KEYWORD:  Guideline B; Guideline L
DIGEST:  Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between admitted or proven
circumstances under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance.  Direct
or objective evidence of nexus is not required.  In the present case, Applicant’s answer to the
SOR - along with his testimony, the information he provided in his security clearance
applications and background interviews, and the facts administratively noticed - raise security
concerns under Guideline B.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO:  12-05092.a1
DATE:  03/22/2017
DATE:  March 22, 2017
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-05092
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alec Sauchik, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 22, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline L
(Outside Activities) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 13, 2016, after the hearing, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.   Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the sole Guideline L allegation and on three of the
four Guideline B allegations.  Those favorable findings were not raised as an issue on appeal.  The
Judge found against Applicant on only the portion of the remaining allegation that asserted
Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Ukraine.1  Applicant raised the following
issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of facts and whether the Judge’s adverse
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.   
The Judge’s Findings of Fact Concerning Issues Raised on Appeal 
Applicant was born, raised, and educated in Ukraine when it was part of the former Soviet
Union.  In approximately 1990, he and his wife immigrated to the United States and are now U.S.
citizens.  He has three children who are foreign nationals, but one resides in the United States. 
Applicant was granted a security clearance over ten years ago.  He has worked in support of the U.S.
Government for nearly 20 years, including overseas assignments. 
Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Ukraine.  She lives with Applicant’s
sister-in-law.  Each of them receives a pension from the Ukrainian government.  “Applicant’s wife
has frequent contact (at least once a week) with her mother, and travels to Ukraine once or twice a
year to visit her mother and other family members in Ukraine.  Applicant and his wife have sent
money to her family in Ukraine.”  Decision at 3.   
In February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove their president from office after
he fled the country.  This followed months of protests over the president’s decision to postpone
signing political and trade agreements with the European Union in favor of closer ties to Russia as
well as his violent response to protests.  Russian armed forces then intervened militarily in Crimea,
which Russia occupied and purported to annex in March.  Additional unrest and civilian deaths
occurred when Russian protestors seeking more autonomy in eastern and southern Ukraine clashed
with government forces.  The Russian occupation of Crimea  displaced about 18,000 Crimeans and
caused numerous human rights abuses.  Russia has been accused of orchestrating attacks by
Ukrainian separatists.  Despite attempts to cease hostilities, the government’s efforts have been
largely rejected and the situation in Ukraine remains precarious.  Violent clashes between Russian-
backed separatists and Ukrainian forces continue in eastern regions of the country.  In December
2015, the State Department issued a warning to U.S. citizens to defer all travel to Crimea and eastern
regions of the country.  Separatist groups have threatened, detained, or kidnapped persons, including
U.S. citizens, and violent clashes have caused over 9,000 deaths.   
1 After the hearing, Department Counsel submitted a motion to amend the SOR to add an allegation that
Applicant’s sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and stepson were citizens and residents of Ukraine.  The Judge denied the
motion concluding the Government did not establish good cause to amend the SOR.  In doing so, however, the Judge
stated that he examined the totality of Applicant’s foreign connections and noted non-alleged circumstances could be
considered in his mitigation and whole-persons analysis, citing ISCR Case No. 14-03497 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2015).
The Judge’s Analysis Concerning Issues Raised on Appeal
Although Applicant has infrequent contact with his mother-in-law, his wife is close to and
has frequent contact with her mother.  This close relationship between Applicant’s wife and her
mother is imputed to him.  His relationship to his mother-in-law, coupled with the facts
administratively noticed, raises security concerns under disqualifying condition 7(d).2
Applicant presented a compelling case under mitigating condition 8(b)3 based on his
significant ties to the United States.  However, his wife’s regular travel to visit her mother and
extended family in Ukraine undercuts the application of that mitigating condition.  Noting that
conditions in Ukraine have fundamentally changed since Applicant was first granted a clearance, 
the Judge stated, “[o]f significant note is the State Department’s current warning against travel to
Ukraine, a country that is essentially in the midst of a civil war where separatist forces are backed
by a hostile foreign power.  This significant change puts this close familial connection in a different
light, requiring a heightened level of scrutiny.”4
Discussion
There is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After
the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to
rebut or mitigate those concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The application of disqualifying and
mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more
of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the exercise of
sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.”  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03635 at
3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006).
In deciding whether the Judge’s rulings or conclusions are erroneous, we will review the
Judge’s decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate
a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment;
it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs
contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference
of opinion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02563 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015).
Applicant challenges the sufficiency of the SOR allegation, asserting it only alleges his
2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 7(d) states, “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[.]”
3 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 8(b) states, “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[.]”
4 Decision at 10.  
mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Ukraine and does not allege that either his or his wife’s
contacts with his mother-in-law create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement,
manipulation, pressure, or coercion.  It is well settled that an SOR is an administrative pleading that
is not required to satisfy the strict requirements of a criminal indictment, and it does not have to
allege every possible fact that may be relevant at the hearing.  Considering the record as a whole,
the Board concludes that the SOR issued to Applicant placed him on adequate notice of the
allegation in question.  Furthermore, a review of the hearing transcript does not leave the Board with
the impression that the SOR prejudiced in any identifiable way Applicant’s ability to prepare for the
hearing, his ability to participate in the hearing, his ability to raise objections or make arguments on
his behalf, or his ability to present evidence for the Judge to consider in the case.  Given the SOR
allegation against Applicant and the manner in which the hearing was conducted, Applicant was on
adequate notice as to the issue of security concern.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-20538 at 2 (App.
Bd. Jul. 5, 2006).
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in making findings about his wife’s contact with her
mother.  Specifically, he argues “the record is entirely devoid of any evidence of the frequency of
Applicant’s wife’s contact with her mother.”  Appeal Brief at 5, 6, 10, 12.  However, the transcript
reflects the following exchange:
[Department Counsel]:  And when is the last time your wife traveled to the Ukraine?
[Applicant]:  Oh, from April 23rd to May 7th this year.
[Department Counsel]:  Okay.  And would you say she goes once a year or how
often?
[Applicant]:  I would say once or twice a year, depending on the year.
[Department Counsel]:  Okay.  And how often would you say she has contact with
her mother and sister?
[Applicant]:  Every week.5    
The  Judge’s findings about the contacts between Applicant’s wife and her mother are based on
substantial evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).6  
Applicant also contends that the Government has the burden of establishing every element
of the case, including heightened risk under the applicable disqualifying condition.  When an
applicant denies an allegation in the SOR, the Government must produce evidence in support of that
5 Tr. at 107-108.  
6 Additionally, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to,
immediate family members of the person’s spouse.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00084 at 3 (App. Bd. May 22, 2014).
The burden was on Applicant to rebut that presumption.  Of note, Applicant’s security clearance application submitted
in 2011stated that he had monthly contact with his mother-in-law.  Government Exhibit 1 at 25.  
allegation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.14.  In this case, Applicant admitted the allegation pertaining to his
mother-in-law and thereby relieved the Government of its burden of production.  Additionally, the
Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between admitted or proven circumstances under
any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-
02806 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015).  Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00084 at 3 (App. Bd. May 22, 2014).  In the present case, Applicant’s
answer to the SOR – along with his testimony, the information he provided in his security clearance
applications and background interviews, and the facts administratively noticed – raise security
concerns under disqualifying condition 7(d).  The Judge was not required to make an explicit finding
of nexus, and we find no error in his analysis.  
Applicant further argues that the Judge erred in concluding that an individual with relatives
in Ukraine faces a “very heavy burden” of persuasion in a Guideline B case.  Appeal Brief at 5.  In
the decision, the Judge stated:
Although U.S. relations with the current Ukrainian government are good, foreign-
backed forces with interests inimical to the United States operate freely in parts of
Ukraine and pose a significant threat not only to Ukraine’s sovereignty, but also to
U.S. national security interests.  In light of these circumstances, the serious security
concerns that are raised by an individual with family members in a hostile foreign
country are also present in the current case.  Accordingly, Applicant’s mitigation
case must be examined through the lens of this heightened scrutiny.7    
Given the turmoil in Ukraine as set forth in the facts administratively noticed, we find no error in
the Judge applying a heightened level of scrutiny in his mitigation analysis.  See, e.g.,ISCR Case No.
14-02563 at 4-6 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015) (favorable decision reversed because the Judge did not
give appropriate weight to the security situation in Ukraine).  Applicant also cites to Hearing Office
cases in arguing that the location of Applicant’s mother-in-law in a city in the middle of the country
is an important factor in assessing the security concerns in this case.  However, Hearing Office
decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).  Applicant’s arguments concerning the nature of the
security threats in the city where his mother-in-law is located are not persuasive. 
Applicant requests that the Appeal Board review the portion of the record pertaining to his
mother-in-law de novo.  The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s review
authority is limited to issues raised by an appealing party that allege the Judge committed harmful
error.  Directive E3.1.32.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01564 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2016).
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence.  However, such a disagreement, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation
of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached
conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). 
7 Decision at 9, n. 18.
Applicant has failed to identify any harmful error.  The Judge examined the relevant data and
articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  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