1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-02976 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew W. Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On October 4, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign 
influence. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).1 
 
Applicant responded (Answer) to the SOR on October 19, 2017. The case was 
assigned to me on December 13, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 
17, 2018. On January 24, 2018, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a 
summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
The concern under Guideline B is that Applicant’s father (a retired Afghan Army 
Lieutenant Colonel), mother, and several siblings, two brothers-in-law, an uncle, and 
two cousins are residents and citizens of Afghanistan. Through Applicant’s admissions 
                                                          
1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this 
case under the previous AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using 
either set of AG.  
 
2 
 
and administrative noticed facts about Afghanistan, the Government established, by 
substantial evidence, a heightened risk concerning Applicant’s contacts with his Afghan 
relatives. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) apply. Applicant testified and presented documentary 
evidence establishing there is no conflict of interest with his family members in 
Afghanistan because of his deep and long-standing relationship and loyalties to the 
United States, as evidenced by his numerous combat deployments with U.S. forces 
acting as a linguist in hostile-fire situations, and his family and financial ties to the 
United States. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security 
concern is mitigated under mitigating condition AG ¶ 8(b).  
 
The concern over Applicant’s foreign relatives does 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 if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave 
due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his 
ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided 
for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge