Loading case…

ISCR 25-00181: Guideline B security clearance hearing, granted (2026) · CASE

ISCR Case 25-00181granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00181

grantedJan 28, 2026· Hon. Charles C. Hale· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons alleged foreign influence due to the applicant's past contacts with non-familial individuals from the United Kingdom.

However, the Administrative Judge found that several mitigating conditions applied. The applicant had not had direct contact with these foreign individuals for over 10 years, significantly reducing the potential for foreign influence. Furthermore, financial ties were mitigated by the transfer of asset control directly to the applicant.

The applicant also demonstrated deep and longstanding relationships within the United States, reinforcing their ties to the U.S. and further mitigating the foreign influence concerns. Based on these factors, the Administrative Judge determined that the security risks were sufficiently mitigated, and eligibility for access to classified information was granted.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant had not had direct contact with foreign individuals for over 10 years.
Financial ties were mitigated by transferring control of assets to the applicant.
The applicant demonstrated deep and longstanding relationships in the United States.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedThe Nature of the Foreign Contacts Is Such That They Are Unlikely to Pose a Risk to National Security.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Not Had Contact with Foreign Individuals for a Significant Period of Time.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Strong Presence and Ties in the United States.
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedThe Applicant Has Taken Steps to Mitigate Any Potential Foreign Influence.

Key rule quoted

“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedFeb 28, 2025
Answer filedMar 11, 2025
Hearing heldDec 23, 2025
Decision dateJan 28, 2026

Cite for

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B Due to Lack of Recent Contact
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Transfer of Asset Control as a Mitigating Factor for Foreign Influence Concerns.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts, which were established during his childhood, are no longer relevant due to the significant time elapsed since any direct contact. The applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns associated with these foreign ties, leading to a decision in his favor regarding access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS "" -L o - ~ fjl~ HE,\ In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00181 Appearances For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 01/28/2026 Decision HALE, Charles C., Administrative Judge: On February 28, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. The DoD acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DoD on June 8, 2017. Applicant responded to the SOR on March 11, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 8, 2025. The hearing was held as scheduled on December 23, 2025. At the hearing, I formally proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object and on December 30, 2025, the Government issued a reply that the Government did not object to a summary disposition. Applicant's foreign contacts are no longer relevant. The relationships developed while he was a minor, when he traveled with his mother, a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Applicant is now 29 years old. It has been more than 10 years since he has had direct contact with these non-familial persons. Any financial ties have been mitigated by transferring control of any assets to Applicant’s personal control. It is unlikely Applicant will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the United States. I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), and 8(f). The concerns over Applicant’s foreign contacts are unsupported given his deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States. Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge