A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-05082.h1
GrantedDecided Dec 21, 2016 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a holder of a current Irish passport, faced security concerns under Guideline C for foreign preference. He mitigated these concerns by surrendering his passport to his employer's facility security officer, demonstrating reliability and good judgment. The judge concluded that the applicant met the burden of persuasion to grant security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant surrendered his Irish passport to his employer's facility security officer in May 2016.
- The judge found that the concerns over the surrendered passport did not create doubt about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant met his burden of persuasion to show that granting clearance was consistent with national interest.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 11(d) Mitigating Condition 11(d)applied
Key rule quoted
“The favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- February 6, 2016
- Answer filed
- February 29, 2016 Applicant requested an administrative determination.
- Hearing held
- December 13, 2016 Summary disposition proposed.
- Decision date
- December 21, 2016
Cite for
- Mitigation of Foreign Preference Concerns Under Guideline C
- Surrender of Foreign Passport as a Mitigating Factor
- 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.
Allegations under Guideline C
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
In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05082 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
12/21/2016 ______________
Decision
______________
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:
On February 6, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline C, foreign preference. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 September 1, 2006.
Applicant responded (Answer) to the SOR on February 29, 2016, and requested an administrative determination in lieu of a hearing. I was assigned the case on December 12, 2016. On December 13, 2016, after reviewing the SOR, the Answer, the Government’s File of Relevant material (FORM), and Applicant’s response to the FORM (marked as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A), I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
The Government’s concern under Guideline C is that Applicant possessed a current Irish passport. Applicant presented documentary evidence showing that he turned the passport over to his employer’s facility security officer (FSO) in May 2016. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concern is mitigated under mitigating condition AG ¶ 11(d).
The concerns over Applicant’s surrendered foreign passport do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.
________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge