CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-20180.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-20180.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-20180.h1

grantedFeb 28, 2007· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 68-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited that the Applicant's mother, two sisters, and a brother are citizens and residents of Israel. Additionally, the Applicant had in-laws who are Israeli citizens and residents, with whom he maintained occasional contact.

However, the Applicant had initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. Crucially, his immediate family—his wife, children, and grandchildren—are all U.S. citizens residing in the United States.

The Administrative Judge determined that the Applicant's strong ties and loyalties to the U.S., developed over more than 40 years of residency, effectively mitigated the disqualifying conditions. These factors, combined with his active steps to renounce foreign citizenship, led to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport.
The Applicant's immediate family members are all U.S. citizens residing in the U.S.
The Applicant has lived in the U.S. for over 40 years, establishing strong ties and loyalties.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C1raisedForeign Preference
B1raisedForeign Influence
B2raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

C2appliedForeign Preference
C5appliedForeign Preference
B1appliedForeign Influence
B2appliedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who has demonstrated a Foreign Preference or who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 16, 2006
Answer filedOct 30, 2006
Hearing heldFeb 5, 2007
Decision dateFeb 28, 2007

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Due to Strong U.S. Ties
Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship as a Mitigating Factor
Consideration of Family Ties in Security Clearance Decisions

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: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The Applicant has foreign relatives in Israel, including his mother, two sisters, and a brother, but he has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. The judge found that the Applicant's longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S. mitigate concerns regarding foreign influence, leading to a favorable decision for the Applicant.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant’s mother, and two sisters are citizens of and reside in Israel.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	—
2.b	The Applicant’s brother is also a citizen of and resides in Israel.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	—
2.c	The Applicant has only occasional contact with his in-laws, who are citizens of and reside in Israel.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline C (Foreign Preference) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The Applicant has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. Despite having family members in Israel, the Applicant has established deep ties and loyalties in the U.S., which mitigates concerns regarding foreign preference. The judge found that the Applicant's actions demonstrated a commitment to U.S. interests, leading to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	Credited Other
1.b–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline C). 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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

DIGEST: The Applicant has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport. The Applicant’s mother, two sisters, a brother, and in-laws are citizens of and reside in Israel. However, his wife, three children, and 12 grandchildren, are all American citizens and reside in the U.S. His financial interests are also in the U.S. The Applicant has lived in the U.S. for over 40 years. As the Applicant has “longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S.,” it is unlikely that he “will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of . . . [his foreign relatives] . . . and the interests of the U.S.” Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

CASENO: 06-20180.h1

DATE: 02/28/2007

DATE: February 28, 2007

) ) In Re: ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-20180 ---------------- ) SSN: ----------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RICHARD A. CEFOLA

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport. The Applicant’s mother, two sisters, a brother, and in-laws are citizens of and reside in Israel. However, his wife, three children, and 12 grandchildren, are all American citizens and reside in the U.S. His financial interests are also in the U.S. The Applicant has lived in the U.S. for over 40 years. As the Applicant has “longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S.,” it is unlikely that he “will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of . . . [his foreign relatives] . . . and the interests of the U.S.” Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 16, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on October 30, 2006.

The case was received by the undersigned on January 19, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on January 19, 2007, and the case was heard on February 5, 2007. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary evidence. The transcript (TR) was received on February 13, 2007. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's perceived Foreign Preference and Foreign Influence militate against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis of all of the allegations.]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony. The Applicant is 68 years of age, has a Ph.D. from an American university, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant (TR at page 24 line 3 to page 35 line 6). After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional Findings of Fact.

Guideline C - Foreign Preference

The Applicant was born in Israel, but came to the U.S. 40 years ago to pursue a Masters Degree (TR at page 24 line 3 to page 25 line 2). He stayed on in the U.S., and later pursued a Ph.D. (TR at page 25 lines 3–5). The Applicant’s wife, three children, and 12 grandchildren, are all U.S. citizens and reside in the U.S. (TR at page 49 line 11 to page 50 line 16, and at page 51 line 23 to page 52 line 15). His property and financial interests are also all in the U.S. (TR at page 49 lines 1–8, and at page 52 line 16 to page 53 line 12).

1.a.~1.d., and 2.d. The Applicant has initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport (Applicant’s Exhibit (TR at page 38 line 16 to page 39 line 21, and AppX) A at pages 1 and 2). Before surrendering his Israeli passport, the Applicant traveled to Israel to visit his parents about 18 or 19 times using his Israeli passport from about 1969–2006 (Answer). His father is now dead, and his mother, due to Alzheimer Disease, barely recognizes the Applicant; and as a result, his visits to Israel will be less frequent (Id, TR at page 40 lines 1–16, and at page 42 lines 7–16). Guideline B - Foreign Influence

2.a. The Applicant’s mother, and two sisters are citizens of and reside in Israel (TR at page 39 line 22 to page 40 line 16, and at page 43 line 12 to page 45 line 4). The Applicant’s mother is 92 years of age; and as mentioned above, she suffers from dementia as a result of Alzheimer’s Disease (TR at page 40 lines 4–12). Because of her disease, he has little cognizant contact with his mother (Id). She was seamstress (TR at page 43 lines 12–19). One of the Applicant’s sisters is a retired social worker, and the other is a “self-employed as a psychotherapist” (TR at page 44 lines 1–24).

2.b. The Applicant’s brother is also a citizen of and resides in Israel (TR at page 54 lines 5–25, and at page 53 line 13 to page 54 line 5). The Applicant has little to do with this brother, with whom he cut all ties about 15 years ago (Id).

2.c. The Applicant has only occasional contact with his in-laws, who are citizens of and reside in Israel (TR at page 42 line 22 to page 43 line 10, and at page 47 line 15 to page 48 line 25). His parents-in-law are elderly, and none of his in-laws have any connection with the Israeli government (Id).

Israel is a parliamentary democracy who’s prime minister heads the government and exercises executive power. Israel has a diversified, technologically advanced economy that is growing at about 5.2% per year, and the U.S. is Israel’s largest trading partner. Almost half of Israel’s exports are high tech and its major industrial sectors include high-technology electrical and biomedical equipment. The National Counterintelligence Center’s 2000 Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage lists Israel as one of the active collectors of proprietary information. The most recent Report, released in 2006, states that the major collectors remain active. Israeli military officers have been implicated in this type of technology collection in the U.S. (See the Government’s Request for Administrative Notice at pages 1 and 4).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:

a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding circumstances.

b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.

c. Age and maturity of the applicant. d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved.

e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.

f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.”

The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.

The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference), which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.

Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.

An individual who has demonstrated a Foreign Preference or who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant, until recently, was a dual national with Israel, and maintained an Israeli passport. The first disqualifying condition under Foreign Preference is therefore applicable as there was an "exercise of any right . . . of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen . . . . This includes but is not limited to: (1) possession of a current foreign passport; . . ." This is countered, however, by the second and fifth mitigating conditions. “[T]he individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship,” and “the passport has been . . . otherwise invalidated.” Here, the Applicant has not only initiated the renunciation of his Israeli citizenship, but has also surrendered his Israeli passport.

The Applicant's mother, and two sisters are citizens of and reside in Israel. He also has occasional contact with his in-laws. The first and second disqualifying conditions are arguably applicable as this contact “creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion," and creates “a potential conflict of interests between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person . . . by providing that information.” Under the facts of this particular case, however, these are clearly countered by the first and second mitigating conditions. The nature of the Applicant’s relationship with his Israeli relatives is “such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of . . . [his family] and the interests of the U.S.” Also, the Applicant “has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest.”

Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation. The totality of the Applicant’s conduct and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly warrants a favorable recommendation under the “whole person concept.” Mitigation is shown. Guidelines B and C are found for the Applicant.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his Foreign Influence. The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guidelines B and C, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guidelines B and C.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: Financial FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant. b. For the Applicant. c. For the Applicant. d. For the Applicant.

Paragraph 2: Financial FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant. b. For the Applicant. c. For the Applicant. d. For the Applicant.

Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT Edward O. Lear, Esquire, Applicant’s Counsel