1; GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 42, 64-65, 
67.) 
 
Applicant maintained contact with a high school friend, who is a citizen and 
resident of Iraq, after moving to the United States. However, the difficulties of 
maintaining the friendship over the years and geographical distance caused the 
friendship to deteriorate and eventually end. Applicant has not spoken to this friend 
since April 2015. “The last message [Applicant] got from him was cursing at [Applicant] 
for not-be-good-friend [sic].” (GE 1; GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 42-43, 65.) 
 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s third sister is now deceased.  
 
4 
 
Applicant has reported security incidents to the authorities in the past.2 (Tr. 44.) 
He testified: 
 
[S]ir, if you cut me [in my] vein right now it’ll bleed white, red and blue. . . I 
don’t think I was born to stay in Iraq. It was just like, I don’t want to say 
that God mistakenly, because God never makes mistakes. I was 
misplaced. I was supposed to be born in the United States. And no one, 
no power on earth, would make me even take a second thought, or even 
pause, about choosing between the interests of the United States, or 
interests of anyone at all.  . . . 
 
I know I can be a good asset to the United States Government. And one of 
the important things also, there's no other country in the world would be a 
safe refuge to my family, other than the United States. I would do anything 
I can. I'll go all the nine yards above and beyond to protect the security 
and safety of the United States.  
 
Like my family, I can't complain just for one of the tons of blessings [like] 
my kids going in the morning, get in the bus, going to the school and come 
back, and nothing need to be worry about. Like I don't have to be worr[ied] 
about that, while in Iraq my wife was pregnant with my first baby, and she 
received a threat that they will cut her womb and take the baby out and 
cook it and put it on rice and serve it to me. And I had to run out, whether 
it was like a false funk [sic], or because they didn't know my wife was a 
teacher in the university. And then I had to make her quit her job and 
move to seven different houses between 2003 and 2007, just to avoid 
getting caught  . . . or have one of my -- like my wife getting hurt. So I 
moved to the States, so I don't have to be worried about someone would 
place in that position. Plus -- I don't know how to explain the freedom that 
we have. It's a very new thing for us, and I cannot let that go. (Tr. 46-48.) 
 
Applicant’s witness, a sergeant in the U.S. Army, testified that Applicant served 
as the personal linguist to a colonel in Iraq in 2016. The witness was the personal driver 
of the colonel and was asked by that colonel to testify at Applicant’s hearing. He spoke 
of Applicant’s dedication to the Army and his efforts to go “above and beyond” his role 
as translator to serve the United States. He testified that Applicant “was key to the 
success in just about every operation that [their] brigade worked with the Iraqis on.” He 
relayed that the Applicant had been on multiple combat patrols and placed under mortar 
fire. Applicant had the colonel’s trust. (Tr. 19-26.)  
 
That colonel also wrote Applicant a letter of recommendation. It indicated that 
Applicant “is of the highest integrity,” “has sacrificed greatly for his chosen profession,” 
and “displays unwavering allegiance to our values, the coalition’s mission, and our 
Nation.” (AE A.) Applicant has been awarded numerous certificates of appreciation and 
commendation for his work as a translator. (AE A.)  
                                                          
2 Applicant could not elaborate on the incident as he testified it was classified. (Tr. 44.) 
 
5 
 
Iraq 
 
I have taken administrative notice of the U.S. Government’s pronouncements 
concerning the state of Iraq, as outlined in HE I, including the following: Iraq faces many 
challenges fueled by sectarian and ethnic divisions. Numerous terrorist groups are 
increasingly active throughout Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or 
Islamic State) controls some of the country’s territory. Threats of kidnapping and 
violence are high, and the Department of State warns U.S. citizens that all but essential 
travel to Iraq should be avoided. Additionally, human-rights related problems including 
disappearances, torture, denial of fair public trial, and limits on freedom of speech and 
expression have been noted.  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching 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.  
 
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.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
 
6 
 
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 adverse 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 Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing 
multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
 The security concerns relating to the guideline for Foreign Influence is set out in 
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. 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 7. The following are applicable in this case:   
 
(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; 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between te 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; and 
 
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of 
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. 
 
  Applicant’s wife, children, and two siblings are U.S. citizens and reside in the 
United States. His mother, and four siblings are Iraqi citizens and reside in the United 
 
7 
 
States. His two brothers, one sister, and parents-in-law remain in Iraq. Applicant is 
estranged from those siblings and has not had contact with them in approximately nine 
years. He also had a friend in Iraq, although they have not communicated in several 
years. Due to his wife’s ties to her parents, and the terrorist threats present in Iraq as 
set out in HE I, a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, 
pressure, and coercion is present. Applicant’s parents-in-law’s presence in Iraq creates 
a potential conflict of interest. The evidence is sufficient to raise the above disqualifying 
conditions. 
 
 AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all 
of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 including: 
 
(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 interests in favor of the U.S. interests. 
 
 Applicant has been placed in the position of having to choose between the 
interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of 
the U.S., as a consequence of his decision to serve the United States as a linguist. At 
great risk to himself and his family, he has repeatedly chosen the United States. The 
insurgents in Iraq threatened him. His body still contains shrapnel from a wound he 
received while working as an interpreter for U.S. forces. He had to flee to Syria and 
abandon his home due to threats to himself and his family. He has reported security 
incidents to the proper authorities. Subsequently, he moved his family to the United 
States and they have assimilated into American culture. He is raising his children as 
Americans. He wishes to serve the United States by further utilizing his unique 
language and cultural skills, despite periodically placing his life at risk. He is trusted by 
those with whom he has served, and is considered to be an asset. His honorable history 
of service to the United States, coupled with the deep relationships he has established 
here, leaves no question that Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of 
interests in favor of the U.S. interests. The evidence establishing AG ¶ 8(b) mitigates all 
Foreign Influence concerns. 
 
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 
 
8 
 
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. The security concerns under 
Guideline B do not arise from any questionable conduct by Applicant, but rather 
circumstances that warrant further analysis. First, there is a significant risk of terrorism 
and various human rights abuses in Iraq. More importantly for security purposes, 
terrorists in Iraq are hostile to the United States and actively seek classified information. 
Terrorists, and even friendly governments, could attempt to use Applicant’s in-laws to 
obtain such information. Second, he had numerous connections to Iraq before he 
immigrated to the United States. Following his birth, he spent his formative years there. 
He was educated in Iraq and maintained contact with a friend from high school even 
after immigrating to the United States. His estranged brothers and sister also reside 
there. 
 
Substantial mitigating evidence weighs in favor of granting Applicant a security 
clearance. He is a mature person, who has lived in the United States since 2008. He is 
a U.S citizen and has renounced his Iraqi citizenship. His spouse is also a naturalized 
U.S. citizen, as is one brother and one sister. Four of his other siblings and his mother 
are legal U.S. permanent residents. In his position as a linguist, he has provided vital 
and direct support to the U.S. armed forces, sometimes under enemy fire. His service 
as a translator to U.S. forces from 2003 to 2006 placed Applicant and his family in great 
peril, but he chose to continue to support U.S. forces despite the dangers from 
insurgents. Eventually, those threats to himself and his family made him flee Iraq and 
seek refuge in Syria. After resettling in the United States, he again chose to serve the 
U.S. forces, first as a cultural advisor at domestic Army bases, and then as an 
interpreter deployed to Iraq. His ties to the United States are stronger than his ties to his 
in-laws, siblings, or former friends remaining in Iraq. There is no evidence that he has 
ever taken any action that could cause potential harm to the United States. He takes his 
loyalty to the United States seriously. Those soldiers with whom he deployed assess 
him as loyal, trustworthy, and responsible. There is no derogatory information about him 
in the record.  
 
The Appeal Board discussed an analogous situation in ISCR Case No. 05-03846 
(App. Bd. Nov.14, 2006) as follows: 
 
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. 
 
9 
 
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. 
 
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and all facts and 
circumstances in the context of the whole-person, I conclude Applicant mitigated the 
security concerns pertaining to foreign influence. Overall, the record evidence leaves 
me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security 
clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude he met his burden to mitigate the security 
concerns arising under the guidelines for foreign preference, foreign influence, and 
financial considerations. 
 
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. 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge