Loading case…

ISCR 24-00134: Guideline B security clearance hearing, granted (2024) · CASE

ISCR Case 24-00134granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00134

grantedNov 25, 2024· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a former research fellow, sought a security clearance under Guideline B concerning foreign influence. The judge found that the applicant's previous work with a foreign agency was mitigated by the absence of ongoing relationships and his understanding of responsibilities regarding classified information. The applicant's established ties to the U.S. were deemed sufficient to resolve any potential conflicts of interest.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant no longer works for a foreign agency and had only a temporary research fellowship.
He has minimal contact with a former fellowship advisor who is a foreign citizen.
The applicant demonstrated a thorough understanding of his responsibilities regarding classified information.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by his lack of ongoing relationships with foreign entities.
AG ¶ 21appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant's established ties to the U.S. and understanding of classified information responsibilities mitigated concerns.

Key rule quoted

“The favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedFeb 15, 2024
Answer filedFeb 16, 2024
Hearing heldNov 12, 2024
Decision dateNov 25, 2024

Cite for

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of Established Ties to the U.S. in Security Clearance Cases
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudication.

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 due to his lack of ongoing ties to a foreign agency and minimal contact with a former advisor who is a foreign citizen. The applicant demonstrated deep and longstanding ties to the United States, leading to a decision to grant his security clearance.

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS -z. O· i!:Z~ M 0 "" >- "tr 00 "' In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-00134 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se 11/25/2024 Decision On February 15, 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017 (AG). On February 16, 2024, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on September 3, 2024. A hearing was scheduled and held on November 12, 2024. After completely reviewing the pleadings, documentary evidence, and hearing testimony, I informed the parties that I believed this case was appropriate for a Summary Disposition in Applicant's favor. Department Counsel did not object. This case involves two allegations of foreign influence concerns under Guideline B. I believe a Summary Disposition is appropriate because any foreign influence concerns have been mitigated. Applicant no longer works for a foreign agency. He only worked there as a student doing a research fellowship from 2015 to 2016 for his master's degree, and from 2017 to 2018, for his Ph.D. He has no further work relationship with the entity. Additionally, he has minimal professional and personal contact with his former fellowship advisor who worked for the foreign agency and is a foreign citizen. He fully understands

____________________ his responsibilities to protect classified information even when collaborating with foreign scientists on research projects sponsored by his employer. He receives yearly training in this area from his employer. Applicant's testimony was thorough and credible. The concerns over Applicant's foreign influence no longer create doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. He established his deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, such that he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. In reaching these conclusions, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. Clearance is granted. Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge 2