CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-04907.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-04907.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-04907.h1

deniedNov 6, 2003· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 24-year-old business development analyst, holding dual citizenship with the United States and Russia, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The applicant's retention of his Russian passport and refusal to renounce his Russian citizenship were key factors, indicating a preference for a foreign country over the United States.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's immediate family members, including his mother and grandparents, who are citizens of and reside in Russia. This situation created potential foreign influence risks, as outlined in disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2.1, E2.A3.1.2.1, and E2.A3.1.2.2.

While mitigating condition E2.A2.1.3.1 was considered, it was insufficient to overcome the identified security risks. The applicant's continued ties to Russia, through both citizenship and close family residency, ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant retained his Russian passport and refused to renounce his Russian citizenship, indicating a preference for a foreign country over the United States.
Applicant's immediate family members, including his mother and grandparents, are citizens of and reside in Russia, creating potential foreign influence concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1appliedImmediate Family Member Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country.
E2.A3.1.2.1raisedThe Exercise of Dual Citizenship.
E2.A3.1.2.2raisedPossession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power or in a Position to Be Exploited by a Foreign Power.The applicant's close family members in Russia could be subject to duress.

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 5, 2003
Answer filedMar 10, 2003Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateNov 6, 2003

Cite For

Foreign Preference Concerns Due to Dual Citizenship
Foreign Influence Risks From Family Members Residing Abroad
Impact of Retaining a Foreign Passport on Security Clearance Eligibility

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on foreign influence concerns due to the applicant's close family members residing in Russia, including his mother and maternal grandparents, who could be subject to foreign influence. The applicant's admissions regarding his foreign citizenship and the refusal to renounce his Russian citizenship contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a–1.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	—		—	—	—

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant's actions indicated a preference for a foreign country over the United States, particularly due to his retention of a Russian passport and refusal to renounce his Russian citizenship. The applicant's family ties to Russia further contributed to the concerns regarding foreign preference, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a–2.h	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (4 against, 4 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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

DATE: November 6, 2003

In Re:

-------------------------

SSN: ------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-04907

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MARTIN H. MOGUL

SYNOPSIS

Applicant has failed to fulfill the requirements of the Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, dated August 16, 2000, entitled "Guidance to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of the Foreign Preference Adjudicative Guideline" (Money Memorandum) by refusing to return his current Russian passport to the Russian Government. Additionally, he has stated that he has no intention of renouncing his Russian citizenship. Finally, his mother, maternal grandparents, and at least 10 other relatives are citizens of and reside in Russia. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended by Executive Orders 10909, 11328 and 12829) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992 (as amended by Change 4), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated February 5, 2003, to the Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked. The SOR was based on foreign preference (guideline C) related to his exercise of dual citizenship with the United States and Russia, his intention to continue to retain a Russian passport and continue to use it for travel; and on foreign influence (guideline B) concerns because of the foreign residency and/or citizenship of close family members (wife, mother, father, grandparents and other relatives).

In a signed and sworn statement, dated March 10, 2003, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations. He requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On May 9, 2003, Department Counsel submitted the Department's written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and he was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant had until June 27, 2003, to file a response to the FORM, but no response was received. The case was assigned to me on July 10, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist under Adjudicative Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of the Directive. The SOR contains two allegations, 1.a. and 1.b., under Guideline C, and eight allegations, 2.a. through 2.h. under Guideline B. Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. Those admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact.

After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's Answer to the SOR and the documents, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact:

Applicant is 24 years old, married, and is employed as a business development analyst by a United States defense contractor.

Paragraph 1 (Guideline C - Foreign Preference). The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has acted in such a way as to indicate a preference for another country over the United States.

Applicant was born in Moscow, Russia. He moved to the United States in 1995, and he became a United States citizen in 1998. In a sworn statement, made to the Defense Security Service, and signed by the Applicant on January 14, 2002, he stated that he would not renounce his Russian citizenship. (Exhibit 6.) In the year 2000, Applicant renewed his Russian passport after he had lost the previous one, and his current passport does not expire until March 2005. He continues to retain his current Russian passport. Applicant stated that he was not willing to relinquish his Russian passport. He stated that he would neither renounce his Russian citizenship nor relinquish his current Russian passport because "the benefit does not justify the cost."(Exhibit 6.)

Paragraph 2 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence). The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has immediate family members or people to whom he may be bound by affection or obligation who are not citizens of the United States, or may be subject to duress.

Applicant's mother, maternal grandparents, and at least 10 other relatives are citizens of and reside in Russia. His father and wife are dual citizens of Russia and the United States and reside in the United States. Applicant has weekly telephone contact with his mother and grandparents.

POLICIES

The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a person is an acceptable security risk. Enclosure 2 to the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be carefully considered according to the pertinent criterion in making the overall common sense determination required. Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the motivation of the individual applicant and extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences involved; the absence or presence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the potential for coercion, exploitation and duress; and the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. See Directive 5220.6, Section 6.3 and Enclosure 2, Section E2.2. Because each security case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility or emotionally unstable behavior. See Directive 5220.6, Enclosure 2, Section E2.2.4.

Considering the evidence as a whole, this Administrative Judge finds the following adjudicative guidelines to be most pertinent to this case: Foreign Preference

E2.A3.1.1. The Concern: When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.

E2.A3.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

E2.A3.1.2.1 The exercise of dual citizenship.

E2.A3.1.2.2. Possession and/or use of a foreign passport.

Foreign Influence

E2.A2.1.1. The Concern: A security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. These situations could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information. Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries are also relevant to security determinations if they make an individual potentially vulnerable to coercion, exploitation or pressure.

E2.A2.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

E2.A2.1.2.1. An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country.

E2.A2.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

E2.A2.1.3.1. A determination that the immediate family member(s), (spouse, father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters), cohabitant, or associate(s) in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States.

Under the provisions of Executive Order 10865 as amended and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an applicant's clearance may be made only upon an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest. In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense determination required, the Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences and conclusions which have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. In addition, as the trier of fact, the Administrative Judge must make critical judgments as to the credibility of witnesses. Decisions under the Directive include consideration of the potential as well as the actual risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to properly safeguard classified information.

Burden of Proof

Initially, the Government has the burden of proving any controverted fact(s) alleged in the Statement of Reasons. If the Government meets its burden and establishes conduct cognizable as a security concern under the Directive, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to present evidence in refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of criterion conduct, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where the facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security. See Enclosure 2 to the Directive, Section E2.2.2.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and factors, and having assessed the credibility of those who testified, I conclude the following with respect to guidelines C and B:

Guideline C is based on actions taken by an individual which indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States. Applicant's renewal of his Russian passport and his refusal to relinquish this current passport raises serious foreign preference (Guideline C) concerns. They are a clear violation of the oney Memorandum, and therefore Applicant is absolutely barred from retaining a security clearance. Applicant's stated unwillingness to renounce his Russian citizenship must also be considered adversely to Applicant.

Under Guideline B, a security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he is bound by affection, influence or obligation, are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. Disqualifying condition E2.A2.1.2.1., an immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country, must be considered in assessing Applicant's current suitability for access to classified information. Applicant's mother and maternal grandparents, who still reside in Russia, and with whom he has weekly telephone conversations, are a great risk of being in a position to be exploited by a foreign power.

The security concerns engendered by the foreign citizenship and/or residency of such close family members may be mitigated where it can be determined that the immediate family member(s), cohabitant, or associate(s) in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force an individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States (E2.A2.1.3.1.) Applicant's wife and father, who reside in the United States, are far less of a threat. I do not consider his relatives in Israel to be a threat either.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings as required by Section 3. Paragraph 7 of Enclosure 1 to the Directive are hereby rendered as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline B: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1. a.: Against the Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline C: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: For the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: For the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.c.: Against the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.d.: For the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.e.: Against the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.f.: Against the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.g.: For the Applicant

Subparagraph 2.h.: Against the Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.

Martin H. Mogul

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-04907.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-04907.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:49:16 AM] 02-04907.h1