KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: As Applicant notes, the Government’s responsibility to produce substantial evidence
of security concern arises with regard to allegations that have been controverted. In the case
before us, Applicant admitted the allegation that his “mother, [siblings]... and mother-in-law are
citizens of Iraq.” Therefore, the Government bore no duty to produce evidence regarding the
foreign citizenship and residency of these relatives, although, in fact, items in the Government’s
File of Relevant Material constitute such evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00257.a1
DATE: 12/7/2017
DATE: December 7, 2017
In Re:
-------------------- 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00257
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
February 16, 2017, 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 October 5, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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
Born and educated in Iraq, Applicant married in that country in the mid-1990s.  He and his
wife came to the U.S. as refugees a year later, and Applicant became a citizen of this country in the
mid-2000s.  He began working for a Defense contractor a few years ago.  His mother and siblings
are citizens and residents of Iraq.  He speaks to them on the phone every week.  The record contains
no information about Applicant’s siblings’ marital situation.
Since becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant has traveled to Iraq on four occasions, the last time
being about three years ago.  He spent three months in Iraq during that last trip, and it did not appear
on his security clearance application (SCA).  Applicant did not know why it was left off of the SCA.
He reported that he filled out a hard copy and was sure that he had included the trip on the form. 
He did not explain why the trip lasted as long as it did.  
There is no record evidence of Applicant’s financial interests in the U.S. aside from a house
that he owns.  Neither is there significant evidence or detail about the ties that he may have
established in this country.
Iraq is plagued by violence caused by terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.  These forces
have targeted U.S. personnel and Iraqi civilians.  The U.S. State Department has warned citizens of
this country about the dangers of traveling in Iraq.  The country is plagued by human rights abuses
and by systemic governmental corruption.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s weekly phone contact with his Iraqi relatives and
of his monthly contact with his wife’s mother.  He concluded that these familial ties, when viewed
in light of the geopolitical situation in Iraq, established a heightened risk of foreign influence.  He
stated that, despite a lack of evidence that Applicant’s relatives work for the Iraqi government, the
record viewed as a whole shows that there is a risk that Applicant could be placed in a position of
having to choose between the interests of the U.S. and of his foreign relatives.  In the whole-person
analysis, the Judge noted that, despite bearing the burden of persuasion as to mitigation, he did not
provide a response to the File of Relevant Material.  He concluded that the evidence is not sufficient
to meet Applicant’s burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant contends that “the Government did not prove, by substantial evidence, the
controverted facts alleged in the SOR and as such the burden never should have shifted to the
Applicant[.]” Appeal Brief at 2.  As Applicant notes, the Government’s responsibility to produce
substantial evidence of security concern arises with regard to allegations that have been
controverted.  Directive ¶ E3.1.14.  In the case before us, Applicant admitted the allegation that his
“mother, [siblings] . . . and mother-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq.”  SOR Answer, dated
March 4, 2017.  Therefore, the Government bore no duty to produce evidence regarding the foreign
citizenship and residency of these relatives, although, in fact, Item 3 (SCA), Item 4 (Personal Subject
Interview), and Item 5 (Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire) constitute
such evidence.  When Applicant’s admissions about his relatives and the Government’s evidence
of the same are evaluated in the context of the Judge’s official notice findings about the geopolitical
situation in Iraq, they constitute substantial evidence of a heightened risk of foreign influence.  See
ISCR Case No. 15-06050 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2017) for the proposition that the Directive
presumes a nexus between admitted or proved circumstances under any of the Guidelines and an
applicant’s eligibility for a clearance.  We resolve this issue adversely to Applicant.
The balance of Applicant’s brief is a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.
Applicant cites to what he considers Applicant’s tenuous connection to his relatives.  He also argues
that these relatives do not live in a part of Iraq that is particularly dangerous.  We do not find this
last assertion to be clearly borne out by the record.  In any event, Applicant’s arguments consist of
a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  Applicant’s brief does not show that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Neither
does the brief rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08688 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 6, 2017).  We give due consideration to the
Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited.  However, it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal
Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08162 at 2
(App. Bd. Nov. 3, 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 Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. 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