KEYWORD: Foreign Preference;  Foreign Influence
DIGEST: Applicant, a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, has acted in such a way as to
indicate a preference for a country other than the United States. He failed to renounce his Iranian
citizenship or surrender his Iranian passport to the proper Iranian authorities, after indicating a
willingness to do so. Mitigation has not been shown. This trustworthiness determination  is
denied.
CASENO: 06-17456.h1
DATE: 07/19/2007
DATE: July 19, 2007
In Re:
---------------------------
SSN: -------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-17456
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
  Applicant, a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, has acted in such a way as to indicate
2
a preference for a country other than the United States. He failed to renounce his Iranian citizenship
or surrender his Iranian passport to the proper Iranian authorities, after indicating a willingness to
do so. Mitigation has not been shown. This tustworthiness determination is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 25, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why
DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that Applicant is
eligible for assignment to a sensitive position and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge
to make a determination on this issue.
In a signed and sworn statement, notarized on February 20, 2007, Applicant responded to the
SOR allegations (RSOR)and requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.
On March 26, 2007, this case was assigned to another Administrative Judge to conduct a
hearing and issue a written decision, but it was reassigned to this Administrative Judge on March
28, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on June 1, 2007, and the hearing was
conducted in San Jose California on June 13, 2007. 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered four documentary exhibits (Exhibits 1 through
4) and one witness was called. Applicant offered no documentary exhibits at the hearing but offered
his own testimony. The record was held open to allow Applicant to offer documentation concerning
the case, specifically showing that he had renounced his Iranian citizenship and returned his Iranian
passport, but no documents were received. The transcript (Tr) was received on July 2, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains four allegations, 1.a., through  1.d., under Guideline C and two allegations,
2.a. and 2.b., under Guideline B. Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.b. and 1.c., and he denied
the other allegations. The admissions are incorporated herein as Findings of Fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents and the live testimony, and upon due consideration of
that evidence, I make the following additional Findings of Fact: 
Applicant is a 26 year old employee of a defense contractor. He is not married. He received
a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science in 2004 from a United States university. 
Applicant was born Iran in 1979, and he moved to the United States in 1996. Both of his
parents were born in Iran and also moved to the United States. Applicant became a United States
3
citizen in 2004. 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline C - Foreign Preference) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for a trustworthiness
determination  because he has acted in such a way as to indicate a preference for another country
over the United States.
Applicant applied for and was issued an Iranian passport on April 28, 2000. He traveled to
Iran from June 2000 until September 2000, and he used his Iranian passport to enter and exit Iran.
His Iranian passport expired on April 29, 2005. 
When Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator on April 11, 2006, he told
the investigator that he did not want to renounce his Iranian citizenship or relinquish his Iranian
passport, because he wanted to retain the opportunity to return to Iran, and because his parents
owned a home in Iran. 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he was now willing to renounce his Iranian
citizenship, and relinquish his Iranian passport to the proper Iranian authorities (Tr at 62). The record
was held open for two weeks after the hearing to allow Applicant the opportunity to send to the
proper Iranian authorities a letter indicating his renunciation of his Iranian citizenship and return of
his Iranian passport.  Applicant failed to submit any post hearing documents.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he has immediate family members or people to whom he may be bound by affection or obligation
who are not citizens of the United States, or may be subject to duress. 
Applicant's grandmother had been a citizen and resident of  Iran. She has now moved to the
United States. His other grandmother also moved to the U.S. after living in Iran. Applicant now has
no relatives living in Iran.
Applicant also has a boyhood friend who is a citizen and resident of Iran.  Applicant’s friend
teaches English at an Iranian institution. He last communicated with his friend one and one half years
ago. Generally, he speaks with him two times a year.
Applicant traveled to Iran in 2000, as discussed above, to visit his grandmothers and his
friend. 
Current Status of Iran
Since Applicant’s friend is a citizen and resident of Iran, and since Applicant retained his
Iranian citizenship and passport, it is relevant to examine the status and the nature of the country.
Currently, Iran is considered one of the most dangerous adversaries to the interests of the United
States. The U.S. has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since April 7, 1980, following the
November 1979 Iranian student occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran and the hostage
4
taking of 52 Americans, which was supported by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s leader at the
time.
The United States Government’s concerns with Iran’s policies include, but are not limited
to the following: (1) its clandestine efforts to acquire nuclear weapons of mass destruction, (2) its
sponsorship of international terrorism, (3) its intervention into the internal affairs of Iraq, (4) its
aggressive efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and (5) its human rights violation
against its own people. As a result of these concerns, the U.S. prohibits most trade with Iran.
 
POLICIES
To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in DoD 5200.2-R. "The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to
sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and
trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with
the interests of national security." DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C6.1.1.1. Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets forth
personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under
each guideline.
As set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, "In evaluating the relevance of
an individual's conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following factors [General
Factors]:
a. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct
d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e. The voluntariness of participation
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes
g. The motivation for the conduct
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics
and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent
with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for a trustworthiness determination.
The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense
determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable
and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and
motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful,
voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and,
to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the
future." 
5
The Administrative Judge 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and
factors, and having assessed the credibility of those who testified, I conclude the following with
respect to Guidelines C and B:
(Guideline C - Foreign Preference) 
Guideline C is based on actions taken by an individual that indicates a preference for a
foreign country over the United States. Applicant’s unwillingness to renounce his Iranian citizenship
and surrender his expired Iranian passport must be considered adversely to Applicant and it raises
serious Foreign Preference (Guideline C) concerns. 
Disqualifying Condition (DC) 10. (a) applies because Applicant has exercised rights and
privileges of foreign citizenship, by his failure to renounce his Iranian citizenship after indicating
a willingness to do so, and his retention of his Iranian passport. I find that no Mitigating Condition
(MC) applies in this case under Guideline C, because while Applicant did state a willingness to
renounce his Iranian citizenship, and he was given the opportunity, but he did not do so. Therefore,
I have determined that his stated intention to renounce his Iranian citizenship was not made in good
faith. Also while Applicant’s Iranian passport is not current, as long as he has retained his Iranian
citizenship, and he has not surrendered his Iranian passport, there is nothing to prevent him from
renewing his Iranian passport.
(Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
Under Guideline B, a security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family,
including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he is bound by affection, influence or obligation,
are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. Based on the evidence of record,
the Government has initially established a reason to deny Applicant a access to sensitive information
because of foreign influence. Since Applicant’s grandmother now resides in the United States, I do
not find her to be a current concern. However, his boyhood friend is a citizen and resident of Iran,
a country which, as discussed above,  is undisputedly hostile to the Government of the United States,
Applicant has a very heavy burden of showing that this friend does not pose a security risk. ISCR
Case No. 01-26893 (October 16, 2002). 
The Iranian citizenship and residency of Applicant's close friend creates the potential for
foreign influence that could result in the compromise of sensitive information because it makes
Applicant potentially vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure. The possession of such ties
raises a security concern sufficient to require Applicant to present evidence in rebuttal, extenuation,
or mitigation sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a trustworthiness determination for him. ISCR Case No. 99-0424, 2001
(App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2001). This, Applicant has done. 
6
  The evidence of existence of a friend, who is a  citizen and resident of Iran, comes within
DC 7. (a), contact with a friend who is a citizen and resident of a foreign country that creates a
heightened risk of foreign exploitation, pressure or coercion. However, I find that MC 8. (c) applies
because the contact and communication between Applicant and his friend is so casual and infrequent
that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation.
After considering all of the evidence of record on the issue of Foreign Influence, I conclude
that the mitigating evidence substantially outweighs the evidence supporting the SOR.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings are hereby rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline C: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1. a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: 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 or continue a trustworthiness determination for Applicant.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge