KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that the absence of evidence about his
younger sibling in Pakistan hinders the application of pertinent mitigating conditions.  He argues
that he did not provide such information at the hearing because he was trying to minimize his
relationship with his sibling in order to reduce foreign influence concerns.  In his brief, he relates
information that he obtained from his parents about his sibling that is not in the record.  Such
information constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Based on our review of the record, Applicant has failed to establish that the
Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns involving his parents and younger sibling
were not mitigated.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04194.a1
DATE: 05/20/2019
DATE: May 20, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-04194
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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
January 3, 2018, 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 hearing.  On March
29, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal:  whether the Judge erred in her findings of
fact and 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
Applicant, his wife, his parents, and his three siblings are naturalized U.S. citizens originally
from Pakistan.  Applicant and his wife have renounced their Pakistani citizenship and have no
intention of returning there.  He has almost $400,000 in assets in the U.S., including a home.  
Applicant’s parents and two of his siblings reside in the United States.  For an unspecified
period, his parents divided their time between the United States and Pakistan after retiring.  It is not
clear when his parents began and ended that practice.  They maintain a home in Pakistan that they
intend to leave to Applicant’s younger sibling.  In 2009, the younger sibling returned to Pakistan and
currently resides there.  Applicant has not had any contact with his younger sibling since he returned
to Pakistan and considers his estrangement from this sibling permanent.  His parents maintain
contact with their child in Pakistan.  
Applicant’s brother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Pakistan.  He is currently in a school
and is attempting to immigrate to the United States.  Applicant’s mother-in-law is a permanent U.S.
resident who returned to Pakistan in mid-2018 to wrap up family affairs, including selling the family
home.     
Terrorist groups operate in Pakistan and may attack public places without warning.  They
have targeted U.S. citizens.  Citing terrorism, the U.S. State Department warns U.S. citizens to
reconsider traveling to Pakistan.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The evidence establishes that Applicant’s relationship with his parents, younger sibling,
mother-in-law, and brother-in-law creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, etc.
His relationship with his parents and younger sibling also presents a potential conflict of interest with
his obligation to protect classified information.  Applicant mitigated the security concerns involving
his in-laws, but failed to mitigate those concerns arising from his parents and younger sibling. 
Although Applicant is estranged from his younger sibling, their family ties are not entirely broken. 
The parents remain a influence in the lives of Applicant and his younger sibling.  Noting that
2
Applicant did not ask his parents for information about the younger sibling’s current circumstances,
the Judge stated, “The absence of information about Applicant’s [younger sibling], and the extent
of their parent’s relationship with [that sibling], prevents application of any of the foreign influence
mitigating conditions to this relationship.”  Decision at 6.  
Discussion
As a preliminary matter, Applicant’s brief discusses Guideline language that has not been
applicable for more than a decade.  We will not speculate why he relies on inapplicable guidelines.
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that the evidence is not clear when his parents
stopped the practice of spending part of each year in Pakistan.  He argues that he submitted an
affidavit (Applicant’s Exhibit CC) that “clearly states they have stopped this practice.”  Appeal Brief
at 1.  In pertinent part, the affidavit states “for the past few years” his parents have been spending
part of the year in Pakistan, but it does not specify when that practice ended.  Consequently, the
affidavit does not undermine the Judge’s challenged finding, but rather supports it.
  
In his appeal brief, Applicant highlights a number of facts from his security clearance
application, testimony, and background investigation.  By doing so, he has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017).  
Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that the absence of evidence about his younger
sibling in Pakistan hinders the application of pertinent mitigating conditions.  He argues that he did
not provide such information at the hearing because he was trying to minimize his relationship with
his sibling in order to reduce foreign influence concerns.  In his brief,  he relates information that he
obtained from his parents about his sibling that is not in the record.  Such information constitutes
new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Based on
our review of the record, Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge erred in concluding that the
security concerns involving his parents and younger sibling were not mitigated.   
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a challenge of the Judge’s weighing the
evidence.  These arguments are not enough to show the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 15-01717, supra, at 4.
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse 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.  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.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael 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.  
4