ISCR Case No. 16-00940.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00940 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Gatha Manns, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Leon J. Schachter, Esq.

08/11/2017 ______________

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

On September 12, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence.1 Applicant responded to the SOR on October 25, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on March 13, 2017, and reassigned to me on June 7, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on July 12, 2017. On August 8, 2017, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant is a native-born U.S. citizen who has spent much of the last ten-plus years living and working overseas for defense contractors. He met his wife, a citizen of Thailand, while on vacation in Thailand. They married in 2014. They have a child who is a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s wife lives on her family’s farm in Thailand with her parents. Other extended family members live in close proximity to the farm. None of Applicant’s in-laws have any direct connection to the Thailand government. Applicant sends his wife support, part of which she used to buy livestock for the farm. Those animals have since been sold or eaten. Applicant delayed filing a visa application for his wife while she was pregnant and his child was very young. His job requires extensive travel throughout the world, and she cannot be with him on his travels. It was better to leave her in Thailand with her support system. His wife’s visa and alien registration application was submitted in June 2017. She will immigrate to the United States with their child as soon as her visa is approved.

I considered the totality of Applicant’s ties to Thailand. I also considered the nature of the Thailand government, its human rights record, its relationships with China and the United States, and the risk of terrorism. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) have been raised by the evidence. However, Applicant’s ties to Thailand are outweighed by his deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States. I find that it is unlikely Applicant will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of the United States and the interests of Thailand. There is no conflict of interest, because Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United States. AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b) are applicable.

The concerns over Applicant’s foreign connections 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. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines, which became effective on June 8, 2017.