KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant argues that he has “shown that he is completely loyal to the United
States[.]” As the Judge noted, Executive Order 10865 emphasized that adverse decisions “shall
in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01434.a1
DATE: 11/15/2017
DATE: November 15, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01434
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 12, 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 hearing. 
On September 1, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge David M. White 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 adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant provided support for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, as a consequence
of which his family received threats.  Applicant and his wife were granted refugee status in the U.S.
and became U.S. citizens several years ago.  Applicant has numerous close family members,
including parents, siblings, and in-laws, who are citizens and residents of Iraq.  Applicant’s father
receives a pension from the Iraqi government.  Applicant speaks to his relatives on at least a monthly
basis.  Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance as well as
for his trustworthiness.
Iraq faces challenges due to sectarian violence.  Terrorist groups operate within its borders
and the Islamic State controls some of the country’s territory.  The U.S. State Department warns that
travel to Iraq should be avoided.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant’s close family connections within Iraq, viewed in conjunction with the threats
against him and his family that prompted him to leave the country, establish that there is a
heightened risk that Applicant could be subjected to pressure or could be placed in a conflict of
interest.  The Judge noted Applicant’s support for U.S. interests, but he concluded that this “brave
and honorable” service did not outweigh concerns arising from the heightened risk of coercion.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief consists in large measure of a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence.  His arguments are not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd.
Aug. 24, 2017).  We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited. 
However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal
Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01941 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 9, 2017). 
Applicant argues that he has “shown that he is completely loyal to the United States[.]”  As
the Judge noted, Executive Order 10865 emphasized that adverse decisions “shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”  Decision at 4.  
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