ISCR Case 02-01126.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-01126.h1

grantedSep 16, 2004· Hon. Roger E. Willmeth· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old network administrator and U.S. citizen, originally from Argentina, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons detailed his ongoing connections to Argentina, including parents and a brother who are citizens and residents there, with whom he maintains regular contact and visits. He also served in the Argentine Coast Guard from April 1982 to April 1983.

Further foreign preference issues arose from his use of an Argentine passport for a visit to Argentina in May 2001, shortly after receiving a U.S. passport. He had also returned to Argentina on six occasions since 1992 for periods ranging from 10 days to two months. Disqualifying conditions were raised under E2.A2.1.2.1, E2.A2.1.2, and E2.A2.1.3.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He renounced his Argentine citizenship, addressing foreign preference issues. It was determined that his family members in Argentina were not agents of a foreign power, mitigating foreign influence concerns. Additionally, his past marijuana use, which ceased five years prior, was mitigated by demonstrated lifestyle changes and a clear intent to avoid future drug use. Mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1, E2.A2.1.3.2, E2.A8.1.3.1, and E2.A8.1.3.3 were applied, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant renounced his Argentine citizenship, mitigating foreign preference concerns.
Family members in Argentina are not agents of a foreign power, mitigating foreign influence concerns.
Past marijuana use ended five years ago, and applicant demonstrated intent not to use drugs in the future.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.2raisedForeign Preference - Possession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport
E2.A2.1.3raisedForeign Preference - Military Service for a Foreign Country

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Preference - Dual Citizenship Based Solely on Parents' Citizenship or Birth in a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.3.2appliedForeign Preference - Military Service Occurred Before Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
E2.A8.1.3.1appliedDrug Involvement - Drug Involvement Was Not Recent
E2.A8.1.3.3appliedDrug Involvement - Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the Future

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 9, 2003
Answer filedOct 8, 2003
Hearing heldMar 11, 2004
Decision dateSep 16, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Preference Concerns Due to Renunciation of Citizenship
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns When Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Based on Time Elapsed and Lifestyle Changes

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's parents are citizens and residents of Argentina. They own and operate a small store. Applicant maintains biweekly contact with them by both e-mail and telephone. He visits them when he returns to Argentina and they have visited him in the United States.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Argentina	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.b	Applicant's brother is a citizen and resident of Argentina. He owns and operates a small insurance agency. Applicant maintains semiannual telephonic contact with his brother and visits him when he returns to Argentina.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Argentina	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.c–1.e	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's parents are citizens and residents of Argentina. They own and operate a small store. Applicant maintains biweekly contact with them by both e-mail and telephone. He visits them when he returns to Argentina and they have visited him in the United States.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Argentina

Unknown

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

1.b

Applicant's brother is a citizen and resident of Argentina. He owns and operates a small insurance agency. Applicant maintains semiannual telephonic contact with his brother and visits him when he returns to Argentina.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Argentina

Unknown

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

1.c–1.e

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant was drafted and served in the Argentine Coast Guard from April 1982 until April 1983 (SOR ¶ 2.b).	For Applicant	Foreign Military or Government Service	Admitted	(c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.	(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference	—
2.c	On May 16, 2001, a U.S. passport was issued to Applicant. Later that same month, he returned to Argentina for a visit using his Argentine passport (SOR ¶ 2.c).	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	—	—
2.d	Since 1992, he has returned to Argentina for periods of 10 days to two months on six occasions (SOR ¶ 2.d).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Unknown

—

2.b

Applicant was drafted and served in the Argentine Coast Guard from April 1982 until April 1983 (SOR ¶ 2.b).

For Applicant

Foreign Military or Government Service

Admitted

(c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.

(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference

—

2.c

On May 16, 2001, a U.S. passport was issued to Applicant. Later that same month, he returned to Argentina for a visit using his Argentine passport (SOR ¶ 2.c).

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

—

2.d

Since 1992, he has returned to Argentina for periods of 10 days to two months on six occasions (SOR ¶ 2.d).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES