WPC@ ;4&41KZ2'p\+\9:(X#iR\>GN )xQ#%GTEU2w] 4qKuE f_GT/Q {)NL 0ަM=UaZe yyohk]ʁ@%*碕#?PFUé;.X m+!kp{H)*Xj`NUՎ)F.vN(D`Fy@xr[{$!RG3kf{3+w[E޻Dg#"N]{c Oj#81ljN tsCT70p'XzpWSK, z}y {v iE1Igh(cjH J|gI} TX4WM*8 n`[C|`GDd9'sǰƄ,N2Aإ;&~QSubl&9W#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m N Z E 0 0D 8 B#Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUENuK;=JntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0   . x$USUS.,      1    _ XXԀInthat_SCA_,Applicantalsoanswered Notothequestionthataskedifheeverhadasecurityclearance  eligibility/accessauthorizationdenied,suspended,orrevoked.GovernmentExhibit5,however,revealedthat t Applicantsinterimsecurityclearancewasdeniedin2006,andhedidnotknowwhyhissecurityclearancewasdenied. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineB;GuidelineE  DIGEST:ThepresenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakea  favorablesecurityclearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceas t awholeanddecidewhetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orvice ` versa.Adversedecisionaffirmed. L  _CASENO_:1506559.a1 $ t DATE:11/21/2017  L  ________________________   `     h      p DATE:November21,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:       C ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AV) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1506559 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #-  Prose #XX%& # $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On R'"1 April29,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat >(#2 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineB(ForeignInfluence)andGuidelineE(Personal *)z$3 Conduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive). *f%4 DepartmentCounselrequestedahearing.OnAugust31,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeof +R&5 HearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeMartinH.MoguldeniedApplicantsrequest +>'6 forasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,*(7  -)8   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeerredinhisfindingsof  factandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.The  JudgesfavorablefindingonthesoleGuidelineEallegationwasnotraisedasanissueonappeal.  Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. t   TheJudgesFindingsofFact  L      ApplicantwasborninAfghanistanandmovedtotheUnitedStatesin2004.Hebecamea ( x U.S.citizenin2008.Heismarriedandhasadaughter.HiswifewasborninAfghanistan.Hiswife  d anddaughterareU.S.citizens.  P    ApplicantsfatherisacitizenandresidentofAfghanistan.InhisAnswertothe_SOR_, (  ApplicantindicatedthathisfatherhasnoaffiliationwithanyAfghanorganizationorgovernment.   Hisfatherearnsalivingbysellingproduce.Applicantcontactedhisfatherthreetimesinthelasttwo   yearswhilehewasdeployed.Twoofthoseoccasionsweretoprovidehisfatherabout$400in   financialsupport.Atthehearing,Applicanttestifiedthathelastsawhisfathermorethan20years   agoandspeakstohimaboutonceayear.Hesendshisfatherabout$500orlessonceortwiceayear. t   ApplicantsfivesiblingsarecitizensandresidentsofAfghanistan.Theyhavenoaffiliation L withanyAfghanorganizationorgovernment.Hespoketoonebrotheronceinthelasttwoyears. 8 Heindicatedthathealmostneverspeakstohisotherbrotherandhashadnocontactwithhissisters $t inthelastfewyears. `   ApplicanttestifiedhehadnootherfamilyorfriendsinAfghanistanwithwhomhekeepsin 8 contact.HeworksinAfghanistanforperiodsofaboutsixmonthandthenreturnstotheUnited $ Statesforaboutamonth.NoneofhisrelativesinAfghanistanhavecometovisithimintheUnited  States.HeownsnopropertyintheUnitedStates,Afghanistan,orelsewhere,buthopestopurchase  ahomeintheUnitedStates.HetestifiedthatheistotallyloyaltotheUnitedStates.Heprovided  anumberofdocumentsinmitigation,includingaCommanderscommendationandacertificateof  appreciation. p Ѐ  Afghanistanshumanrightsrecordhasremainedpoor.A_Taliban_Ԁdominatedinsurgencyhas H! becomesophisticatedanddestabilizing.TheStateDepartmenthasdeclaredthatthesecuritythreat 4"  toU.S.citizensinAfghanistanremainscriticalasnopartofthecountryisimmunefromviolence.  #p!   TheJudgesAnalysis  $H #   Applicanthasclosefamilymembers,especiallyhisfatherforwhomheprovidesfinancial & "% support,whoarecitizensandresidentsofAfghanistan.HistiestotheUnitedStatesarelimitedto ' #& hiswife,son,andmotherinlaw.BecauseofhisstrongtiestoAfghanistanandhislimitedcontacts (#' intheUnitedStates,noneofthemitigatingconditionsareapplicable. )$(     Discussion  l+&*   ApplicantcontendstheJudgeerredinfailingtofindthathehadasecurityclearancefrom D-(, 2010to2014.Inhissecurityclearanceapplication(_SCA_)datedJune2014,however,Applicant  answered NotothequestionthataskediftheU.S.Governmenteverinvestigatedhisbackground  orgrantedhimsecurityclearanceeligibilityoraccess._ #  1      _ԀApplicantalsonotesthattheJudgetwice  incorrectlyreferredtohischildasa soninthedecision.Thiserrorwasharmlessbecauseitdid t notlikelyaffecttheoutcomeofthecase.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1200678at2(App.Bd.Jun. ` 13,2014).ApplicanthasnotidentifiedanyharmfulerrorintheJudgesfindingsoffact. L    ThebalanceofApplicantsargumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighing $ t oftheevidence.Inparticular,hearguesthathehaslimitedcontactwithhisrelativesinAfghanistan.  ` TheJudgeaddressedmostofhisargumentsinthedecision.Aswehavepreviouslyheld,the  L  presenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakeafavorablesecurity  8  clearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasawholeanddecide $  whetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.Apartys   disagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferent   interpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceor   reachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCase   No.1500650at2(App.Bd.Jun.27,2016).   p    `      TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe H decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay 4 begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department  p oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App._A_Ԁ2(b): Any  \ doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor H ofthenationalsecurity. 4  )$( @( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge     x    d    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields      `     h   WilliamS.Fields      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___