ISCR Case 03-18112.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-18112.h1

deniedMay 16, 2005· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A U.S. naturalized citizen with dual Swiss citizenship was denied a security clearance based on Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant's use of a Swiss passport for convenience and stated preference for Switzerland over the U.S. were central to the foreign preference concerns.

Foreign influence concerns arose from the applicant's extensive family ties in Switzerland. His parents and one brother are dual citizens residing in the U.S. and Denmark, respectively, while another brother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are citizens and residents of Switzerland.

Additionally, the applicant's drug involvement was a significant factor. He admitted to using marijuana from approximately 1995 until at least April 2003, and ecstasy on at least three occasions between 1995 and August 2002. Crucially, his expressed intention to continue using marijuana invoked the Smith Amendment, which mandates preclusion from holding a security clearance. Due to these combined factors, the clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant retained and used his Swiss passport, indicating a preference for Switzerland over the U.S.
Applicant's family members in Switzerland posed potential foreign influence concerns due to their citizenship and residency.
Applicant's past marijuana use and expressed intention to continue using it invoked the Smith Amendment's mandatory preclusion.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A3.1.2.1raisedThe Exercise of Dual Citizenship
E2.A3.1.2.2raisedThe Possession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedIllegal Drug Possession, Including Cultivation, Processing, Manufacture, Purchase, Sale, or Distribution
E2.A8.1.2.5raisedFailure to Successfully Complete a Drug Treatment Program Prescribed by a Credentialed Medical Professional

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedA Determination That the Immediate Family Members, Co-habitant or Associate 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 Persons Involved and the United States

Key Rule Quoted

“The exercise of choice to retain and use his Swiss passport out of a desire to preserve his options when traveling abroad is itself a voluntary election, not a submission to legal compulsion.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 8, 2004
Answer filedJun 26, 2004Applicant elected to have his case decided on the basis of the written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateMay 16, 2005

Cite For

Foreign Preference Concerns Due to Dual Citizenship
Foreign Influence Risks Associated with Family Ties Abroad
Smith Amendment's Application Regarding Drug Use

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
2.a	His parents are dual citizens of Switzerland and the U.S. and currently reside in the U.S.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Switzerland	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
2.b	One brother is a dual citizen of Switzerland and the U.S. and currently resides in Denmark.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Denmark	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
2.c	Another brother is a citizen and resident of Switzerland.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Switzerland	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
2.d	His grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are citizens and residents of Switzerland.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Switzerland	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

His parents are dual citizens of Switzerland and the U.S. and currently reside in the U.S.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Switzerland

Admitted

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

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

2.b

One brother is a dual citizen of Switzerland and the U.S. and currently resides in Denmark.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Denmark

Admitted

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

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

2.c

Another brother is a citizen and resident of Switzerland.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Switzerland

Admitted

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

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

2.d

His grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are citizens and residents of Switzerland.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Switzerland

Admitted

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

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has exercised dual citizenship between Switzerland and the U.S.	Against Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	(e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law	—	—
1.b	Applicant possesses and uses a Swiss passport when it is more convenient than using his U.S. passport.	Against Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has exercised dual citizenship between Switzerland and the U.S.

Against Applicant

Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application

Admitted

(e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law

—

1.b

Applicant possesses and uses a Swiss passport when it is more convenient than using his U.S. passport.

Against Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	used marijuana in varying frequency from about 1995 until at least April 2003	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	used ecstasy on at least three occasions between about 1995 and August 2002	Against Applicant	MDMA	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	intended to continue using marijuana	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

used marijuana in varying frequency from about 1995 until at least April 2003

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

3.b

used ecstasy on at least three occasions between about 1995 and August 2002

Against Applicant

MDMA

Occasional

Admitted

—

3.c

intended to continue using marijuana

Against Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Denied

—

3.d

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES