CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-00152.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-00152.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-00152.h1

grantedFeb 9, 2006· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance after addressing concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons noted his prior service in the Israeli Defense Force from 1976 to 1981, before he became a naturalized U.S. citizen. It also cited his applications for Israeli passports in 1991 and 2001, and his use of an unsigned Israeli passport along with a valid American passport for travel to Israel in 2001.

The Applicant had traveled to Israel in 1988 for his father's funeral and in 1989 and 1990 to settle his father's estate, but stated he plans no future trips. To mitigate concerns, he renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport in compliance with the Money Memorandum.

The Administrative Judge found that the Applicant successfully mitigated the government's concerns. His foreign military service occurred prior to his U.S. naturalization, and he has no remaining familial connections to Israel. Consequently, no disqualifying conditions under Guideline B were applicable, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport, demonstrating compliance with the Money Memorandum.
The Applicant's foreign military service occurred before obtaining U.S. citizenship, mitigating concerns under Guideline C.
No disqualifying conditions under Guideline B were applicable, as the Applicant had no remaining familial connections to Israel.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C.1raisedDual Citizenship
C.2raisedPossession of a Foreign Passport
C.3raisedMilitary Service for a Foreign Country

Mitigating

C.2appliedForeign Military Service Occurred Before Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
C.3appliedSurrendered Foreign Passport
B.1appliedNo Foreign Influence Due to Lack of Familial Connections

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who has demonstrated a Foreign Preference or who is subject to a Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 26, 2005
Answer filedSep 19, 2005
Hearing heldDec 6, 2005
Decision dateFeb 9, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Preference Under Guideline C Due to Renunciation of Citizenship
Absence of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B Due to Lack of Familial Ties
Impact of Prior Military Service 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: granted

The judge found no applicable disqualifying conditions under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) for the applicant, who had renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport. The applicant's past connections to Israel were mitigated by his compliance with U.S. citizenship requirements and the absence of familial ties to Israel. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding foreign influence concerns.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a–2.b	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

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: granted

The Applicant renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport, demonstrating compliance with foreign preference guidelines. He served in the Israeli Defense Force prior to becoming a naturalized American citizen. The judge found that the Applicant mitigated concerns regarding foreign preference, leading to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Prior to coming to the U.S., the Applicant served in the Israeli Defense Force from 1976~1981.	For Applicant	Foreign Military or Government Service	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.	(g) civil employment or military service was authorized under U.S. law or otherwise consented to as required by U.S. law	—
1.b	The Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	(f) the foreign preference, if detected, involves a foreign country/entity/association that poses a low national security risk	—
1.c	The Applicant applied for Israeli passports in 1991 and again in 2001.	For Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.d	The Applicant used an unsigned Israeli passport and a valid American passport to enter and exit Israel in 2001.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.	—	—
2.a	The Applicant traveled to Israel in 1988 to attend his father's funeral, and in 1989 and 1990 to settle his father's estate.	For Applicant	Foreign Voting	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The Applicant plans no future trips to Israel.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	—	—

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: February 9, 2006

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

CR Case No. 05-00152

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

RICHARD A. CEFOLA

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum ("Guide to DoD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) Clarifying the Application of Foreign Preference Adjudication Guidelines," dated September 1, 2000). He served in the Israeli Defense Force prior to his emigrating to the U.S. and becoming a naturalized American. The Applicant traveled to Israel in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 2001. He plans no future trip to Israel. The Applicant has no remaining familial connections to Israel, and none are alleged under Guideline B. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 26, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the 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 and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on September 19, 2005.

The case was received by the undersigned on October 20, 2005. A notice of hearing was issued on November 14, 2005, and the case was heard on December 6, 2005. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary evidence. The transcript (TR) was received on December 15, 2005. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's perceived Foreign Preference and alluded to Foreign Influence militates against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis of all of the allegations as amended by the Government.]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony. The Applicant is 50 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Guideline C - Foreign Preference & Guideline B - Foreign Influence (1)

The Applicant "came to the United States in 1981 to finish . . . [his] degree" (TR at page 28 line 8 to page 29 line 18). He was naturalized as an American citizen in 1988 (TR at page 33 line 24 to page 34 line 3).

1.a.~1.d. and 2.a. and 2.b. Prior to coming to the U.S., the Applicant served in the Israeli Defense Force from 1976–1981 (TR at page 35 line 22 to page 36 line 4, and at page 39 line 21 to page 41 line 4). The Applicant traveled to Israel in 1988 to attend his father's funeral, and in 1989 and 1990 to settle his father's estate (TR at page 35 lines 16–21). The Applicant also applied for Israeli passports in 1991 and again in 2001 (TR at page 29 line 19 to page 30 line 21, at page 33 lines 8–23, and at page 34 line 11 to page 35 line 14). He had no valid Israeli passport from 1996–2001 (Id). In 2001, he traveled to Israel to show his non-Israeli American wife the country of his birth (TR at page 41 line 5 to page 43 line 9). He used an unsigned Israeli passport and a valid American passport to enter and exit Israel in 2001 (Id, and Applicant Exhibit (AppX) A at page 3). The Applicant plans no future trips to Israel (Ibid). The Applicant has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and has surrendered his Israeli passport in Compliance with the Money Memorandum (TR at page 30 line 22 to page 33 line 7, and AppXs C~H).

Mitigation

The Applicant's colleagues, who work at the highest of levels of a research laboratory, to include a retired Lieutenant General, think most highly of the Applicant and would recommend him to a position of trust (AppXs N~P).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:

a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding circumstances.

b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.

c. Age and maturity of the applicant.

d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved.

e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.

f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.

The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.

The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference), which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required. Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past disqualifying conduct, is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.

An individual who has demonstrated a Foreign Preference or who is subject to a Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations, at all times and in all places.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant was a dual national with Israel, and until recently maintained an unsigned Israeli passport. The first and second disqualifying conditions under Foreign Preference are therefore applicable as there was an "exercise of dual citizenship," with the "possession . . . of a foreign passport." This is countered, however, by his compliance with both the last mitigating condition, when he renounced his Israeli citizenship; and by his compliance with the Money emorandum, when he surrendered his Israeli passport. He also served in the Israeli Defense Force, which brings him within the purview of the third disqualifying condition, "[m]ilitary service . . . for a foreign country." The countervailing second mitigating condition is applicable, however, as his "foreign military service . . . occurred before obtaining United States citizenship." Mitigation is shown. Guideline C is found for the Applicant.

As to the Applicant alleged Foreign Influence, I can find none, as none of the disqualifying conditions under Foreign Influence are applicable. Guideline B is also found for the Applicant.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his alleged Foreign Preference and Foreign Influence. The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guidelines B and C, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guidelines B and C

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant.

b. For the Applicant.

c. For the Applicant.

d. For the Applicant.

Paragraph 2: FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant.

b. For the Applicant.

Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

1. Paragraph 2 of the SOR is improperly alleged. Subparagraph 2.a. refers to travel to Israel, and subparagraph 2.b. refers to service in the Israeli Defense Force. Both subparagraphs should have been more appropriately alleged under Foreign Preference; and as such, will be discussed in that context.

FOOTNOTES

05-00152.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Candace Le'i, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-00152.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:41:26 PM] 05-00152.h1