KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant argues that there is nothing wrong or suspicious with having family
members living abroad, having a secondary home abroad, or visiting one’s birthplace.  He also
stated that he has no ties of loyalty or obligations to his foreign family members.  To the extent
that Applicant is arguing that his circumstances do not raise security concerns, we note the
Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct or
circumstances under any guideline and an applicant’s security eligibility.  Direct or objective
evidence of nexus is not required. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00507.a1
DATE: 06/13/2018
DATE: June 13, 2018
In Re:
------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00507
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 June
30, 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 April 25, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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.
Background
The SOR alleges that Applicant has three siblings and a mother-in-law who are citizens and
residents of Algeria and that he owns land in Algeria that is valued over $90,000.1 In responding to
the SOR, he admitted each allegation and submitted two short comments. One comment noted that
he rarely communicates with the alleged family members and, if he does so, it is only to discuss
family issues. In his other comment, he indicated that he intended to build a vacation home on his
land in Algeria. In October, 2017, he received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material and
did not submit a response.
In his decision, the Judge concluded that, because of the threat of terrorism, violence and
human rights abuses in Algeria, the presence of Applicant’s family members in that country created
security concerns. The Judge also noted that Applicant did not present sufficient information to
mitigate those security concerns.
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings or
conclusions.   He argues that there is nothing wrong or suspicious with having family members
living abroad, having a secondary home abroad, or visiting one’s birthplace.  He also stated that he
has no ties of loyalty or obligations to his foreign family members.  To the extent that Applicant is
arguing that his circumstances do not raise security concerns, we note the Directive presumes there
is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct or circumstances under any guideline and
an applicant’s security eligibility.  Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No.  15-08385 at 4 (App. Bd. May 23, 2018).  To the extent that he is arguing the Judge
mis-weighed the evidence, he has failed to show that Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan
8, 2016).
1The SOR also alleged that one of the three siblings was a citizen of another country.
2
                                                    
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: Charles C. Hale                
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3