KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant contends that his relationship with his father is casual.  This argument is not
persuasive.  He has weekly contact with his father, provided him about $30,000 in support
between 2012 and 2017, and is sponsoring him for immigration to the United States.  He failed
to rebut the presumption that contacts with immediate family members are not casual. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03981.a1
DATE: 09/27/2018
DATE: September 27, 2018
In Re:
----------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03981
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
December 20, 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 July 17, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 and Analysis
Applicant was born overseas and became a U.S. citizen in 2016.  He attended college in the
U.S. but did not graduate.  He has worked for Federal contractors.
Applicant’s father is a citizen of one Middle Eastern country and resides in another.  Both
of those countries have serious terrorism and human rights issues.  His father served as a high-level
official for a foreign intelligence service.  In the mid-2000s, his family was threatened by terrorists,
and they, without the father, fled to another country as refugees.  Applicant provided differing
accounts about his father’s whereabouts and the length of his father’s service in the intelligence
field.  He maintains weekly contact with his father and estimated that he has sent about $30,000 to
him between 2012 and 2017.  Applicant has submitted U.S. immigration paperwork for his father
and that process is pending.
Applicant’s relationship with his father creates a heightened risk of foreign influence.  This
risk is significant because of his father’s career and the threats the family has previously received. 
“There is insufficient information about Applicant’s father, his job, and potential continued
connections in the intelligence field.”  Decision at 8.  These security concerns are not mitigated.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that his relationship with his father is casual.  This argument is not
persuasive.  He has weekly contact with his father, provided him about $30,000 in support between
2012 and 2017, and is sponsoring him for immigration to the United States.  He failed to rebut the
presumption that contacts with immediate family members are not casual.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
02-28838 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 12, 2006).
Applicant also argues that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence, mis-
weighed the evidence, and misapplied the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept.  His
arguments, however, are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of
the record evidence nor sufficient 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. 17-02488 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 30,
2
2018).  We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant’s Counsel has cited,
but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s
decision.  Id. at 4.  “Each case must be judged on its own merits.”  Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). 
 
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