Summary
The applicant, a 48-year-old U.S. citizen and defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines B and C due to possession of a Dutch passport and dual citizenship. The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns by destroying the passport and demonstrating strong ties to the U.S., ultimately granting him a security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: It is alleged in the SOR that as of September 17, 2007, Applicant possessed a passport from the Netherlands (Dutch passport), which was issued on February 7, 2007, and is not scheduled to expire until February 17, 2012. At the hearing Applicant admitted that he still possessed a Dutch passport (1.a). Applicant applied for and was issued a Dutch passport on February 7, 2007, even though he is a United States citizen by birth. Applicant first received his Dutch passport in 1981. He was able to do this since his father was born in Netherlands. At the time he applied, he was living in England, while working for an American company. Applicant has never used this current passport or the one he received before that. In 1981 he first received a passport from Netherlands, which he used while traveling throughout Europe (1.b). Applicant applied for and was granted citizenship from Netherlands in 1981, during the period that he was living and working in England from 1981 to 1994. Applicant indicated at the hearing that he was not willing to renounce his Dutch citizenship, as he would like to maintain the option of one day in the future moving back to Europe (1.c). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant exercised dual citizenship with Netherlands and the United States, because of allegations 1.a., through 1.c., listed above. Applicant contends that he has not engaged in any of the responsibilities or duties of being a Dutch citizen, as he has never lived in Netherlands, nor voted in a Dutch election. He also owns no property in Netherlands or any other country outside of the United States (1.d). Applicant maintains a British retirement account that was opened during the period that he worked in England. The account now has a value of close to $20,000. Applicant testified that he does not have access to this account until he turns 64, but the account is of little consequence to him (1.e). As of September 17, 2007, Applicant possessed a passport from the Netherlands (Dutch passport), which was issued on February 7, 2007, and is not scheduled to expire until February 17, 2012. At the hearing Applicant admitted that he still possessed a Dutch passport (1.a). Applicant applied for and was issued a Dutch passport on February 7, 2007, even though he is a United States citizen by birth. Applicant first received his Dutch passport in 1981. He was able to do this since his father was born in Netherlands. At the time he applied, he was living in England, while working for an American company (1.b). Applicant applied for and was granted citizenship from Netherlands in 1981, during the period that he was living and working in England from 1981 to 1994. Applicant indicated at the hearing that he was not willing to renounce his Dutch citizenship, as he would like to maintain the option of one day in the future moving back to Europe (1.c). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant exercised dual citizenship with Netherlands and the United States, because of allegations 1.a., through 1.c., listed above. Applicant contends that he has not engaged in any of the responsibilities or duties of being a Dutch citizen, as he has never lived in Netherlands, nor voted in a Dutch election. He also owns no property in Netherlands or any other country outside of the United States (1.d). Applicant maintains a British retirement account that was opened during the period that he worked in England. The account now has a value of close to $20,000. Applicant testified that he does not have access to this account until he turns 64, but the account is of little consequence to him (1.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 10 (a) (1), DC 10 (b). The judge applied mitigating conditions MC (e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant destroyed his Dutch passport, mitigating foreign preference concerns; He has lived in the U.S. for the last 14 years and has significant assets in the U.S; The applicant's wife and son are U.S. citizens, reinforcing his ties to the country.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant destroyed his Dutch passport, mitigating foreign preference concerns.
- He has lived in the U.S. for the last 14 years and has significant assets in the U.S.
- The applicant's wife and son are U.S. citizens, reinforcing his ties to the country.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 10 (a) (1)raisedExercise of Foreign Citizenship Privilege
- DC 10 (b)raisedAcquisition of Foreign Citizenship
- MC (e)appliedPossession of a Foreign Passport Has Been Invalidated
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 19, 2007
- Answer filedNov 29, 2007
- Hearing heldMar 5, 2008in San Diego, California
- Decision dateMar 20, 2008
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Preference Concerns Through Destruction of Foreign Passport
- Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- Importance of U.S. Citizenship Ties in Security Clearance Evaluations