ISCR Case No. 16-00817.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00817 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Eric Eisner, Esq. 06/23/2017 ______________

______________

NOEL, Nichole, Administrative Judge:

On August 5, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the foreign influence guideline.1 DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s security clearance and recommended that the case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether to revoke her security clearance. Applicant timely responded to the SOR and requested a hearing. The hearing was held on June 8, 2017. After the close of the record, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Neither party objected.

The SOR alleged that Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen, has four relatives who are residents and citizens of India: his brother and sister and his parents-in-law. The Government presented sufficient evidence to establish its prima facie case that these relationships create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion under AG ¶ 7(a). However, Applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns.

The positions and activities of Applicant's relatives makes it unlikely that he will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of his foreign family members and those of the United States. Applicant's brother and sister reside in Applicant's hometown, a farming community in Southern India. His brother is a farmer. Applicant's sister, a widow, does not work and is supported by Applicant's brother. Applicant's father-in-law retired from a position at a utility company. His mother-in-law has not work outside the home. Applicant does not provide any financial assistance to his Indian relatives.

Also, Applicant presented evidence of such deep and long-standing ties to the United States that he can be expected to resolve any conflicts in favor of U.S interests. Applicant’s wife and daughter are also naturalized U.S. citizens. The couple has prioritized remaining close to their daughter, who has no intention of returning to India to live. Applicant’s financial interests are overwhelmingly held in U.S.-based assets. Comparatively, Applicant's lone India-based asset is only 6% of his overall financial portfolio. It is unlikely that the asset could be used to influence, manipulate, or pressure Applicant. Mitigating Conditions 8(a), 8(b), 8(f) apply.

Applicant’s foreign relationships 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 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.

Nichole L. Noel Administrative Judge

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended; as well as DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). This case was adjudicated under Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006. While the case was pending decision, the Security Executive Agent Directive 4 was issued establishing the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The 2017 AG superseded those implemented in September 2006, and they are effective for any adjudication made on after June 8, 2017.