ISCR Case 15-00605.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00605.h1

grantedMar 22, 2017· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old U.S. citizen, born in Israel, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited his Israeli birthright passport, which he used for travel to Israel as required by Israeli law, and his vote in an Israeli election at age 20. Concerns also included potential conflicts of interest due to foreign connections and contact with foreign family members that could create a risk of foreign exploitation.

The applicant admitted to these allegations but successfully mitigated the concerns. He demonstrated minimal and infrequent contact with his family in Israel, describing these relationships as estranged and unhealthy. He also expressed no intention of returning to Israel and no preference for the country.

Crucially, the applicant showed a strong commitment to his life in the United States, including his marriage and child. He relinquished his Israeli passport to his security office and expressed willingness to have it destroyed. These factors collectively demonstrated a lack of loyalty to foreign interests, leading to the security clearance being granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated minimal and infrequent contact with his family in Israel, reducing the risk of foreign influence.
He expressed a strong commitment to his life in the United States, including his marriage and child.
The applicant's relationships with his family were characterized as estranged and unhealthy, indicating a lack of loyalty to foreign interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create Conflict
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Strong U.S. Ties
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens

Key Rule Quoted

“An administrative judge’s predictive judgment in these types of cases must be guided by a commonsense assessment of the evidence and consideration of the adjudicative guidelines, as well as the whole-person factors set forth in the Directive.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 21, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant admitted allegations under Guideline B and C.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2017
Decision dateMar 22, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Estranged Family Relationships
Importance of Strong U.S. Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Evaluation of Foreign Preference Based on Minimal Contact with Foreign Entities

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.c–2.c	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Israel

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Israel

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.c–2.c

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was granted an Israeli passport based on his birth in that country.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has only used the Israeli passport to travel to Israel because Israeli law requires anyone considered to be an Israeli citizen to only enter and exit that country on an Israeli passport.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant has relinquished his foreign passport to his security office and is willing to have it destroyed.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant voted in an Israeli election when he was 20 years old.	For Applicant	Foreign Voting	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant has expressed no intention to ever move back to Israel and has no preference for Israel.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was granted an Israeli passport based on his birth in that country.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant has only used the Israeli passport to travel to Israel because Israeli law requires anyone considered to be an Israeli citizen to only enter and exit that country on an Israeli passport.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant has relinquished his foreign passport to his security office and is willing to have it destroyed.

For Applicant

Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant voted in an Israeli election when he was 20 years old.

For Applicant

Foreign Voting

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant has expressed no intention to ever move back to Israel and has no preference for Israel.

For Applicant

Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES