CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07274.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07274.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07274.h1

grantedDec 7, 2016· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 22-year-old U.S. citizen applicant faced security clearance concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons alleged that his mother, sister, and extended family were Japanese citizens and residents. Additionally, it was noted that the applicant applied for a Japanese passport in December 2007, despite being born a U.S. citizen, and subsequently used it for international travel around 2008. The applicant also utilized Japanese healthcare benefits. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions C.1 and B.1.

However, several mitigating conditions were applied, including C.2, C.3, B.1, and B.2. The judge found that the applicant's Japanese passport was applied for by his parents when he was approximately 13 years old and has since been destroyed. Furthermore, the applicant's father is a U.S. citizen and retired Marine, which reinforced the applicant's loyalty to the United States.

The applicant consistently demonstrated his loyalty to the U.S., and the judge concluded that these mitigating circumstances outweighed the security concerns related to his foreign connections. Consequently, the applicant was granted security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's Japanese passport was applied for by his parents when he was approximately 13 years old and has since been destroyed.
The applicant's father is a U.S. citizen and retired Marine, reinforcing the applicant's loyalty to the U.S.
The applicant consistently demonstrated his loyalty to the United States.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C.1raisedForeign Preference
B.1raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

C.2appliedMitigating Condition 11(d) - the Passport Has Been Destroyed or Is No Longer Valid.
C.3appliedMitigating Condition 11(e) - the Applicant Has Not Used the Foreign Passport Since It Was Issued.
B.1appliedMitigating Condition 8(a) - the Family Member Is a U.S. Citizen.
B.2appliedMitigating Condition 8(b) - the Applicant Has Strong Ties to the U.S.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign preference and foreign influence do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 8, 2016via Video Teleconference
Decision dateDec 7, 2016

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline B and C
Consideration of Family Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Foreign Passport Usage on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 judge found that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by evidence of his loyalty to the United States and the circumstances surrounding his foreign ties. The applicant's mother, sister, and several extended family members are citizens and residents of Japan, but the judge concluded that these ties did not create doubt about his reliability or trustworthiness. The case was decided in favor of the applicant.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Military or Government Service

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s mother, sister and several extended family members are citizens and residents of Japan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Japan	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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b–1.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

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 judge found that the applicant had applied for a Japanese passport and used it for travel, which raised concerns under Guideline C regarding foreign preference. However, the applicant provided sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns, including the fact that the passport was applied for by his parents when he was a minor and has since been destroyed. The applicant's loyalty to the United States and his upbringing as a U.S. citizen were also considered favorably. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the security concerns were resolved and granted the application for security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	On December 21, 2007, Applicant applied for a Japanese passport, even though he was born a United States citizen.	For Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	—	(d) the exercise of the rights/privileges/obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	Documented Other
1.b	He used his Japanese passport in lieu of his United States passport to travel to another country in approximately 2008.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	(d) the exercise of the rights/privileges/obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	Documented Other
1.c	He utilized Japanese health care benefits.	For Applicant	Foreign Benefits or Education	Admitted	—	(d) the exercise of the rights/privileges/obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	Documented Other

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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07274 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Leon J. Schachter, Esq.

December 7, 2016

______________

DECISION

______________

JUDGE, Martin H. Mogul, Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 Format) on February 20, 2015. On June 6, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the Security Guideline C for Foreign Preference and Guideline B for Foreign Influence considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on August 24, 2016. The hearing was held by Video Teleconference as scheduled on November 8, 2016. On November 23, 2016, I proposed to the parties by email that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and written notice was provided that Department Counsel did not object.

The allegations concerning Guideline C were that on December 21, 2007, Applicant, who is currently 22 years of age, applied for a Japanese passport, even though he was born a United States citizen; that he used his Japanese passport in lieu of his United States passport to travel to another country in approximately 2008; and that he utilized Japanese health care benefits. The allegations concerning Guideline B were that Applicant’s mother, sister and several extended family members are citizens and residents of Japan. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guidelines C and B, with the exception that Applicant’s sister is currently a resident of the United States.

I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. I considered that Applicant’s Japanese passport was applied for by his parents when he was approximately 13 years of age, to be used on one occasion, and has since been destroyed; that Applicant’s father is a United States citizen and retired United States Marine; and that Applicant has been raised as a United States citizen, and consistently showed his loyalty to the United States. Therefore, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions under Guideline C: AG ¶¶ 11(d) and 11(e); and under Guideline B: AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign preference and foreign influence 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 whether or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant has 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.

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006, and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.