1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-03468 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
October 6, 2017 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On December 21, 2016, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended 
(Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline B.1 The SOR further 
informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD 
adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. 
 
On February 18, 2017, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR, and 
requested that the case be decided after a hearing before an administrative judge. The 
case was assigned to this administrative judge on June 13, 2017. The Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 20, 2017, scheduling 
the hearing for August 29, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled. 
                                                          
1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new 
Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was 
considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
 
On August 30, 2017, I proposed to the parties by email that this case was 
appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant and Department 
Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter. Neither party submitted any objection.  
 
Findings of Fact 
  
Applicant was born in Iran in 1954. He moved to the United States in 1977 and 
became a United States citizen in 1986. 
 
The allegations concerning Guideline B were that several of Applicant’s relatives, 
including his three brothers, two sisters, and mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens 
and residents of Iran. Applicant admitted all of the allegations, except he indicated that 
his father-in-law was deceased. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude 
that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in 
the SOR under Guideline B.    
 
 I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, 
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department 
Counsel. I considered that Applicant has limited contact with his relatives, none of 
whom have or have had any connection with the government of Iran. I also considered 
that Applicant has many ties to the United States, including the following: Applicant’s 
wife and two sons and his wife’s sister are all United States citizens and residents. 
Applicant owns his own home in the United States, and he estimated his total assets in 
the United States are worth approximately $3 million, while he has no assets in Iran. 
Finally, Applicant has not travelled to Iran since his parents died 12 or 13 years ago. 
Therefore, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following 
mitigating conditions under Guideline B: AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign influence do not create doubt 
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect 
classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole 
and considered whether or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable 
evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I 
conclude that Applicant has met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified 
information. This case is decided for Applicant. 
 
 
 
 
Martin H. Mogul 
Administrative Judge