1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 06-23358
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Security Clearance Application (SCA), on June 8, 2005.
On October 11, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under foreign preference
(Guideline C) and foreign influence (Guideline B). The action was taken pursuant to
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 made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued on or after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted her answer to the SOR on November 12, 2007. She elected
to have her case decided administratively without a hearing. A copy of the government’s
File of Relevant Material (FORM, the government’s evidence in support of the SOR)
was sent to Applicant on February 5, 2008. Applicant received the FORM on February
26, 2008. Applicant’s response was due by March 26, 2008. No response was received.
2
The case was assigned to this administrative judge on April 17, 2008. Based upon a
review of the FORM, Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted all allegations under paragraph 1 (foreign preference) and
paragraph 2 (foreign influence). Applicant is 55 years old, married since 1972, and has
been employed since 1981 as a specialist assembler for a defense contractor. She
seeks a security clearance. 
Foreign Preference (FP)
Under module 3 of her SCA (Item 4) that she completed and certified in June
2005, Applicant entered information about her citizenship status in the United States
(U.S.). Applicant indicated she became a naturalized U.S. citizen in December 2000.
She also indicated she had never held a U.S. passport. She answered “yes” to the last
question under module 3 that she is a dual citizen (SOR 1.a.) of the U.S. and Mexico.
Under module 15 (in the last 7 years, have you had an active passport issued by a
foreign government?), Applicant answered “No.”
Applicant provided a sworn statement to an investigator of the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) on June 25, 2007. She was asked to provide
information about her citizenship and the circumstances surrounding her detention or
arrest in March 1988 for alien smuggling. She and her husband maintain dual
citizenship with Mexico because they may want to retire (SOR 1.b.) in the country
someday. Applicant voted in a Mexican election in 2006, and planned to vote in 2007
(SOR 1.c.) because it is the best way to maintain Mexican citizenship. 
In her June 25, 2007 sworn statement, Applicant also provided details of being
stopped in March 1988 for transporting her mother’s neighbor in a car across the
border. As she and her husband were leaving her mother’s residence in Mexico, her
mother asked Applicant to bring a neighbor back to the U.S. At the border crossing, the
border patrol asked for the passports of the occupants of Applicant’s car. Applicant and
her husband displayed their green cards, and the neighbor presented her passport for
inspection. When the neighbor’s passport was checked, it turned out to be Applicant’s
passport that Applicant lost in 1972. Applicant became perturbed as she wondered how
her passport wound in the neighbor’s possession. Applicant was charged with alien
smuggling. (SOR 1.d.) Her criminal record (Item 6) indicates no disposition. From the
information provided in the FORM, including Applicant’s statement, it is impossible for
me to find how providing transportation constitutes evidence of preference under the
foreign preference guideline. SOR 1.d. is found in Applicant’s favor. 
Foreign Influence (FI)
Applicant was born in Mexico on December 3, 1952. Applicant’s mother, 72
years old, is a retired, resident citizen of Mexico (SOR 2.a.) Applicant visits her mother
3
two or three times a week (SOR 2.b.) Applicant’s 55-year-old brother, a truck driver, is a
resident citizen of Mexico (SOR 2.c.), and she visits him about two or three times a
month (SOR 2.d.) Applicant’s sister, not referenced in the SOR, is a 42-year-old
resident citizen of Mexico and unemployed. (Item 4) Applicant’s niece is employed in
office and building maintenance. Applicant’s sister-in-law and niece are resident citizens
of Mexico. (SOR 2.e., Item 5)
Applicant has two children who were born in the U.S. Her son is single and
employed as a sheriff in the U.S. Her daughter is married and employed as a translator.
Her three sisters, nieces, and nephews live in the U.S. No additional information was
provided. 
Character Evidence
Applicant did not provide any evidence to dispute, explain, or mitigate the
allegations of the SOR. She provided no evidence that addresses her job performance.
Administrative Notice
I have taken official notice of the following U.S. government agency publications:
1. U.S. Department of State Background Note: Mexico, dated February 2007.
(Exhibit 7)
2. U.S. Department of State, Consular Affairs, Travel Warning: Mexico, dated
October 24, 2007. (Exhibit 8)
The noticed documents indicate that after becoming a republic in 1824, Mexico
implemented its first constitution in 1917, providing for three branches of government,
the executive, legislative and judicial. In the last decade, the Mexican Congress has
become a more important component of the Mexican government through increased
representation of opposition political groups in the legislative chamber. Mexico has been
and continues to be a strong ally of the U.S. Their close relationship has resulted in
many important agreements, accords, and partnerships in commercial, cultural,
educational areas, as well as security objectives such as the war on terrorism, and
decreasing the flow of drugs into the U.S. However, the October 2007 travel warning
alerts U.S. travelers to be vigilant due the presence of criminal activity in many parts of
the country. Though there is no indication that U.S. citizens have been targeted, a large
number of kidnappings (some still unresolved) of U.S. citizens have occurred in recent
years. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
4
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are flexible rules of law that are applied in conjunction with the
general policy factors of the whole person concept. The Administrative Judge must
consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national interest is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2b.
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an-around-
the-clock responsibility. The Government places a high degree of trust and confidence
in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include
consideration of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to
protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of
legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise
of classified information.
Foreign Preference (FP)
Acting in a way that shows one’s preference for a foreign country brings the
individual’s conduct with the FP guideline.
Foreign Influence (FI) 
Foreign contacts and financial interests may be a security concern when they
have the potential to be used to exert influence or pressure on an applicant in a way
that forces him into a position of having to choose between the foreign entity and the
U.S. 
5
Analysis
Foreign Preference (FP)
The FP guideline is activated by actions taken by an individual that demonstrates
a preference for a foreign country over the U.S. Following her naturalization as a U.S.
citizen in December 2000, Applicant’s statements and actions regarding her dual
citizenship activate FP disqualifying conditions (DC) 10a. (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: 5. (using foreign
citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country); and, 7. (voting
in foreign elections). Applicant declared her dual citizenship in her SCA in June 2005.
She voted in a Mexican city election in 2006, and plans to vote regularly in that election
in the future to maintain her citizenship. Finally, Applicant maintains her dual citizenship
because she may want to retire in Mexico in the future. 
While the FP guideline has six potentially mitigating conditions, none are
applicable. FP MC 11.a. (dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth
in a foreign country) does not apply because the statements and actions of Applicant
over the last four years demonstrating a preference for Mexico. FP MC 11.b. (the
individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship) is inapplicable
based on Applicant’s behavior to preserve not renounce her Mexican citizenship. FP
MC 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 due to Applicant’s statements and actions of preference that occurred after
she obtained her U.S. citizenship in December 2000. The remaining three MC are
irrelevant to the facts of this case. The FP guideline is found against Applicant. 
Foreign Influence (FI)
Foreign contacts and interests result in security concerns where those contacts
and interests create divided loyalties, or may be manipulated or induced by a foreign
entity that is harmful to U.S., or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign
entity. Decisions under this guideline should include the foreign country where the
contact or financial interest is located, including, but not limited to whether the foreign
government targets U.S. citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated
with the risk of terrorism. 
The mere possession of family ties in a foreign country is not automatically
disqualifying under the foreign influence guideline. When assessing the family ties, it is
important to weigh the totality of these ties in a foreign country, rather than trying to
weigh them in isolation. ISCR Case No. 01-22693 at 7 (App. Bd. Sept. 22, 2003)
Considering the record as a whole, the government has established its case under the
FI guideline. FI DC 7.a. (contact with a foreign family member, business or professional
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if
that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation,
6
pressure, or coercion) applies. Appellant visits her mother two or three times a week
and her brother two or three times a month. 
Three of the six mitigating conditions under the FI guideline may apply to the
facts and circumstances of this case: 
FC MC 8.a. (the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the
country in which these persons are located, or the position or activities of
those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will
be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a
foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of
the U.S.); 
FI MC 8.b. (there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s
sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or
country is minimal, or the individual has such deep and long lasting
relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected
to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest);
 FI MC 8.c. (contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual
and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for
foreign influence or exploitation).
FI MC 8.a has limited application. Applicant’s mother is retired and was never
employed nor an agent of the Mexican government. There is no evidence that
Applicant’s brother is an agent of the Mexican government. Applicant indicated her
three sisters and nieces live in the U.S., but she provided no other information about
their citizenship or the current status of her sister-in-law, and her niece referred to in the
SOR. SOR 2.d. is found against Applicant. While there is no indication that Mexico
targets U.S. citizens or is involved in terrorism, there is significant criminal activity in
parts of the country. Applicant’s frequent trips to see her family members in Mexico
heighten the risk that pressure could be exerted on and through her family members to
her. The limited application of FI MC 8.a. is insufficient to find in Applicant’s favor under
the FI guideline. 
FI MC 8.b. is inapplicable as Applicant has not shown she can be expected to
resolve any foreign conflict of interest in favor of U.S. interests. Her yearly voting in the
Mexican elections clearly compromises the loyalty she has for the U.S. FC MC 8.c. is
unavailable for mitigation because Applicant’s contact with her mother and brother is
more than casual and infrequent. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns
associated with the FI guideline. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC)
My finding against Applicant under the FI and FP guidelines must still be
evaluated in the context of nine variables known as the whole person concept. In
7
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following factors: (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 extent to which the participation was 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. Based on the heightened
risk of foreign pressure being exerted through her family members to Applicant, and her
statements and actions demonstrating her desire to maintain Mexican citizenship, I am
unable to find in Applicant’s favor under the FP or FI guidelines. 
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 (Foreign Preferences, Guideline C): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Foreign Influence, Guideline B): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. Against  Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e. Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge