KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Viewed as a whole, the Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the
contrary evidence in the same record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07079.a1
DATE: 10/19/2017
DATE: October 19, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07079
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
April 21, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under 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 August 8, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 was born in India, moving to the U.S. in the early 2000s.  She became a U.S.
citizen about eight years after she moved here.  Applicant and her spouse have two children, both
of whom are U.S. citizens.  Her husband was born in India and is an Indian citizen.  
Applicant’s parents, siblings, and parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India.  One of
her siblings works for a branch of the Indian government.  Applicant and her spouse maintain a bank
account in India, and her spouse has five bank accounts there as well.  Applicant’s spouse is
responsible for the care of his parents and siblings, who are financially dependent upon him.  In
addition, Applicant’s spouse owns eight properties in India, valued at about $560,000.  Most of this
property was inherited.  Applicant’s spouse also has a life insurance property acquired from an
Indian agency.
Before becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant and her spouse considered moving back to India,
which was a reason that they invested in property in India.  After they had children, they decided
to remain in the U.S.
India is a secular democratic republic.  The U.S. has sought to strengthen its relationship with
India, although there are differences between the two countries, such as India’s nuclear weapons
program, its abuses of human rights, and its cooperation with Iran.  India is an active collector of
U.S. protected information.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s connections to India raise security concerns.  He
further concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were entitled to favorable application.  He
stated that the evidence left him with doubts as to Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance.
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence that she believes the Judge did not consider.  In doing so,
she refers to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She
notes that her spouse is a naturalized citizen of the U.S.  She also cites to evidence that much of the
property that he owns in India was inherited.  Regarding the nationality of Applicant’s spouse, her
security clearance application (SCA) states that he is a citizen of India, although she corrected this
during her clearance interview, in which she states that he is a citizen only of the U.S.  Item 4, SCA,
at 22; Item 6, Personal Subject Interview, at 3.   This error did not likely affect the outcome of the
case, given the extent of Applicant’s established connections in India. Viewed as a whole, the
Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” 
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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