1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 17-03650 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Moira Modzelewski, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MURPHY, Braden M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, 
due largely to his long service with U.S. forces overseas. Applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance is granted. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on November 16, 
2016 in connection with his employment in the defense industry. On November 8, 2017, 
the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline B 
for foreign influence. The DOD CAF acted 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 National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) implemented on June 8, 2017. 
01/31/2019
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on December 3, 2017, and requested a hearing. 
The case was assigned to me on June 27, 2018. The hearing was initially scheduled for 
September 20, 2018, but that hearing date was cancelled on August 7, 2018 because of 
Applicant’s travel issues. On October 10, 2018, a hearing notice was issued 
rescheduling the hearing for December 17, 2018.  
 
  The hearing convened as scheduled. Department Counsel offered Applicant’s 
SCA as Government Exhibit (GE) 1, and it was admitted without objection. The 
Government’s request for Administrative Notice (AN) was marked as AN I. Applicant 
and one witness testified. He offered Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A – H, which were 
admitted without objection.1  
 
I left the record open until January 22, 2019 to provide Applicant the opportunity 
to submit additional evidence, which he did, on January 15, 2019. His three post-
hearing documents, all letters of recommendation, are marked collectively as AE I, and 
admitted without objection. The record closed on January 15, 2019, when Applicant 
indicated he had no further documents to submit. The transcript (Tr.) was received on 
January 2, 2019. 
 
Request for Administrative Notice 
 
I took administrative notice of facts concerning Afghanistan. Department Counsel 
provided supporting documents that verify, detail, and provide context for certain 
requested facts. The specific facts noticed are included in the Findings of Fact. 
 
Administrative or official notice is the appropriate type of notice used for 
administrative proceedings.2 Usually administrative notice in ISCR proceedings is 
accorded to facts that are either well known or from U.S. Government reports.3  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.d, and partially 
admitted and partially denied SOR ¶ 1.e, all with explanations.4 His admissions and 
other statements are incorporated into the findings of fact. After a thorough and careful 
review of the pleadings and evidence submitted, I make the following additional findings 
of fact.  
                                                          
1 AE A and AE B were attached to Applicant’s Answer.  
 
2 See ISCR Case No. 05-11292 at 4 n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2007); ISCR Case No. 02-24875 at 2 (App. 
Bd. Oct. 12, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-18668 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2004) and McLeod v. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 802 F.2d 89, 93 n.4 (3d Cir. 1986). 
 
3 See Stein, Administrative Law, Section 25.01 (Bender & Co. 2006) (listing fifteen types of facts for 
administrative notice).  
 
4 Applicant “denied” SOR ¶ 1.e, but only because the relative has since been promoted from the military 
rank referenced in the allegation. (Answer; Tr. 12) 
 
3 
 
 
 Applicant is 34 years old. He was born in Afghanistan in 1984. He graduated 
from high school in Afghanistan in 2004. He worked for defense contractors with U.S. 
military forces in Afghanistan from 2005 until he came to the United States under the 
special immigrant visa program in 2009, and became a permanent resident of the U.S. 
soon thereafter. He became a U.S. citizen in October 2016, and holds a U.S. passport. 
His Afghan passport expired in 2015. He is no longer a citizen of Afghanistan. (Tr. 32-
33, 62-64; GE 1) 
 
 Since he came to the U.S., Applicant has largely worked in the defense industry, 
both before and after he became a U.S. citizen. He began working for his current 
employer in 2009. He deployed to Afghanistan from April 2010 to August 2012 and 
worked with U.S. forces. After taking time off, he redeployed to Afghanistan from 
February 2013 to November 2014. He was then laid off because his company had no 
work for permanent U.S. residents. He was unemployed in the U.S. for several months 
before finding work outside the defense industry. (Tr. 34-39, 62-64; GE 1) 
 
 Applicant resumed working for his current employer in 2016, when he submitted 
his SCA. He redeployed to Afghanistan as a linguist and translator in January 2017. He 
remained there until December 2018. He has never held a clearance before. (Tr. 6, 15, 
60-65; GE 1)  
 
 The SOR alleges foreign influence security concerns due to Applicant’s family 
members who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan, specifically his parents, a 
sister, five brothers, and a brother-in-law. Applicant’s family lives in a major city in 
Afghanistan. Their details are as follows:   
 
 Applicant’s mother: (SOR ¶ 1.b) She passed away in early December 2018, three 
days after Applicant returned to the U.S. on leave. He did not return to Afghanistan for 
her funeral. (Tr. 31, 65, Answer; GE 1) Understandably, Applicant has spoken to his 
father and his siblings frequently since then, including two days before the hearing. (Tr. 
41, 66) SOR ¶ 1.b is found for Applicant, since his mother is deceased. (Tr. 95) 
 
 Applicant’s father: (SOR ¶ 1.a) He is in his mid-70s. He retired about 25 years 
ago as a colonel in the Afghan army. He collects a monthly pension. Applicant usually 
contacts his father monthly. His father has never visited the United States. (Tr. 40-43, 
48, 70; Answer; GE 1) 
 
 Applicant’s sister and brother-in-law (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.e) Applicant’s sister, age 39, 
is a housewife. She is married to Applicant’s brother-in-law, who is also his cousin. He 
is about 45 years old, and is an officer in the Afghan army, assigned to a training facility. 
He was recently promoted from major (as alleged) to lieutenant colonel. Applicant has 
little direct contact with him, though he speaks to his sister every three or four months. 
Through his oldest brother, he sends her money (less than $100) every few months. 
They have never visited the United States. (Tr. 43-44, 48, 54, 69-70) 
 
 
4 
 
 
 Applicant’s oldest brother: Applicant is in closest contact with his oldest brother, 
at least once a month, sometimes more. Applicant sends him money to be distributed to 
his other siblings. This brother is married and has several children. He formerly owned a 
hotel and a restaurant but now drives a taxi. He has no military or government 
affiliations. (Tr. 48-51, 67; Answer; GE 1) 
  
 Applicant’s second older brother: He owns a small shop near his other family 
members. He has no military or government affiliations. He is married with several 
children. Applicant contacts him every four to six months to check on his well-being, and 
occasionally sends money for his children ($100). (Tr. 50-51; Answer; GE 1) 
 
 Applicant’s third older brother: He worked with U.S. forces as a local interpreter 
from 2009 to 2011, when he was wounded on a mission. He lives at home with his 
father. He is seeking to come to the U.S. on a special immigrant visa. Applicant contacts 
him about every two months. (Tr. 51-52; Answer; GE 1)  
 
 Applicant’s two younger brothers. One brother recently graduated from college 
and started a job for an American company, working in Afghanistan. Applicant’s 
youngest brother is still in college. Neither is married, and they have no children. 
Applicant speaks to them about every two months. (Tr. 52-53; Answer; GE 1)  
 
 During his prior deployments, Applicant earned as much as $185,000 annually. 
He estimated that he sent his family between about $50,000 and $65,000 between 2010 
and 2014. He paid to renovate his parents’ house in Afghanistan, and he sent money to 
one of his brothers as an engagement and wedding present, which the brother used to 
buy a car. Since then, he has not sent them nearly as much money. In 2017, he sent his 
family about $600. In 2018, he and his girlfriend sent his father about $2,000. (Tr. 42, 
53-54, 73) 
 
 Applicant testified that his family members know that he is deployed to 
Afghanistan, but they do not know what he does. He is not allowed to visit them while 
on duty because he is not authorized to leave the base. Applicant has visited his family 
when he is on leave. He is not allowed to visit his family while on his current contract, so 
he will not see them after his return to Afghanistan after the hearing. (Tr. 44-47, 66-69) 
 
 Applicant owns no property in Afghanistan and he has no assets there. He may 
inherit a share of his father’s house one day, like his other siblings. He is registered to 
vote in the U.S. He has money in the U.S. stock market through an investment account, 
which he valued at about $100,000. His pay is deposited into a U.S. bank account. 
Applicant’s U.S. home of record is his girlfriend’s parents’ house. (Tr. 57-60, 71, 72) 
 
 Applicant’s girlfriend, age 37, is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan. She 
came to the U.S. with her parents and siblings as a child, in 1990. She became a U. S. 
citizen in 2008, and holds a U.S. passport. Her parents and two of her four brothers are 
also naturalized U.S. citizens. Since leaving as a child, she has never been back to 
Afghanistan, though she has extended family there. She has spoken to several of 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant’s Afghan family members by phone. She has a bachelor’s degree. She helps 
her mother, who owns a hair salon. (Tr. 80-88)  
 
 Applicant and his girlfriend met online and have been together since August 
2013. She testified that he is dedicated, patient, fair, and loving. He is trustworthy and 
reliable. (Tr. 80-84) She said he took the job in Afghanistan to help them build for the 
future. (Tr. 88-89)  
 
 Applicant supplied strong character references from several U.S. military officers 
who served with him in Afghanistan, often on a daily basis, both several years ago, and 
recently. All attested to his professional skill and high value as an interpreter, cultural 
advisor, and trusted team member. They universally attest to his loyalty, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. (AE B - AE F. AE I) Applicant also submitted several certificates of 
appreciation and training certificates, detailing his hard work, dedication, and exemplary 
performance. (AE A, AE G, AE H) 
 
Administrative Notice-Afghanistan5 
 
 The U.S. State Department warns U.S. citizens not to travel to Afghanistan due 
to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and armed conflict. Extremists associated with various 
Taliban networks, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, and members of other armed 
opposition groups are active throughout the country. Afghanistan continues to 
experience aggressive and coordinated attacks by the Taliban and other terrorist 
groups. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains a safe haven for 
terrorists. The country’s most significant human-rights concerns are widespread 
violence, armed insurgent groups’ attacks on civilians, and killing of persons affiliated 
with the government.  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
                                                          
5 AN I. All of the excerpts cited in the Government’s administrative notice filing are from U.S. Government 
documents published in 2017. Many have since been updated, including the most recent travel advisory 
for Afghanistan, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/afghanistan-
advisory.html, published July 9, 2018; the  2017 U.S. State Department Human Rights report for 
Afghanistan (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277519.pdf), and the 2017 State Department 
Country Reports on Terrorism, Chapter 2: South and Central Asia (including Afghanistan) 
(https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2017/282845.htm). I take administrative notice of certain more recent 
(but largely similar) facts in these updated reports, consistent with my obligation to make assessments 
based on timely information in cases involving foreign influence. 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(a), the entire process is a careful weighing of a number of variables known as the 
“whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a 
decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I 
have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the 
evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.”  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national 
interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access 
to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
  AG ¶ 6 explains the security concern about “foreign contacts and interests” as 
follows:  
 
Foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, 
financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they 
result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern 
 
7 
 
 
if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or 
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a 
way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to 
pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign 
contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign 
contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations 
such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or 
sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism. 
 
AG ¶ 7 indicates conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying in this case: 
(a) contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business 
or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or 
resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of 
foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to 
protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the 
individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing 
that information or technology.  
The nature of a nation’s government, its relationship with the United States, and 
its human-rights record are relevant in assessing the likelihood that an applicant’s family 
members are vulnerable to government coercion or inducement. The risk of coercion, 
persuasion, or duress is significantly greater if the foreign country has an authoritarian 
government, a family member or friend is associated with or dependent upon the 
government, the country is known to conduct intelligence collection operations against 
the United States, or the foreign country is associated with a risk of terrorism. The 
relationship between Afghanistan and the United States places a significant, but not 
insurmountable, burden of persuasion on Applicant to demonstrate that his relationships 
with his relatives living in Afghanistan do not pose a security risk. Applicant should not 
be placed in a position where he might be forced to choose between loyalty to the 
United States and a desire to assist his relatives living in Afghanistan who might be 
coerced by governmental or non-governmental entities, or pressured to assist 
Afghanistan.  
 
Guideline B is not limited to countries hostile to the United States. “The United 
States has a compelling interest in protecting and safeguarding classified information 
from any person, organization, or country that is not authorized to have access to it, 
regardless of whether that person, organization, or country has interests inimical to 
those of the United States.”6 Furthermore, friendly nations can have profound 
disagreements with the United States over matters they view as important to their vital 
                                                          
6 ISCR Case No. 02-11570 at 5 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004). 
 
 
8 
 
 
interests or national security. Finally, friendly nations are known to have engaged in 
espionage against the United States, especially in the economic, scientific, and 
technical fields.  
 
While there is no evidence that intelligence operatives from Afghanistan have 
sought classified or economic information from or through Applicant or his relatives 
living in Afghanistan it is not possible to rule out such a possibility in the future. AG ¶¶ 
7(a) and 7(b) apply based upon Applicant’s family members who are residents and 
citizens of Afghanistan. 
 
AG ¶ 8 lists conditions that could mitigate foreign influence security concerns, 
including:  
 
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in 
which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those 
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be 
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign 
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the 
U.S.; and 
 
(b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of 
loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, 
government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and 
longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the 
individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the 
U.S. interest.  
 
Applicant has several immediate family members remaining in Afghanistan, and 
he remains in close contact with them. He has provided them financial support. 
Applicant’s father is a retired Afghan Army officer and Applicant has limited direct 
contact with his brother-in-law, also an Army officer there. No other relatives have 
government or military connections. One brother was wounded while working with U.S. 
forces.  
 
Since 2005, Applicant has spent many years working with U.S. forces in 
Afghanistan, both before and after he came to the U.S. on a special immigrant visa in 
2009, and before and after he became a U.S. citizen in 2016. I give this evidence 
significant weight, given his many years of service to the U.S. military and to U.S. 
interests in Afghanistan, in difficult, dangerous conditions. Applicant testified credibly 
that he abides by the rules and does not visit his family in Afghanistan if it is not 
permitted. With his mother’s recent passing, in December 2018, his contact with his 
family members increased, though this is perfectly understandable under the sad 
circumstances. Applicant does not intend to return to Afghanistan to live. He has begun 
to build a life in the United States with his girlfriend.  
 
 
9 
 
 
While he has numerous relatives in Afghanistan, Applicant presented sufficient 
evidence to establish that it is unlikely that he would be placed in a position to choose 
between the interest of his relatives living in Afghanistan and those of the United States. 
AG ¶ 8(a) applies. 
 
Applicant has met his burden to establish his “deep and longstanding 
relationships and loyalties in the U.S.” He immigrated to this country in 2009 on a 
special immigrant visa after working for several years with U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 
His brave and highly valuable work with U.S. forces has continued, both stateside and 
in Afghanistan, including through several long deployments. Numerous U.S. military 
officers who served with him closely attest to his loyalty, dedication, and overall 
trustworthiness. The evidence supports a conclusion that Applicant has longstanding 
ties to the United States and would resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United 
States. AG ¶ 8(b) applies. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The circumstances tending to 
support granting Applicant’s clearance are more significant than the factors weighing 
towards denying his clearance. I considered the recommendations of the U.S. military 
officers who have served with him and who recommend him highly. I also considered 
his strong ties to this country, as shown most strongly by his long service overseas. He 
has demonstrated his longstanding loyalty to the United States. Therefore, he provided 
sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.  
 
Overall the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
 
10 
 
 
conclude that the security concerns arising under Guideline B, foreign influence 
concerns are mitigated. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline B:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e:    For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Braden M. Murphy 
Administrative Judge