KEYWORD: Foreign Preference
DIGEST: Applicant is a dual U.S. and Greek citizen.  She obtained a Greek passport at age 19 that
does not expire until August 2008.  Applicant does not want to destroy, surrender, or invalidate her
Greek passport because she may want to work in the European Union or in Greece at some future
date and would need her Greek passport to prove citizenship.  The record evidence is insufficient
to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications related to foreign preference. Clearance
is denied.
CASENO: 06-25756.h1
DATE: 08/29/2007
DATE: August 29, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25756
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CLAUDE R. HEINY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive),1
dated January 2, 1992, as amended.
2
Applicant is a dual U.S. and Greek citizen.  She obtained a Greek passport at age 19 that does
not expire until August 2008.  Applicant does not want to destroy, surrender, or invalidate her Greek
passport because she may want to work in the European Union or in Greece at some future date and
would need her Greek passport to prove citizenship.  The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate
or extenuate the negative security implications related to foreign preference. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 28, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant stating that DOHA could not make the preliminary
affirmative finding  it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security1
clearance for Applicant. The SOR set forth reasons why a security clearance could not be granted
or continued due to foreign preference security concerns.
On March 27, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR and decided to have the matter decided
without a hearing. A File of Relevant Material (FORM) dated May 2, 2007 was sent to Applicant.
Applicant’s response to the FORM was due 30 days after receipt of a copy of the FORM.  As of July
17, 2007, no response had been received.  On July 19, 2007, I was assigned the case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR alleges security concerns based on foreign preference. Applicant admits the
following: she was born a citizen of the U.S. in 1983, she was issued a Greek passport in February
2004 that does not expire until August 2008, she exercised dual citizenship with Greece and the
U.S., and she used her Greek passport to prove her Greek citizenship for an internship in June and
July 2005. The admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a thorough review of
the record, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 23-year-old consultant who has worked for a defense contractor since August
2006 and is seeking to obtain a security clearance. Applicant was born in the United States in 1983.
Applicant is a dual Greek and U.S. citizen.  Applicant’s mother and father are dual Greek and U.S.
citizens.  Her father was a Greek citizen who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in January 1961 and
her mother was a Greek citizen who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in April 2005. 
Since 1984, Applicant has gone to Greece every summer and has also traveled to Greece a
few times for a few weeks during the winter.  In August 2003, Applicant—then age 19—was issued
a Greek passport, which expires in August 2008. In June and July 2005, Applicant was a research
assistant and summer intern at the Bank of Greece in Greece. Applicant has not used her Greek
passport for travel but to prove citizenship for internship. She is not willing to destroy, surrender,
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.152
3
or invalidate her foreign passport because she might want to work in Greece or the European Union
in the future. 
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered when evaluating a person’s
eligibility to hold a security clearance. Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating Conditions
(MC) are set forth for each applicable guideline. Additionally, each decision must be a fair and
impartial commonsense decision based upon the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the
whole person concept, and the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive. The adjudicative
guidelines are to be applied by administrative judges on a case-by-case basis with an eye toward
making determinations that are clearly consistent with the interests of national security. The
presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not determinative
of a conclusion for or against an applicant.  However, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed
whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. Considering the evidence as a whole,
I conclude the relevant guideline to be applied here is Guideline C, foreign preference.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant. Initially, the
Government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or
professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, an applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information. The burden of proof in a security clearance case is
something less than a preponderance of evidence, although the government is required to present
substantial evidence to meet its burden of proof.  Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but
less than a preponderance of the evidence. All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances
which indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling classified information, or that an applicant
does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons
handling classified information.  Additionally, the government must prove controverted facts alleged
in the SOR.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to present
evidence to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.  Additionally, an applicant has the
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.2
As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988), “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” A person who has access to classified
information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence.
The government, therefore, has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the
requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests. The
“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt
about an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information in favor of protecting national
security.  Security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. 
CONCLUSIONS
4
The Government has satisfied its initial burden of proof under 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. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying include, Foreign Preference Disqualifying Condition (FP DC) 10(a)(1) 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 possession and/or use
of a foreign passport.  Applicant was born in the U.S. and acquired her Greek passport at age 19.
The passport does not expire until August 2008.  Applicant does not wish to surrender the passport
because she may need it to work in Greece or the European Union at some future date. 
None of the foreign preference mitigating conditions (FPMC) apply. FPMC 11(a) dual
citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country, does not apply
because Applicant was born in the U.S. and chose to obtain a Greek passport. FPMC 11(b)
individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship, does not apply because
Applicant does not wish to renounce her dual citizenship and may want to use her passport for future
work in Greece or the European Union.  Since Applicant was a U.S. citizen from birth, FPMC 11(c)
exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual
became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor, does not apply.
The use of the Greek passport has not been approved by a cognizant security authority,
therefore FPMC (d) use of a foreign passport is approved by the cognizant security authority, does
not apply. FPMC 11 (e) the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security
authority, or otherwise invalidated, does not apply because Applicant does not want to destroy,
surrender or invalidate the passport. 
In reaching my conclusions I have also considered: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
conduct; Applicant’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the
conduct; Applicant’s voluntary and knowledgeable participation; the motivation for the conduct; the
frequency and recency of the conduct; presence or absence of rehabilitation; potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the probability that the circumstance or conduct will continue
or recur in the future. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section 3, Paragraph 7, of Enclosure 1 of the Directive are
hereby rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1 Foreign Preference: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
DECISION
5
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 security clearance for Applicant.
Clearance is denied.
_____________________________
Claude R. Heiny 
Administrative Judge