CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08593.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08593.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08593.h1

grantedSep 25, 2017· Hon. Philip J. Katauskas· hearing

Summary

A 74-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Australia, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited his past employment as a research scientist for an Australian government defense agency from 1962 until his 2002 retirement, his two adult children residing in Australia, and his receipt of an Australian government pension earned over 40 years of service.

The applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2014 and has lived in the U.S. for 14 years. While he socializes with former Australian colleagues during visits, these conversations do not involve his past or current work.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's strong ties to the United States, including substantial financial assets within the country. Character witnesses also affirmed his reliability and trustworthiness in handling classified information, ultimately outweighing the foreign influence and preference concerns.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen with significant ties to the United States.
He has lived in the U.S. for 14 years and has substantial financial assets in the country.
Character witnesses attested to his reliability and trustworthiness in handling classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedThe Nature of the Applicant's Ties to Foreign Countries
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedThe Applicant's Citizenship and Residence in the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedThe Applicant's Financial Interests in the U.S.
AG ¶ 11(e)appliedThe Applicant's Character and Reputation

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concerns over Applicant’s ties to Australia do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 4, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 8, 2017
Decision dateSep 25, 2017

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline B and C
Consideration of Personal and Financial Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Character References on Security Clearance Outcomes

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 ties to Australia, including his government pension and children residing there, did not raise significant security concerns. The applicant's long-term residence in the U.S., naturalization, and strong financial ties to the U.S. were considered mitigating factors. Ultimately, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Financial Assets Predominant · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant worked as a research scientist for an Australian government defense agency from 1962 until his retirement in 2002.	For Applicant	Foreign Employment or Pension Other GOVT-AFFILIATED	Australia	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. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.b	Applicant has two grown children who are citizens and residents of Australia.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Australia	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. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.c	Applicant's only significant financial link to Australia is his government pension earned after more than 40 years of government service.	For Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	Australia	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. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.d	Applicant socializes with friends and retired Agency co-workers when he visits Australia, but they do not converse about his former or current work.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Australia	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. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—

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, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Australia, had ties to Australia that raised security concerns under Guideline C. However, the judge found that the applicant's long-term residence in the U.S., his naturalization, and his financial and professional ties to the U.S. mitigated these concerns, leading to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2014.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests (b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference (f) the foreign preference, if detected, involves a foreign country/entity/association that poses a low national security risk (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	—
2.b	Applicant's only significant financial link to Australia is his government pension earned after more than 40 years of government service.	For Applicant	Foreign Benefits or Education	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests (b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference (f) the foreign preference, if detected, involves a foreign country/entity/association that poses a low national security risk (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	—
2.c	Applicant has two grown children who are citizens and residents of Australia.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests (b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference (f) the foreign preference, if detected, involves a foreign country/entity/association that poses a low national security risk (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	—

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. 15-08593 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert B. Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Kristen E. Ittig, Esq.

09/25/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

KATAUSKAS, Philip J., Administrative Judge:

On October 4, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging that his ties to Australia raised security concerns under Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline C (foreign preference).1 Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing to establish his eligibility for access to classified information.

On September 8, 2017, I convened a hearing. After my receipt of the transcript on September 18, 2017, I provided written notice to the parties of my intent to resolve the case through a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel indicated that the Government did not object to my proposed resolution of the matter in this fashion. See Appellate Exhibit I.

1 This action was taken under Executive Order (E.O.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within

Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2016). In this case, the SOR was issued Applicant is 74 years old and was born, raised, and educated in Australia. He earned his doctorate in Physics in January 1972. During the course of his education and following the award of his doctorate, Applicant worked as a research scientist for an Australian government defense agency (the “Agency”) from 1962 until his retirement in 2002. During his tenure at the Agency, he worked on the development of a specialized radar system. He became a subject matter expert on that system and was promoted to the civilian research scientist equivalent of a one-star general.

Upon his retirement, Applicant wished to remain professionally engaged in working on improvements to the radar system and wished to do so in the United States. He was put in contact with a U.S. Government Defense Agency (“AGA”) that was tasked with developing and improving the radar system with which Applicant had become an expert. Ultimately, the AGA recommended that Applicant take employment with the AGA’s principal defense contractor. In September 2003 Applicant moved to the United States and took employment with that defense contractor.

Applicant and his wife have lived in a metropolitan suburb, and since 2007 they reside in a home that they own. Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2014. Applicant’s only significant financial link to Australia is his government pension earned after more than 40 years of government service. That pension pays him about $43,000 annually and under Australian law may only be deposited in an Australian bank account. Its current value is about $480,000.2 In contrast, Applicant’s assets in the United States, which include his home and his two retirement accounts, total about $1,500,000.

Applicant has two grown children who are citizens and residents of Australia. His son is employed by the same Agency from which Applicant retired. Applicant does not know the details of his son’s work, and he and his son never “talk shop” about their respective work. His daughter is a retired accountant. Applicant socializes with friends and retired Agency co-workers when he visits Australia, but they do not converse about his former or current work.

Applicant’s character witness is a current employee of the AGA. His testimony and the eight written Declarations admitted into evidence attest to the esteem in which the witness and the declarants hold Applicant and to his sound character, reliability, and trustworthiness, particularly in the handling of classified material.

Applicant has lived in the United States for 14 years, is a naturalized citizen, and has personal, financial, and professional ties firmly rooted in this country. Under Guideline B and Guideline C, mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 8(a), (b), (f), and 11 (e) apply, respectively. The security concerns over Applicant’s ties to Australia 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 or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline B (Foreign Influence) For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.a-d: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline C (Foreign Preference) For Applicant

Subparagraphs 2.a-c: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of the record as a whole, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.

____________________ Philip J. Katauskas Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (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 June 8, 2017, apply here. The AG were published in the

under Adjudicative Guidelines effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006. My Decision and Formal Findings under the revised Guidelines B and C would not be different under the 2006 Guidelines. 2 Applicant’s spouse has an Australian bank account that is in her name only with a balance of about $16,000.