KEYWORD: Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence
DIGEST: The Applicant has renounced her Serbian citizenship, and has surrendered her Serbian
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).  The Applicant’s father and two brothers are citizens of and reside in Serbia.
None of the Applicant’s immediate family have a connection with the Serbian government or with
any other government.  Furthermore, the Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis these foreign
relatives.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-17495.h1
DATE: 02/27/2007
DATE: February 27, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17495
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant has renounced her Serbian citizenship, and has surrendered her Serbian
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).  The Applicant’s father and two brothers are citizens of and reside in Serbia.
None of the Applicant’s immediate family have a connection with the Serbian government or with
any other government.  Furthermore, the Applicant is not subject to coercion vis-a-vis these foreign
relatives.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
___________________
¹ The Applicant has no middle name (Transcript (TR) at page 4 line 21 to page 5 line 4).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 18, 2006, 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 October 1, 2006.
The case was received by the undersigned on December 18, 2006.  A notice of hearing was
issued on January 16, 2007, and the case was heard on February 6, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary
evidence.  The transcript was received on February 21, 2007.  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,
except for subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.d., as she has surrendered her Serbian passport.]
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 51 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
The Applicant was born in the Serbian area of what was called Yugoslavia in 1956 (TR at
page 27 line 8 to page 28 line 12).  She immigrated to the U.S., and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen
in 1984 (Id, and Government Exhibit (GX) 1 at page 1).
1.a., 1.b. and 1.d.  The Applicant has renounced her Serbian citizenship, and has surrendered
3
her Serbian passport in compliance with the Money Memorandum (TR at page 44 line 19 to page 45
line 14, and Applicant’s Exhibits (AppXs) A and D).
1.c.  The Applicant has traveled to Serbia on at least four occasions since 2000 (TR at page
46 line 20 to page 48 line 21, and GX 1 at pages 8~9).  Whenever she traveled to Serbia, she
tendered  her American passport first, and only tendered her Serbian passport when asked by Serbian
immigration officials at her point of entry (TR at page 71 line 12 to page 72 line 5, and AppX D the
last page).
 The Appeal Board has determined that such relatives are “other relatives,” and not2
“immediate family members.”  ISCR Case NO. 02-26978 (September 21, 2005) at page 7.
4
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
2.a.  The Applicant’s father and two brothers are citizens of and reside in Serbia (GX 1 at
pages 4~5).  Her father is a retired farmer (TR at page 29 line 24 to page 30 line 7, and at page 39
line 25 to page 40 line 10).  Her older brother works in a private plastics factory, and cares for her
elderly father (TR at page 31 lines 7~19, and at page 41 lines 1~15).  Her younger brother is sick
with a lung ailment, as a result of working in the same plastics factory (TR at page 30 line 8 to page
31 line 5, at page 32 lines 3~11, and at page 40 lines 11~25).
2.b.  The Applicant also has cousins, nieces and nephews who are citizens of and residents
of Serbia (GX 1 at pages 4~5).  She refers to them, in part, as “far” relatives TR at page 32 line 12
to page 35 line 3, and at page 36 line 8 to page 37 line 23).   She has little direct contact with these2
relatives (Id).
2.c.  The Applicant has contacts with a Serbian band, on an annual basis (TR at page 37 line
24 to page 39 line 22, and at page 60 line 19 to page 62 line 3).  This band has no connection with
the Serbian government, but rather plays at church weddings on their annual visit to America (Id).
Following a May 21, 2006, referendum on the independence of Montenegro, Serbia
announced that it would be the successor state to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.  The
dissolution of the State Union has been peaceful.  Serbia is a parliamentary democracy with
approximately 10.2 million inhabitants.  While civilian authorities generally maintained effective
control of the security forces, there were a few instances in which elements of the security forces
acted independently of government authority.  However, the government’s increased efforts in
addressing human rights violations have brought notable improvements.  Serbia does not appear to
be a high level participant in espionage vis-a-vis the U.S. (See GXs 3 and 4).
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.
5
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.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant was a dual national with Serbia, and until recently maintained a Serbian
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 her compliance with the last mitigating condition, when
she renounced his Serbian citizenship; and by her compliance with the Money Memorandum, when
she surrendered his Serbian passport.
The Applicant's father, and two brothers are citizens of and reside in Serbia.  The first
disqualifying condition is therefore applicable as "[a]n immediate family member . . . is a citizen of
a foreign country."  This is countered, however, by the first mitigating condition, as there is no
evidence that their presence in Serbia can "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."  In 
6
addition, I conclude that it would be unlikely that the Applicant would even consider any such
attempt at exploitation.
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Here, her manager and a vice
president of her employer, speak most highly of her character, credibility and trustworthiness (AppX
B).  The totality of the Applicant’s conduct and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly
warrants a favorable recommendation under the “whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown.
Guidelines B and C are thus found for the Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding her
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, she has met
her 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.
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