A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 25-00181
GrantedDecided Jan 28, 2026 · Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a 29-year-old individual, faced allegations under Guideline B regarding foreign influence due to past contacts with non-familial persons from the United Kingdom. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant's lack of recent interactions and the transfer of asset control mitigated the security concerns, ultimately granting eligibility for access to classified information.
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) The nature of the foreign contacts is such that they are unlikely to pose a risk to national security.applied
- AG ¶ 8(b) The applicant has not had contact with foreign individuals for a significant period of time.applied
- AG ¶ 8(c) The applicant has established a strong presence and ties in the United States.applied
- AG ¶ 8(f) The applicant has taken steps to mitigate any potential foreign influence.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2025-02-28
- Answer filed
- 2025-03-11
- Hearing held
- 2025-12-23
- Decision date
- 2026-01-28
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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
______________ ______________ 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