WPCL A;S0'G M)2A0#i CR:dliSR5|=PM$hL4dZ0O36  跽  \0J{j$T;Q׵啷;D{r~UtԞǥkU*=/·f"? .NrbIg'm؈;akh^d0 `S\@'6 \7j3X?vAjZ uXllzqaURf4ғNurvmh6ZE7l#hZl.D=O7BpqF$8oL<4ZWԋ S~C#ׁT^BH<[/؉x֢ک% S*BI̕2F}LN3l9XiLKKW#U N % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN Ze N N Z Z 0w 0D  EE G $ EYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY B/Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԘJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0   x$USUS.,      1    _XXԀDecisionat3.  x$USUS.,      2    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure27(a)states, contactwithaforeignfamilymember,businessorprofessionalassociate,  friend,orotherpersonwhoisacitizenoforresidentinaforeigncountryifthatcontactcreatesaheightenedriskof t foreignexploitation,inducement,manipulation,pressure,orcoercion[.]#X,Xq# ; x$USUS.,      3    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure27(b)states, connectionstoaforeignperson,group,government,orcountrythat  createapotentialconflictofinterestbetweentheindividualsobligationtoprotectsensitiveinformationortechnology t andtheindividualsdesiretohelpaforeignperson,group,orcountrybyprovidingthatinformation[.]#X,Xq#  x$USUS.,      4    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure27(e)states, asubstantialbusiness,financial,orpropertyinterestinaforeigncountry,  orinanyforeignownedorforeignoperatedbusiness,whichcouldsubjecttheindividualtoheightenedriskofforeign t influenceorexploitation[.] d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineB  DIGEST:ApplicantarguesthattheJudgedidnotconsideralloftheevidence.Thesearguments,  however,areneitherenoughtorebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftherecord t evidencenorsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwas ` arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw. L  CASENO:1501979.a1 $ t DATE:04/27/2017  L  _________________________   `     h      p DATE:April27,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:       C ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AV) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501979 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &o%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #- RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#X,X%&o# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On @(#2 November9,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat ,)|$3 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineB(ForeignInfluence)ofDepartmentofDefense *h%4 Directive5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthe +T&5 writtenrecord.OnFebruary8,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsand +@'6 Appeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeGreggA._Cervi_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurity ,,(7 clearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. -)8 Ї  Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  `     Applicantisa59yearoldemployeeofadefensecontractor.HeisaU.S.citizenbybirthand <  hasnoforeigncitizenship.Hehasworkedinanumberofoverseaslocationsandhasheldasecurity ( x clearanceformorethan30years.In2011,hemarriedhiscurrentwife,anIsraelicitizen,whomhe  d metwhileworkinginIsrael.SheisapplyingtobecomeapermanentresidentoftheUnitedStates.  P  SheownsahomeinIsraelvaluedatabout$120,000.Shehasthreeadultchildrenwhoarecitizens  <  andresidentsofIsrael.Hiswifeandstepchildrenhavecompletedcompulsorymilitaryservicein (  Israel.Henowlivesinanotherforeigncountrywithhiswifeandmaintainsregularcontactwithhis   stepchildren.TherecordisdevoidofsubstantivebackgroundinformationonApplicantswifeand   stepchildren,includingnodetailedinformationwithrespecttotheirIsraelimilitaryservicesuchas   datesofservice,rank,divisioninwhichtheyserved,ormilitarytrainingandspecialty.Additionally,   therecorddoesnotshowdocumentaryevidenceofU.S.permanentresidenceapplicationsandtheir t currentstatus. #  1       `   Applicantassertsheandhisfamilyarelawabidingcitizensanddonotbelongtoanygroup 8 ororganizationthatmayconflictwithhispersonalorprofessionallife.HestressesheisaloyalU.S. $t citizen,butdidnotincludedocumentaryevidenceofcharacteroremploymentperformance. `   IsraelisacloseallyoftheUnitedStates.Ithasbeenidentifiedasamajorpractitionerof 8 industrialespionageagainstU.S.companies.Therehavebeeninstancesofillegalexport,or $ attemptedillegalexport,ofU.S.restricted,dualusetechnologytoIsrael.U.S.andIsraelhave  disagreedoverIsraelisalesofU.S.andIsraelitechnologiestothirdpartycountries,includingIndia,  China,andRussia.HumanrightsviolationshaveinvolvedPalestiniandetaineesorArabIsraelis.  TerroristsuicidebombingsareacontinuingthreatinIsrael,andU.S.citizensinIsraelareadvised  tobecautious. p   TheJudgesAnalysis  H!    TheJudgefoundthatApplicantconnectionstoIsraelraisedsecurityconcernsunder  #p! DisqualifyingConditions7(a), #  2      ׀7(b), #  3      ׀and7(e). #  4      ׀TheIsraelicitizenshipofApplicantswife_and   stepchildren,someofwhomresideinIsrael,coupledwiththeirconnectiontotheIsraelimilitary,  establishesaheightenedrisk.ApplicanthasstrongtiestoIsraelthroughhiswifeandstepchildren.  Thesefamilyties,coupledwithIsraelsrecordofindustrialespionage,precludeafindingthatitis t unlikelyApplicantwillbeplacedinapositionofhavingtochoosebetweentheinterestsofaforeign ` individual,group,organization,orgovernment,andtheinterestsoftheUnitedStates.Without L  additionalfactsthatarenotcontainedintherecord,theJudgewasnotconvincedApplicantwould 8  resolveanyconflictofinterestinfavorofU.S.interests.Hisindirectinterestinthehiswifeshome $ t inIsraelhasthepotentialtoresultinaconflictofinterest.Inhiswholepersonanalysis,theJudge  ` foundthat,basedontheinformationavailable,Applicantsdividedloyaltiesandforeignfinancial  L  interestsprecludeafindingthathecanbeexpectedtoresolveanyconflictofinterestinfavorofthe  8  UnitedStates. `   $      Discussion       `   ApplicantarguesthattheJudgedidnotconsideralloftheevidence.Forexample,hestated   theJudgedidnottakeintoconsiderationthathehasapermanenthomeintheUnitedStates,thathe p andhiswifenolongerresideinIsrael,andthatheintendstomovehisentirefamilytotheUnited \ States.Thesearguments,however,areneitherenoughtorebutthepresumptionthattheJudge H consideredalloftherecordevidencenorsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidencein 4 amannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1504856at  p 23(App.Bd.Mar.9,2017).WegivedueconsiderationtotheHearingOfficecasethatApplicant  \ hascited,butitisneitherbindingprecedentontheAppealBoardnorsufficienttounderminethe H Judgesdecision.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1403747at3(App.Bd.Nov.13,2015).Additionally, 4 wefindnobasisforconcludingtheJudgeerredinhiswholepersonanalysis.     TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt l concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor X  ofthenationalsecurity. D!  #l! Ї@( Order   8    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ t    `     h   MichaelRaanan `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody 8    `     h   JamesE.Moody $    `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard     `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy \     `     h   JamesF.Duffy H!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 4"     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___  #p!