CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-04765.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-04765.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-04765.h1

grantedDec 29, 2005· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 73-year-old native-born American and former U.S. Army officer was granted a security clearance after addressing concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Applicant had previously obtained Israeli citizenship and an Israeli passport in 1995 as a condition of employment with an Israeli firm, where he also voted in a local mayoral election and received a small pension.

To mitigate these concerns, the Applicant renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport, demonstrating compliance with the Money Memorandum. The Administrative Judge determined that his distant relatives in Israel did not pose a security risk, as they were not considered immediate family members.

Furthermore, the Applicant's financial ties to Israel, including a small pension, were deemed insignificant when compared to his substantial income and net worth in the U.S. Based on these mitigating factors, 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 distant relatives in Israel were not considered immediate family members, reducing Foreign Influence concerns.
The Applicant's financial ties to Israel were deemed insignificant compared to his substantial income and net worth in the U.S.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C.1raisedDual Citizenship
C.2raisedPossession of a Foreign Passport
B.1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family
B.2raisedForeign Influence - Financial Interest

Mitigating

C.3appliedRenunciation of Foreign Citizenship
C.4appliedSurrender of Foreign Passport
B.3appliedDistant Relatives
B.4appliedInsignificant Financial Interest

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 3, 2005
Answer filedAug 1, 2005
Hearing heldOct 20, 2005
Decision dateDec 29, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Preference Under Guideline C Due to Renunciation of Citizenship
Distant Relatives Not Constituting Immediate Family Under Guideline B
Insignificant Financial Interest Mitigating Foreign Influence Concerns

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 that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by his renunciation of Israeli citizenship and surrender of his Israeli passport. The applicant's limited contact with distant relatives in Israel and the insignificance of his pension from Israeli employment further supported the decision. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding foreign influence.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a–2.e	5 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 had previously held dual citizenship with Israel and possessed an Israeli passport, but he has since renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his passport. He voted in a local election while living in Israel. The judge found that the Applicant's actions demonstrated compliance with the guidelines, and mitigation was established, leading to a favorable decision for the Applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant is a native born American, who served as an officer in the U.S. Army for two years in the 1950s.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (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.	—	—
1.b	In 1995, he became an Israeli citizen, as a condition of employment, and obtained an Israeli passport, when working for an Israeli firm in Israel.	For Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (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.	—	—
1.c	The Applicant has recently renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (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.d	While living in Israel, the Applicant also voted in a local mayoral election.	For Applicant	Foreign Voting	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (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.	—	—

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: December 29, 2005

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

CR Case No. 05-04765

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). From 1991 to 2003, he worked in Israel, as a dual national, for an Israeli firm, working on a joint project with an American firm for the U.S. Army. He receives a $250 monthly pension as a result of this employment. He also voted in a local mayoral election. He has little contact with an elderly cousin and her spouse, who are citizens and reside in Israel. The Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis these distant relatives. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 3, 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 soon thereafter.

The case was received by the undersigned on September 22, 2005. A notice of hearing was issued on September 28, 2005, and the case was heard on October 20, 2005. The Government submitted documentary evidence. The Applicant called one witness to testify on his behalf, testified himself, and submitted documentary evidence. The transcript (TR) was received on November 3, 2005. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's perceived Foreign Preference and Foreign Influence militate against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis of all of the allegations.]

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 73 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

1.a.~1.d. The Applicant is a native born American, who served as an officer in the U.S. Army for two years in the 1950s (TR at page 45 lines 12–16, and Government Exhibit (GX) 1 at pages 1 and 4). In 1995, he became an Israeli citizen, as a condition of employment, and obtained an Israeli passport, when working for an Israeli firm in Israel (TR at page 32 line 16 to page 33 line 16, at page 39 line 21 to page 40 line 16, and at page 41 lines 19–24). The Applicant has recently renounced his Israeli citizenship and surrendered his Israeli passport (Applicant' Exhibit (AppX) A). While living in Israel, the Applicant also voted in a local mayoral election (TR at page 35 line 17 to page 36 line 3, and at page 42 lines 3–11).

Guideline B - Foreign Influence

2.a.~2.e. The Applicant was employed by an American firm in Israel for two years from 1964–1965 (TR at page 22 line 23 to page 24 line 20). From 1991 to 2003, he also worked in Israel, as a dual national, for an Israeli firm, working on a joint project with an American firm for the U.S. Army (TR at page 27 line 11 to page 31 line 3). He receives a $250 monthly pension as a result of this employment (TR at page 36 line 18 to page 37 line 8, and at page 43 line 17 to page 44 line 15). This small monthly stipend is insignificant considering the Applicant's annual salary, $123,000, and net worth in the U.S. (Id). The Applicant has little contact with an elderly cousin and her spouse, who are citizens and reside in Israel (TR at page 34 line 13 to page 35 line 16).

Mitigation

Those who know, supervise and/or work with the Applicant think most highly of him (TR at page 14 line 24 to page 19 line 12, and AppX B). He has their unqualified support, and they would recommend the Applicant for a position of trust ((Id).

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 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 his countered, however, by his compliance with both the last mitigating condition, when he renounced his Israeli citizenship; and by his compliance with the Money Memorandum, when he surrendered his Israeli passport. Mitigation is shown. Guideline C is found for the Applicant.

The Applicant's cousin and her spouse are citizens of and reside in Israel. These distant relatives are not included within the purview of "[a]nimmediate family member," as delineated by the first disqualifying condition under Foreign Influence. ISCR Case No. 02-26978 (September 21, 2005) at page 7. In any event, there is no evidence that their presence in Israel can be exploited by any government. In addition, I conclude that it would be unlikely that the Applicant would even consider any such attempt at exploitation (TR at page 34 line 13 to page 35 line 16). However, the Applicant does receive a $250 monthly pension as a result of his employment in Israel. This is not a "substantial financial interest," within the meaning of the last disqualifying condition, in light of his substantial income and net worth in the U.S. 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.

c. For the Applicant. d. For the Applicant.

e. 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

FOOTNOTES

05-04765.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT James J. McKee, Esquire, Applicant's Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-04765.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:47:18 PM] 05-04765.h1