KEYWORD: Foreign Preference; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant was born in
Switzerland. She came to the U.S. in 1984, and became a U.S. citizen in 1995. Applicant maintained
dual citizenship, and possesses a valid current Swiss passport. She did not falsify a statement to a
government investigator or on her security questionnaire, because she was unaware at the time that
her mother in Switzerland maintained a small savings account on her behalf. Applicant has mitigated
the personal conduct security concerns, but has not mitigated the security concerns based on her
foreign preference. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23935.h1
DATE: 04/27/2007
DATE:  April 27, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23935
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
EDWARD W. LOUGHRAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Emilio Jaksetic, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant was born in
Switzerland. She came to the U.S. in 1984, and became a U.S. citizen in 1995. Applicant maintained
dual citizenship, and possesses a valid current Swiss passport. She did not falsify a statement to a
government investigator or on her security questionnaire, because she was unaware at the time that
her mother in Switzerland maintained a small savings account on her behalf. Applicant has mitigated
the personal conduct security concerns, but has not mitigated the security concerns based on her
foreign preference. Clearance is denied.
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as1
amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Tr. at 29-30, 41-42, 47; GE 1, 2.2
Tr. at 25-26, 33, 37-38; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 1, 2.3
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. On January 19, 2007, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons  (SOR)1
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense for SORs issued after
September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on February 7, 2007, and elected to have a hearing before
an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on February 27, 2007. A notice of hearing was
issued on March 6, 2007, scheduling the hearing for March 27, 2007. Applicant waived the 15-day
notice requirement. With the consent of the parties, the hearing was conducted as scheduled to
consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant. The Government offered two exhibits that were marked as Government
Exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, and admitted without objection. Applicant testified and offered one exhibit
that was marked Applicant Exhibit (AE) A, and admitted without objection. DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on April 11, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has worked directly or
indirectly for the U.S. Government since about 1992. Applicant was born in Switzerland. She came
to the U.S. in 1984, and became a U.S. citizen in 1995. She attended college in Switzerland, and has
a master’s degree from an American university. Applicant is divorced from a U.S. citizen. She has
two children who are dual U.S. and Swiss citizens.   2
Applicant maintained dual citizenship with Switzerland after becoming a U.S. citizen. She
exercised her Swiss citizenship by obtaining a Swiss passport in 2004, which will not expire until
2014. She still possesses the Swiss passport. Applicant has traveled extensively since becoming a
U.S. citizen. She has always used her U.S. passport, except when entering and exiting Switzerland,
which requires its citizens to use their Swiss passport.  3
Applicant’s reason for obtaining and maintaining the Swiss passport is to ease her entry to
Switzerland if there is an emergency related to her parents. Her parents are citizens and residents of
Tr. at 20-25; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 1 at 23.4
Tr. at 17, 35-36; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 2; AE A.5
Tr. at 33.6
GE 1 at 28.7
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).8
Id. at 527.9
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 10
4
Switzerland. Her father is 77 years old, and has heart problems. Her mother is 72, and had knee
surgery. Applicant expressed a willingness to renounce her Swiss citizenship, but not until her
parents are deceased. U.S. citizens can travel to Switzerland for 90 days on a tourist visa. In order
to stay longer, some type of extension is required. Applicant wants to maintain the ability to stay
longer if necessary.  4
Applicant’s mother maintained a savings account in Switzerland on Applicant’s behalf since
Applicant was a child. As of December 2006, the balance in the account was approximately $356,
in U.S. currency. Applicant was unaware of this account until she contacted her mother in December
2006, in order to obtain information to respond to DOHA interrogatories. Her mother informed her
at that time about the savings account. The account has since been closed. Applicant currently has
no foreign assets. She owns her home in the United States and has other U.S. assets.5
Applicant was interviewed pursuant to a background investigation in 2005. She told the
investigator that she did not have any financial interests in Switzerland.  Applicant believed the6
statement was true because she was unaware of the Swiss savings account at that time.
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), on
May 23, 2006. She responded “No” to Question 17a, which asked, “[d]o you have any foreign
property, business connections, or financial interests?”  Applicant’s answer was truthful to the best7
of her knowledge because she was unaware of the Swiss savings account when the eQIP was
submitted.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has8
“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.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to9
grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to do so.”  An applicant has the ultimate burden of10
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her
security clearance. The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).11
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.12
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.13
5
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant11
should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such
sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a12
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.  13
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. Additionally, each security clearance 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 listed
in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a).
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions section below.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
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. This raises a security concern under the foreign
preference guideline.
Based on all the evidence, Foreign Preference Disqualifying Condition (FP DC) 10(a)
(exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or
through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to: (1) possession
of a current foreign passport), applies in this case. 
I have considered all the Foreign Preference Mitigating Conditions (FP MC), and I especially
considered FP MC 11(a) (dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign
country) and FP MC 11(b) (the individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship).
Applicant actively exercised her dual citizenship by obtaining and using a Swiss passport after
becoming a U.S. citizen. I do not find FP MC 11(a) totally applicable. Applicant has expressed a
willingness to renounce dual citizenship, but only after her parents pass away. That is insufficient
to totally invoke FP MC 11(b). 
6
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to
cooperate with the security clearance process.
As discussed above, Applicant provided what she thought were truthful answers to the
investigator and on the e-QIP. No Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition is applicable.
Whole Person Analysis
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in
reaching a determination. In evaluating Applicant’s case, I have considered the adjudicative process
factors listed in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a). I have also considered every finding of fact and
conclusion discussed above. 
Applicant is an obviously intelligent, professional woman. She has a good job, with a stable
employment record. She has provided valuable service to the United States Government. Her
testimony was sincere and forthright. Her reasons for maintaining dual citizenship and a Swiss
passport stem from her concern for her parents. I also considered that the country at issue is
Switzerland. Nonetheless, security concerns persist based upon Applicant’s possession and use of
a valid current foreign passport.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and evaluating all the evidence
in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the personal conduct security
concerns, but has not mitigated the security concerns based on her foreign preference.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline C: AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2.  Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance
is denied.
Edward W. Loughran
Administrative Judge