DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 07-06948
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
 March 19, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On October 25, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guideline C. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On November 12, 2007, applicant answered the SOR in writing, and requested
an Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on December 10, 2007. Applicant did not
respond to the FORM. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant was born in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1979. She became a United
States citizen in 1989. She received a United States passport in 2005.
Applicant obtained her latest UK Passport in November 2006. It will expire in
2016. She used her UK passport to travel to numerous countries, most recently in
January 2007. She does not want to give up the UK passport. As she stated in July
2007:
I enjoy traveling through Europe with ease and do not want to give up my
right to live and work in the UK and EU in the future, should I choose to do
so. (Exhibit 5).
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.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
 
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in
the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to
classified information. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph 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 security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will
be resolved in favor of the national security.” (Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special
relationship with the government. The government must be able to repose a high
degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information.
3
Analysis
Guideline C, Foreign Preference
The security concern relating to the Foreign Preference guideline is set forth in
Paragraph 9 of the AG, and is as follows:
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.
Paragraph 10 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying. Under Paragraph 10.a.1., exercising any right or privilege of foreign
citizenship after becoming a United States citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a
family member, such as possession of a current foreign passport, may be disqualifying.
Under Paragraph 10.b., taking action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign
citizenship by an American citizen may also be disqualifying. Applicant’s renewal of her
UK passport in 2006 requires application of these two conditions.
Paragraph 11 describes potentially mitigating conditions. The only one applicable
is 11.a., which states, “dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in
a foreign country.”
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances.
An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph
2(a): “(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) extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent 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.” Under AG Paragraph 2c, the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall common
sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole
person concept.       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.
Applicant was born in the UK. At some point she moved to the United States with
her parents, and while still a minor, became a United States citizen. Although her initial
UK passport may have been obtained by her parents while she was a minor, she
voluntarily exercised the rights and privileges of her UK citizenship in 2006 when she
4
obtained her latest UK passport. This fact, together with her voluntary recent decisions
to use her UK passport instead of her United States passport while traveling to various
countries, and her statement that she does not want to give up her UK passport
because she does not want to “give up [her] right to live and work in the U.K. and EU in
the future” if she chooses to do so, indicates a preference for the UK over the United
States. I therefore conclude that applicant failed to rebut the Government’s case under
Guideline C.
There is nothing in the record that suggests applicant is anything but a loyal
United States citizen. Applicant*s allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are not at issue in
these proceedings. Section 7 of 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.”
Therefore, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest I have based this
decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied concern as to applicant*s
allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge