KEYWORD: Guideline B, Guideline F
DIGEST: The contention of Applicant’s Counsel that Applicant’s relationship with his sisters
has “greatly diminished since the passing of his mother” fails for a lack of specificity because he
has failed to cite to any record evidence to support that proposition.  The appealing party has the
burden of raising and demonstrating factual or legal error by the Judge and must set forth its
assignments of error with specificity. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01818.a1
DATE: 06/25/2019
DATE: June 25, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-01818
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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
August 20, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On March 20, 2019, after considering the
record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman
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
Applicant, who is 60 years old, has worked for a defense contractor since 2017.  He has
worked for other defense contractors in the past and has previously held a security clearance.  In
responding to the SOR, he admitted all of the SOR allegations.
Applicant was born in Lebanon and attended a military academy there for a period before
resigning.  In the early 1980s, he came to the United States on a student visa.  After graduating from
a U.S. university, he returned to Lebanon.  He married a U.S. citizen and returned to the United
States in the late 1980s.  Following their divorce, he remained in the United States and became a
U.S. citizen in the early 1990s.  In 2003, he returned to Lebanon and married a Lebanese citizen. 
In 2009, he returned to the United States.  He later divorced his second wife with whom he has two
minor children.  The children are U.S. citizens, but they reside in Lebanon with their mother.
In 2011, Applicant returned to Lebanon for about five years to care for his ailing mother who
later passed away.  His father is also deceased.  He has two sisters who are citizens and residents of
Lebanon.  One sister owns a store, and the other is a housewife.  The occupations of their spouses
are unknown.  Applicant borrowed money from one sister when he lived in Lebanon.  He talked to
his sisters weekly when his mother was alive.  Since her passing, the frequency of his contact with
his sisters is unknown.  The U.S. Department of State discourages U.S. citizens from traveling to
Lebanon due to crime, terrorism, and armed conflict.  Kidnapping and refugee camps in Lebanon 
pose security threats.  Lebanon also has significant human rights issues.  
Under Guideline F, the SOR alleges that Applicant has delinquent debts, including a Federal
tax debt of $39,000.  For three of the delinquent debts totaling over $13,000, he submitted no
documentary evidence showing efforts to resolve them.  In his security clearance application, he
disclosed that he failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2012, 2014, and 2015, and
estimated he owed about $27,000 in past-due Federal taxes for 2012 and 2015.  In his SOR response,
he provided documentation of an IRS payment agreement, but he submitted no proof of payments. 
He also provided notices that he owes past-due taxes for other years, but was entitled to a refund in
2017. 
2
The Judge’s Analysis
Due to the risks of crime, terrorism, and armed conflict in Lebanon, a heightened risk of
foreign exploitation and a potential conflict of interest arises from Applicant’s children being in the
custody of a citizen and resident of that country.  An alleged debt owed to Applicant’s sister is not
delinquent because she has not established a repayment date.  Applicant’s other debts are numerous
and recent.  He has not established that any of the mitigating conditions apply in his case. 
 
Discussion
Applicant’s Counsel contends, “The nature of [Applicant’s] relationship with his [sisters]
overseas has greatly diminished since the passing of his mother.  The only reason he communicated
with his sisters as frequently as he did in the past was because they were caring for his ailing
mother.”   Appeal Brief at 10.  As support for that contention, Applicant’s Counsel cites only to Page
3 of the decision.  On that page, however, the Judge stated, “When his mother was alive, he talked
to his sisters weekly because they cared for his mother.  The record does not reflect the frequency
of his contact with his sisters now that his mother has passed away.”  The contention of Applicant’s
Counsel that Applicant’s relationship with his sisters has “greatly diminished since the passing of
his mother” fails for a lack of specificity because he has failed to cite to any record evidence to
support that proposition.  The appealing party has the burden of raising and demonstrating factual
or legal error by the Judge and must set forth its assignments of error with specificity.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 17-03372 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2018)(discussing the reasons why assignments
of error must be set forth with specificity).
Applicant’s Counsel also argues that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence
and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept.  In his arguments,
he cites, for example, to such matters as Applicant’s periods of unemployment, divorces, and IRS
payment agreement, as well as to the nature and extent of his foreign contacts.  His arguments,
however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record nor enough 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. 17-03978 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2019). 
We give due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant’s Counsel has cited in support
of his arguments, but they are neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to
undermine the Judge’s decision.  Id. at 4. 
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. ¶ 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