KEYWORD: Foreign Preference
DIGEST: Applicant is a 43-year-old U. S. Citizen, who held an Australian passport from 1994 until
July 2007 when it was destroyed at his request by his employer’s security officer. His wife was born
in Australia and is a U.S. resident alien, awaiting U.S. citizenship. He mitigated the security concerns
raised by foreign preference. Clearance is granted. 
CASENO: 06-2466.h1
DATE: 08/29/2007
DATE:  August 29, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24666
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SHARI DAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq.
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 43-year-old U. S. citizen, who held an Australian passport from 1994 until July
Item 4 at 14.1
Item 3.2
Item 4 at 11.3
Item 3.4
2
2007 when it was destroyed at his request by his employer’s security officer. His wife was born in
Australia and is a U.S. resident alien, awaiting U.S. citizenship. He mitigated the security concerns
raised by foreign preference. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 15, 2005, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86). The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on April 23, 2007, detailing the basis for its
decision-security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective
September 1, 2006. 
On May 10, 2007, Applicant filed a written response to the SOR, admitting the allegation,
and elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On June 22, 2007,
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Government
Items and mailed Applicant a complete copy on June 27, 2007. Applicant had 30 days from receipt
of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation or mitigation.
Applicant received the FORM on June 28, 2007, and timely submitted additional information.
Department Counsel did not object to Applicant’s documents that I later marked as Applicant
Exhibits (AX) 1 and 2. The case was assigned to me on August 13, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the entire record, including Applicant’s admissions in his response to the SOR, I
make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 43-year-old married man, who was born and resides in the United States. His
wife was born in Australia and is a resident alien of the United States.  She intended to obtain U.S.1
citizenship in the summer of 2007.  They married in 1995 in the United States, and had two children2
who were born here. He attended a university in the United States from 1986 to 1989. Since August
1995, he has worked as a technician for a federal contractor.  He held a clearance from 1986 to 19913
and from 1995 to the present.  He completed his most recent SF 86 in December 2006. 4
In 1994, Applicant obtained an Australian passport in order to travel more conveniently to
Sometime prior to 1994, Applicant became a dual citizen of Australia. (Item 4 at 14). The Government did not5
allege, and I did not consider, his dual citizenship as a disqualifying condition.
Item 3.6
Id.7
AX 1.8
AX 2.9
3
Australia to visit his wife’s family. It is valid until 2014.  Although he indicated his desire to5
maintain the passport at the time he filed his Answer, he was willing to surrender it, if it interfered
with his security clearance status.  He does not have any financial interests in Australia.6 7
After being notified that possessing a current foreign passport created security concerns,
Applicant surrendered it to his company’s security office for destruction. On July 24, 2007, the
passport was shredded in front of the Manager of Security and Facilities Operations.  He was8
unaware of the pertinent adjudicative guidelines or the Department of Defense’s  policy that holding
a foreign passport could raise a security concern and operate as a potential disqualifying condition
under the foreign preference guideline.9
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access
to Classified Information, sets forth criteria which must be evaluated when determining security
clearance eligibility. Within the Revised Guidelines are factors to consider in denying or revoking
an individual’s request for access to classified information (Disqualifying Conditions), and factors
to consider in granting an individual’s request for access to classified information (Mitigating
Conditions). By recognizing that individual circumstances of each case are different, the guidelines
provide substantive standards to assist an administrative judge in weighing the evidence in order to
reach a fair, impartial and common sense decision.
Granting an applicant’s clearance for access to classified information is based on a high
degree of trust and confidence in the individual. Accordingly, decisions under the Directive must
include consideration of not only the actual risk of disclosure of classified information, but also
consideration of any possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently compromise
classified information. Any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified
information must be resolved in favor of protecting classified information. Directive, Enclosure 2,
¶ E2.2.2. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a judgment about
an applicant’s loyalty. Executive Order 10865, § 7. Instead, it is a determination that an applicant
has not met the strict guidelines established by the Department of Defense for issuing a clearance.
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531
(1988). The Directive presumes a rational connection between past proven conduct under any of the
4
disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case
No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
corresponding burden of rebuttal shifts to the applicant to present evidence in refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation sufficient to overcome the position of the government.  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at
3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden
of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
clearance.” Id. 
CONCLUSIONS
After considering the facts in evidence and legal standards, including the “whole person”
concept, I conclude the following in regard to the allegations contained in the SOR:
Guideline C: Foreign Preference
Under this Guideline, a security concern arises if “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.”
Based on Applicant’s admission that he held an Australian passport, valid from 1994 until
20014, the Government established a disqualifying condition under Foreign Preference Disqualifying
Condition (FI 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.”
The Government having established a disqualification, the burden shifted to Applicant to
rebut or mitigate the allegations. After learning that his Australian passport could jeopardize his
security clearance, he had it destroyed by his employer, which triggered the application of Foreign
Preference Mitigating Condition (MC) 11(e) “the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the
cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated.”
“Whole Person” Analysis
In addition to evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under the Guideline, the
adjudicative process requires thorough consideration and review of all available, reliable information
about the applicant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced decision.
Guideline 2 describes the essence of scrutinizing all appropriate variables in a case as the “whole
person concept.” In evaluating the conduct of an applicant, an administrative judge should consider:
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct,
to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6)
the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the
conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of
5
continuation or recurrence.
After considering the totality of the evidence, including Applicant’s long work history for
a federal contractor, during which time he held a security clearance, and his willingness to dispose
of his passport once he learned of the potential problems it created for his employment, I concluded
that he does not pose a security risk and that he sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised
under foreign preference.  Accordingly, Guideline C is found for him. 
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 as follows:
Paragraph 1: Guideline C (Foreign Preference) FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is granted.
Shari Dam
Administrative Judge