WPCL =Qd* z*~ MaROfE_}Y;W#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m N 0 Zj j 0D N E  "                                                                B/HP LaserJet 400 color M451dn UPD PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEfwXJ|7JntFold3|xU(Y(2$ !USUS.,  DXX      0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0     $USUS.,DXX      1    _ԀDirective,Enclosure27(a)states, contactwithaforeignfamilymember,businessorprofessionalassociate,  friend,orotherpersonwhoisacitizenoforresidentinaforeigncountryifthatcontactcreatesaheightenedriskof t foreignexploitation,inducement,manipulation,pressure,orcoercion[.]   $USUS.,DXX      2    _ԀDirective,Enclosure27(b)states, connectionstoaforeignperson,group,government,orcountrythat  createapotentialconflictofinterestbetweentheindividualsobligationtoprotectsensitiveinformationortechnology t andtheindividualsdesiretohelpaforeignperson,group,orcountrybyprovidingthatinformation[.] d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineC;GuidelineB  DIGEST:ApplicanthasnotrebuttedthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredallofthe  evidenceintherecord.ThebalanceofherargumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudges t weighingoftheevidence,whichisnotsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidencein ` amannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,andcontrarytolaw. L  CASENO:1501024.a1 $ t DATE:02/24/2017  L   $     `     h      p DATE:February24,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEogA p InRe: k     ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AV) xdEgA / ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4    ! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501024 4$ .؉7r. \XXp $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES X (  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #X+  FORAPPLICANT  $ -  Prose #XHX%&p# % .     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On *)z$2 September27,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor *f%3 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineC(ForeignPreference)andGuidelineB +R&4 (ForeignInfluence)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) +>'5 (Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthewrittenrecord.OnNovember30,2016,after ,*(6 consideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge -)7 ThomasM._Crean_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealedpursuant  toDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary, t capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. ` _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  8    Applicant,whois36yearsold,hasworkedforadefensecontractorsince2009.Shewas  d borninColombia,cametotheUnitedStatesonastudentvisain2005,andbecameaU.S.citizen  P  in2014.Shehasreceivedanassociatesdegree,bachelorsdegree,andmastersdegreeinthe  <  UnitedStates.ShemarriedaU.S.citizenin2006andhasnochildren. (    Applicantsmother,father,andbrotherarecitizensandresidentsofColombia.Shehasdaily   phonecontactwithherparentsandhassentapproximately$400amonthtoherfatherforthepast   fiveyears.ShehasanotherbrotherwhoisadualcitizenofColombiaandCanadaandresidesin   Canada.ShepossessesaColombianpassportthatwasissuedin2008andexpiresin2018.Shehas t nottakenanystepstorenounceherColombiancitizenship. `   Colombiaisademocracy.Ithasexperiencedhalfacenturyofconflictwithillegalarmed 8 groups,includingMarxistguerillasandinternationalcriminalorganizationsinvolvedinillegaldrug $t trafficking.TheU.S.hasdesignatedtwoColombiangroups,TheRevolutionaryArmedForcesof ` Colombia(FARC)andTheNationalLiberationArmy(ELN),asforeignterroristorganizations.In L 2016,theGovernmentofColombiaandFARCannouncedtheyreachedafinalpeaceaccordafter 8 fouryearsofnegotiation.TheELN,however,continuestoengageinterroristactivitiesand $ condemnsanyU.S.influenceinColombia.NooneinColombiaisimmunefromkidnappingonthe  basisofoccupation,nationality,orotherfactors.Colombiahasaplanthatseekstoreestablishstate  controlandlegitimacyinstrategicallyimportantareaspreviouslydominatedbyillegalarmedgroups.  Colombiashumanrightsproblemsincludeanineffectivejudiciary,extrajudicialandunlawful  killings,corruptionduetotheavailabilityofdrugtraffickingfunds,andsocietaldiscrimination. p     TheJudgesAnalysis  H!     TheJudgefoundthatApplicantscontactswithherfamilymembersinColombiaraised  #p! securityconcernsunderdisqualifyingconditions7(a) #  1      ׀and7(b), #  2      ׀notingtheexistenceofMarxist  $\" guerillas,theinfluenceofstrongorganizedcrimegangsinvolvedininternationaldrugtrafficking, $H # andapoorhumanrightsrecordinColombiaplacesonApplicantaheightenedriskofexploitation, %4!$ inducement,manipulation,pressure,orcoercion.Applicanthascloseandcontinuingcontactswith & "% herimmediatefamilymembersinColombia.Shedidnotpresentevidencethatnegatedthe  heightenedriskconcernsandnoneofthemitigatingconditionsapply.Eventhoughherfamily  membersappeartobeordinarycitizens,thesituationinColombiaissuchthatanyonelivingthere  _isvulnerabletobeexploited,pressured,orinducedtoprovideprotectedinformationbyguerillasand t _narco_Ԅterrorists. `    `   ApplicantpossessesaColombianpassportthatdoesnotexpireforafewmoreyears.She 8  hasnotmitigatedtheforeignpreferencesecurityconcerns.Herdualcitizenshipandpossessionof $ t acurrentColombianpassportshowsthereisapreferenceforColombiaovertheUnitedStatesand  ` apotentialdividedloyaltytoColombiaandtheUnitedStates.  L      Discussion  $      ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgedidnotconsideralltheevidenceintherecord.Inarguing   thathercircumstancesdonotraisesecurityconcerns,shecitesto,amongotherthings,thelocation   whereherparentsliveinColombia,theirage,theiroccupations,herlackofpropertyorprofessional   affiliationsinColombia;heraccomplishmentsinhercareer,andhervalueasaU.S.citizen.The p JudgemadefindingsaboutsomeoftheevidencethatApplicanthascited.Shehasnotrebuttedthe \ presumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo. H 1406093at3(App.Bd.Dec4,2015).ContrarytoApplicantsassertions,wealsoconcludethatthe 4 JudgeswholepersonanalysissatisfiestherequirementsofDirectiveinthattheJudgeevaluated  p Applicantssecuritysignificantcircumstancesinlightoftheentiretyoftherecordevidence.See,  \ e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1402806at4(App.Bd.Sep.9,2015).ThebalanceofApplicantsarguments H amounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,whichisnotsufficienttoshow 4 thattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,andcontrarytolaw.   See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1406440at4(App.Bd.Jan.8,2016).      `   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision.Applicanthasnotidentifiedanyharmfulerrorlikelytochangetheoutcomeofthecase.  Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegranted l onlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavy X  v.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubtconcerning D! personnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavorofthe 0"  nationalsecurity. #l!  @-(, Ї@( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . t    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ ( x    `     h   Michael_Raanan_  d    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  P     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  <     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge t    `     h   Member,AppealBoard `    `       `     h   Signed:James_ԀF.Duffy `    `     h   JamesF.Duffy L    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 8    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___ $