A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-01511.h1
GrantedDecided Mar 8, 2017 · Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, sought eligibility for a public trust position under Guidelines B and C. Concerns arose regarding his family ties to Pakistan and possession of a Pakistani visa. The judge found that the applicant's ties were mitigated by his family's U.S. citizenship and the expired nature of the visa, ultimately granting his eligibility.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated that his family members in Pakistan are distant relatives and that he has limited contact with them.
- The applicant's Pakistani visa was expired, reducing concerns about foreign preference.
- The applicant was candid, sincere, and credible during the hearing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ B2 Foreign Influenceraised
- AG ¶ C1 Foreign Preferenceraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 8(a) The nature of the applicant's family ties to foreign nationals is not sufficient to create a security concern.applied
- AG ¶ 8(b) The applicant has established a long history of U.S. citizenship and ties to the U.S.applied
- AG ¶ 9(e) The applicant's foreign passport or visa is expired.applied
Key rule quoted
“The whole-person concept requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- November 4, 2015
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- January 12, 2017
- Decision date
- March 8, 2017
Cite for
- Mitigating Conditions for Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
- Mitigating Conditions for Foreign Preference Under Guideline C
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations
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.
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 3 per allegation rows needs a free account.
3 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline C
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows 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
In the matter of: ) ) [Redacted] ) ADP Case No. 15-01511 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
03/08/2017 ______________
Decision
______________
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) on November 22, 2013, seeking eligibility for a public trust position. On November 4, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR), citing trustworthiness concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence) and C (Foreign Preference). DOD acted under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended (Regulation); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006.
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 30, 2016, and I conducted the hearing on January 12, 2017. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 3 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified, presented the testimony of one witness, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A through C, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on January 19, 2017. After the record closed, I informed Department Counsel of my intent to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor, and he did not object. The SOR alleges that Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen of Pakistan who resides with him in the United States and that Applicant has family members who are citizens and residents of Pakistan, to whom Applicant has sent money. It also alleges that Applicant possesses a Pakistani visa.
Applicant was born in Pakistan and became a U.S. citizen in 1997. His wife, parents, and three brothers are naturalized U.S. citizens and live in the United States. His three children are native-born U.S. citizens. He has infrequent contact with distant relatives in Pakistan, but he has sent them money for medical treatment and living expenses. He obtained a Pakistani visa to care for an uncle who was dying from cancer. He used his U.S. passport for the travel. The visa expired in August 2016.
About five years ago, Applicant’s mother-in-law came to the United States and lived with Applicant after her husband’s death until July 2016. She now lives with Applicant’s brother-in-law in the United States.
The mitigating conditions in AG ¶ 8(a), 8(b), 8(c) apply to Applicant’s family ties in Pakistan. Assuming without deciding that his Pakistani visa was comparable to a foreign passport, it is expired, and AG ¶ 9(e) is applicable.
I have weighed the evidence and given consideration to the whole-person concept. Applicant was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. I conclude that he has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant him eligibility for a public trust position. The case is decided for Applicant.
LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge