CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00058.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00058.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00058.h1

grantedJan 12, 2017· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a foreign national, sought a security clearance under Guidelines B and C concerning foreign influence and foreign preference. The applicant mitigated concerns by surrendering foreign ID cards, demonstrating infrequent contact with foreign relatives, and showing a significant financial interest in the U.S. The judge concluded that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness outweighed the security concerns, resulting in a granted decision.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has a foreign aunt, uncle, and cousins (1.a). Applicant has a financial interest in a foreign country (1.b). Applicant’s foreign “ID Cards” have been surrendered (1.a).

The judge granted the clearance. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 11(e). The decision turned on the following: Applicant surrendered foreign ID cards; Contact with foreign relatives is infrequent; Financial interests in the U.S. exceed minimal foreign financial ties.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant surrendered foreign ID cards.
Contact with foreign relatives is infrequent.
Financial interests in the U.S. exceed minimal foreign financial ties.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedThe Nature of the Foreign Influence Is Such That It Does Not Create Doubt About the Individual's Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Judgment.
AG ¶ 11(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Foreign Influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concerns are resolved under the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant timely answered the SOR.
Hearing heldNov 10, 2016Hearing was held as scheduled.
Decision dateJan 12, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Mitigation of 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.

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 the evidence presented. The applicant's infrequent contact with foreign relatives and significant financial interests in the U.S. contributed to the conclusion that granting security clearance was consistent with national interest.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Financial Assets Predominant

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a foreign aunt, uncle, and cousins.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	unspecified	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant has a financial interest in a foreign country.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Financial or Property Interest	unspecified	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed 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 resolved concerns regarding foreign preference. The applicant's foreign ID cards were surrendered, and the judge concluded that the applicant's ties to the United States outweighed any foreign interests. Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant met the burden of persuasion for security clearance eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s foreign “ID Cards” have been surrendered.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	Documented Other
1.b–1.f	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

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. 16-00058 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Lee Schachter, Esq. Applicant’s Counsel

January 12, 2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 Format) on June 5, 2015. On June 14, 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.1 The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as Guidelines B and C for foreign influence and foreign preference. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on September 12, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 10, 2016. At the close of the evidence and after closing arguments, I proposed to the parties 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 on December 14, 2016 provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant’s foreign “ID Cards” have been surrendered. Furthermore, Applicant’s contact with his aunt, uncle and cousins is infrequent, at best; and his financial interest in the United States far exceeds his $775 tax rebate from a foreign country. 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 B and C. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8(a), and 11(e).

The concerns over Applicant’s alleged 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 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 he 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 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.