CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00524.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00524.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00524.h1

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

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant facing concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference) due to foreign ties. The Statement of Reasons initially cited the applicant's retired mother-in-law, who is a foreign citizen, an unsold foreign property interest, and an unsurrendered foreign passport. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 6(a) and ¶ 6(b).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He signed a written declaration affirming he would not exercise any foreign citizenship rights, benefits, privileges, or obligations while holding a security clearance. Furthermore, his foreign passport was personally destroyed by a Facility Security Officer.

The applicant also demonstrated that he rarely speaks to his retired mother-in-law and sold his foreign property interest. These actions applied mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 8(a) and ¶ 11(e). Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence, and the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant signed a declaration affirming he would not exercise foreign rights while holding a security clearance.
His foreign passport was destroyed by a Facility Security Officer.
Applicant sold his foreign property interest and has minimal contact with his retired mother-in-law.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Preference
AG ¶ 6(b)raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedMitigating Condition: the Individual Has Expressed a Willingness to Renounce Dual Citizenship.
AG ¶ 11(e)appliedMitigating Condition: the Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate the Foreign Influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8(a), and 11(e).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 17, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 10, 2016
Decision dateJan 12, 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.

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 his actions, including the destruction of his foreign passport and the sale of his foreign property interest. The applicant's limited contact with his retired mother-in-law and his established trustworthiness contributed to the decision to grant him security clearance.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a retired mother-in-law who is a citizen of a foreign country.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	—	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Documented Severed Foreign Contact
1.b	Applicant has a foreign property interest that he has not sold.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	—	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Documented Foreign Assets Divested
1.c	Applicant has a foreign passport that he has not surrendered.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Documented Foreign Passport Surrendered

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 by demonstrating a commitment to not exercise foreign rights while holding a security clearance. The applicant's foreign passport was destroyed, and he had sold his foreign property interest, contributing to a favorable assessment of his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has signed a written declaration affirming that he “will not exercise any rights, benefits, privileges, or obligations as a citizen of a foreign country while holding a security clearance . . . .”	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	His foreign passport was “personally destroyed” by a Facility Security Officer.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	Documented Other
1.c	Applicant rarely speaks to his retired mother-in-law, and has sold his foreign property interest.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	(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. 16-00524 ) 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 April 22, 2015. On June 17, 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 October 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 provided written notice on December 14, 2016 that Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant has signed a written declaration affirming that he “will not exercise any rights, benefits, privileges, or obligations as a citizen of a foreign country while holding a security clearance . . . .” His foreign passport was “personally destroyed” by a Facility Security Officer. Furthermore, Applicant rarely speaks to his retired mother-in-law, and has sold his foreign property interest. Applicant has held a clearance for more than five years without incident, and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. 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.