KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant had not satisfied the criteria set forth in FCMC 11(e).  His passport had not
been destroyed or rendered unusable or otherwise invalid.  Neither had it been surrendered to a
“cognizant security authority.”  The passport was in the possession of Applicant’s own attorney. 
The record will not sustain a conclusion that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
arising out of his possession of a foreign passport, and the Judge’s holding to the contrary is
error.  Applicant’s failure to mitigate appears to be, in part, a result of his compliance with
instructions by the Judge, with the apparent concurrence of Department Counsel.  Under the
circumstances, the Board concludes that the best corrective action is to remand the case to the
Judge for a new decision.  On remand the Judge is permitted to reopen the record on the motion
of either party.
CASENO: 07-04529.a1
DATE: 07/24/2008
DATE: July 24, 2008
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-04529
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline B is not at issue in this appeal. 1
2
Candace Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 21, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and
Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 14, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s
findings of fact were supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge erred in his
whole person analysis.  Finding error, we remand the case to the Judge.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was born in Germany.
From 1985 until 2000 he was an officer in the German military.  Between 1995 and 1998 he served
in the United States as part of an officer exchange program.  Applicant married an American citizen
in 1997 and had a daughter.  However, they subsequently divorced.  Applicant’s daughter and his
ex-wife live in the United States.
After leaving the German military Applicant began working for a U.S. defense contractor.
He became a U.S. citizen in 2004.  He holds a U.S. passport.  He also has a German passport, which
he obtained in 2004 and which is valid until 2014.  Upon being advised about U.S. concerns over
his having dual citizenship, he “took steps to renounce his German citizenship . . . On February 20,
2008, the Applicant’s counsel submitted the Applicant’s Application to Renounce German
Citizenship to the German Consulate-General . . . Applicant’s counsel took possession of the
Applicant’s German passport at the hearing in order to have it available to surrender to the German
authorities after the Certificate of Renunciation has been issued.  The passport cannot be
surrendered to the German authorities before that time.”  Decision at 3.  (emphasis added)
3
B.  Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”
Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative
agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give
deference to the Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
Department Counsel argued on appeal that the finding highlighted above is not supported by
substantial record evidence.  In making this finding, the Judge relied on a document submitted by
Applicant, a copy of the form, in German with an English translation, whereby he expressed his
intention to renounce his German citizenship.  The pertinent section of that document reads as
follows: “I will turn in my German passport/ID document at the time of receipt of my Certificate of
Renunciation.”  Department Counsel stated, “[A] reasonable reading of the record establishes only
that German authorities expected individuals who had renounced their German citizenship to
surrender their German passport (a benefit of German citizenship) upon finalization of citizenship
renunciation.  The German process, as established by the record, did not preclude surrender of the
passport contemporaneously with renouncement of citizenship.”  Brief at 10.  The Board has
examined the record and finds Department Counsel’s position persuasive.  We find nothing in the
record to support the view that Applicant’s actual receipt of a certificate of renunciation from the
German government was a condition precedent to his surrender of his passport.  The record does not
sustain the challenged finding.   
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Ultimate Conclusions
 A Judge is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.  
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong
presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the government presentsth
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish any appropriate
mitigating conditions.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The application of disqualifying and mitigating
conditions and whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply
to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion
4
in light of the record evidence as a whole.”  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03635 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.
20, 2006).
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board
will review the Judge's decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails
to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of
judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision
that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere
difference of opinion.  In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law,
the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the
Directive, or other applicable federal law.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2,
2006).
Despite the implication of the Judge’s challenged finding, there is no basis to conclude that
Applicant was, in fact or in law, precluded from complying with the provisions of FCMC 11(e).
This provision mitigates the Foreign Preference security concerns arising from possession of a
foreign passport, when “the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security
authority, or otherwise invalidated . . .”  Directive ¶ E2.11(e).  At the end of the hearing, the Judge
advised Applicant’s attorney “to take possession of [Applicant’s] passport and the [citizenship
renunciation] application . . . I notice that this application says that you’re not really supposed to
surrender the passport to them until you get your certificate of renunciation . . . What I’d like you to
do . . . is check with the German Consulate in Los Angeles, which I assume is where this goes . . .
[a]nd see what they’re willing to take.  If they’ll take the passport now, do it.  Otherwise, I want you
to take possession of it until such time as it is surrendered. [Applicant’s Attorney]: I will do that,
your honor. [Department Counsel]: Your Honor, are you going to be leaving the record open for that
entire period of time? [Judge]: . . .  Once he has possession of the passport, I don’t think we have to
worry about it . . . when are you going to send it in to Los Angeles? [Applicant’s Attorney]: I’ll do
it within 24 hours. [Judge]: Fine.  Let’s leave the record open until the end of next week for
documentation and see how long this takes.”  Tr. at 133 - 135.  Subsequently Applicant submitted
Exhibit N, a copy of the signed renunciation certificate, along with a letter from his attorney to the
German consulate, advising that Applicant “will forward his German Passport to your office upon
receipt of the Certificate of Renunciation.”  Exhibit N at 4.  
In her appeal brief, Department Counsel persuasively argued that, at the time of the close of
the record, Applicant had not satisfied the criteria set forth in FCMC 11(e), which are broad.  His
passport had not been destroyed or rendered unusable or otherwise invalid.  Neither had it been
surrendered to a “cognizant security authority.”  The passport was in the possession of Applicant’s
own attorney, rather than surrendered to a person authorized to perform responsibilities pertinent to
national security.  The record before us will not sustain a conclusion that Applicant has mitigated
the security concerns arising out of his possession of a foreign passport, and the Judge’s holding to
the contrary is error.  However, in this case, we note that Applicant’s failure to mitigate appears to
5
be, in part, a result of his compliance with instructions by the Judge, with the apparent concurrence
of Department Counsel.  Under the circumstances, the Board concludes that the best corrective
action is to remand the case to the Judge for a new decision.  On remand the Judge is permitted to
reopen the record on the motion of either party to present any additional evidence they deem
appropriate to resolve the issues identified herein. 
 
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board