KEYWORD: Foreign Preference
DIGEST: Applicant is 26 years old and works for a defense contractor. She was born in France to
a French mother and an American father. She has dual citizenship with France and does not wish to
renounce it because she does not want to preclude her child from any future educational benefits. She
failed to mitigate security concerns arising from foreign preference. Eligibility for a trustworthiness
position is denied.
CASENO: 06-20756.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE:  April 30, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-20756
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 26 years old and works for a defense contractor. She was born in France to a
French mother and an American father. She has dual citizenship with France and does not wish to
renounce it because she does not want to preclude her child from any future educational benefits. She
failed to mitigate security concerns arising from foreign preference. Eligibility for a trustworthiness
position is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
Item 1 (Applicant's Application (SF 85-P), dated ) November 29, 2005 at 1-13.2
Tr. 16.3
Tr. 21.4
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 1, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a position of trustworthiness.  The SOR, which is in essence1
the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline C (Foreign Preference, of
the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the
Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to
Applicant when the SOR was issued.
The case was assigned to me on February 22, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on March
14, 2007, scheduling the hearing for March 29, 2007. Applicant waived the 15-day notice
requirement. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. The government submitted one exhibit that
was marked as Government Exhibit (GE) 1. Applicant did not submit any exhibits. Applicant
testified  on her own behalf. DOHA received the hearing transcript (TR) on April 11, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the factual allegations pertaining to foreign preference under Guideline
C (subparagraphs 1.a through 1.f). Those admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings of
fact:
Since, November 28, 2005, Applicant who is 26 years old, has worked as a customer service
representative for a defense contractor. She was born and raised in France, and therefore, had dual
citizenship since birth. Her father, who died in 2004, was American and her mother is a French
citizen. However, she came to the United States in 2002 for additional study for her undergraduate
degree. She is studying for her teaching degree so that she may teach French and Spanish in the
United States. She submitted a trustworthiness application on November 28, 2005.2
While in the United States, Applicant married an American veteran. She and her husband
have a four-month-old son, who is a United States citizen by birth. She holds a valid U.S. passport,
as well as a French one.  Applicant's French passport was renewed in 2002 or 2003. This passport3
expires in 2012 or 2013.4
Over the years, Applicant has traveled to France. In June 2005, she and her husband spent
their honeymoon in France. She plans to visit again during the Christmas holidays. Her grandfather
Applicant's response, dated November 10, 2006, included in file.5
Tr.14.6
Tr.22.7
Applicant's memorandum, dated January 23, 2007, at 1.8
4
has a business in France, and Applicant holds a 25% share in the business. She does not actively
involve herself with the business.5
During her time in France, Applicant exercised her rights to vote in elections, and file income
tax. She also received unemployment benefits.This was before she came to the United States.6
Applicant wishes to retain her dual citizenship, as is her legal right. She reasons that her son
should have the opportunity, if he desires, to live and study abroad in France. Applicant is registering
her son for his French passport. She is not willing to renounce her French citizenship.7
Applicant loves her job. She considers herself loyal to the United States. She denies that she
has a preference for France to the United States. She enjoys working and living in the United States.
She considers herself a good citizen and has no history of any legal problems.8
The government did not submit any information regarding France.
POLICIES
The President has "the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national
security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position ....
that will give that person access to such information."  In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch.
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive. The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on
the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the
adjudicative process factors listed in paragraph 6.3 of the Directive and AG paragraph 2(a). 
Because the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the
"whole person concept," all available, reliable information about the person, past and present,
favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. The Adjudicative
Process factors which an administrative judge should consider are: (1) the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
The Directive, as amended by Change 4, dated April 20, 1999, uses 'clearly consistent with the national9
interest" (Sec. 2.3; Sec.2.5.3; Sec 3.2.; and Sec. 4.2.; Enclosure 3, Sec. E3.1.1.; Sec. E3.1.2.; Sec. E3.1.2.5.; Sec.
E3.1.2.6.; and Sec. E3.1.2.7.), "clearly consistent with the interests of national security" (Enclosure 2, Sec. E2.2.3.); and
"clearly consistent with national security" (Enclosure 2, Sec. E2.2.2.).
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2.10
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Para E3.1.15.11
5
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individuals's  age and maturity
at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative
guideline most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline C - Foreign Preference: When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a
preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to provide
information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be arrived at by applying the standard that the issuance of the trustworthiness
eligibility is "clearly consistent with the interests of national security" or "clearly consistent with the
national interest."  For the purposes herein, despite the different wording in each, I have concluded9
all of the standards are the same. In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that
are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided
drawing inferences that are grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, the burden of producing evidence initially falls on the
government to establish a case which demonstrates, in accordance with the Directive, that it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s access to sensitive
information.  If the government meets its burden, the heavy burden of persuasion then falls upon the10
applicant to present evidence in refutation, explanation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to
overcome the doubts raised by the government’s case, and to ultimately demonstrate it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant’s eligibility.11
A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government predicated upon trust and confidence. It is a relationship that transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well. Because of this special relationship, the
government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom
it grants access to sensitive information. Decisions under this Directive include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information. Any
Directive, Enclosure 2, Para. E2.2.212
6
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
in favor of national security.12
One additional comment is worthy of note. Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are
not at issue in these proceedings. Section 7 of the Executive Order 10865 specifically provides that
industrial security clearance decisions shall be, “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Trustworthiness determination
decisions cover many characteristics of an applicant other than allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism.
Nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest I have based this decision, in whole or in part,
on any express or implied decision as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty or patriotism.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal
precepts, factors, and conditions, I conclude the following with respect to each allegation set forth in
the SOR. 
Foreign Preference
The government established its case under Guideline C. Applicant admits that she is in
possession of a current French passport and exercises the right to keep her French citizenship after
living in the United States and holding a valid U.S. passport. She is not willing to relinquish her
French citizenship. This raises a security concern, under Foreign Preference Disqualifying Condition
(FP DC) AG ¶ 10 (a) (1) (possession of a current foreign passport).
Applicant admits that she is in the process of registering her son for his French citizenship so
that he may enjoy any future educational or other benefits from France. She also hold a share in her
grandfather's company, but is not involved with the day to day business. This raises FP DC AG ¶ 10
(5) (using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country).
When the Government's initial burden has been met and a disqualifying condition raised, the
burden shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation, or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government's case. Here Applicant has expressly
decided to retain her dual citizenship. Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition (FP MC) AG ¶ 11 (b)
does not apply. 
After a review of the other mitigating conditions, I find that none apply in this case. Applicant
has not mitigated the Foreign Preference trustworthiness concern.
Whole Person 
7
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. As noted above, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in
considering the whole person concept. It recognizes a person be viewed by the totality of his or her
acts, omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits,
taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking,
and careful analysis.
I considered both the record evidence and Applicant in light of the whole-person concept.
Applicant has been a dual citizen of France and the United States. Ordinarily, an applicant's foreign
citizenship possesses little significance if based solely on her birth in a foreign country. Applicant
is proud of her U.S. citizenship, but wants to maintain  an active assertion of certain foreign
citizenship rights for her son.  A detrimental impact on the interests of the United States is not
required before the Government may deny eligibility for a position of trustworthiness under
Guideline C. Because any doubts must be resolved in favor or national security, I find the allegations
regarding foreign preference in the government's favor. Eligibility is denied.
FORMAL FINDINGS
              Formal Findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as
required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline C: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a:            AgainstApplicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant eligibility for a position of trustworthiness to Applicant. Eligibility
is denied.
8
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge