1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 07-07873
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) on May 25, 2005.
On April 4, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline B, Guideline E, and Guideline F that provided the basis for its action to deny
him a security clearance and to refer the matter to an administrative judge. 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 as of
September 1, 2006.
 
Applicant answered the SOR on April 14, 2008, and requested a hearing before
an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on June 18, 2008, and on June
23, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for July 25, 2008.
2
The parties appeared as scheduled. Fifteen government exhibits (Ex. 1-15) were
admitted. Applicant and three witnesses (his spouse, a family friend, and a coworker)
testified on his behalf, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on August 5, 2008. At
Applicant’s request, the record was held open for one week to allow him to submit
documentation. On July 28, 2008, Applicant submitted his marriage certificate and a
settlement offer for the debt in SOR ¶ 3.h. Department Counsel did not object to their
admission and the documents were entered as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Motion to Amend SOR
  On May 23, 2008, the government moved to amend the SOR to add under
Guideline E that Applicant deliberately falsified his May 25, 2005, SF 86 by not
disclosing his former military service for Albania (SOR ¶¶ 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e) or his
delinquent debts (SOR ¶¶ 2.f and 2.g). In his response of June 7, 2008, Applicant
admitted the allegations but explained that he thought he only had to go back ten years,
and with respect to the debts, that his wallet was stolen and he had not received any
bills. On June 25, 2008, I granted the motion to amend, but informed the parties that the
burden of proving intentional falsification was on the government in light of Applicant’s
explanations.
Request for Administrative Notice
On May 23, 2008, Department Counsel requested administrative notice be taken
of certain facts relating to Albania and its foreign relations, including to the U.S. The
request was based on publications from the U.S. State Department and the U.S.
Embassy in Tirana, Albania. The government’s formal request and the attached
documents were not admitted into evidence but were included in the record.
On June 25, 2008, I notified the parties of my intention to take administrative
notice of specific facts, subject to revision based on the evidence admitted at the
hearing and any valid objections. Neither party filed any objections by the July 11, 2008,
due date. Before the introduction of any evidence at the July 25, 2008, hearing, I
confirmed there were no objections, but the government requested that notice also be
taken of two additional facts concerning travel to Albania. I agreed to take administrative
notice of those two facts as well as of pertinent facts concerning Albania, as set forth in
the June 25, 2008, Order. The facts administratively noticed are set forth below in the
Findings of Fact.
Findings of Fact
In the SOR as amended, DOHA alleged under Guideline B, foreign influence,
that Applicant’s mother (SOR ¶ 1.a), siblings (SOR ¶ 1.b), and parents-in-law (SOR ¶
1.b) are resident citizens of Albania; that Applicant owns “hundreds of acres” of land in
Albania that he once valued at up to $1 million USD (SOR ¶ 1.d); that in 1999, 2000,
3
2001, 2002, and 2005 he traveled to Albania (SOR ¶ 1.e) and to Yugoslavia, Germany,
Italy, Switzerland, Greece, and France (SOR ¶ 1.f); that he had changed his name and
asked his spouse to change her name because he did not want them to be identified as
natives of Albania when in Albania (SOR ¶ 1.g), and that he possesses a record from
Albania’s defense ministry documenting his military training (SOR ¶ 1.h). Under
Guideline E, Applicant was alleged to have indicated in an affidavit presented to a
government investigator in January 2008 that he used U.S. travel documents for his
travel abroad when his U.S. passport does not include entry stamps for all the trips
(SOR ¶ 2.a); that in a January 2008 affidavit he had denied using his birth name since
his U.S. naturalization (SOR ¶ 2.b); and that as noted above, he had not disclosed his
past foreign military service on his SF 86 (SOR ¶¶ 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e) or his delinquent
debts (SOR ¶¶ 2.f and 2.g). Under Guideline F, Applicant was alleged to owe eight
delinquent debts totaling $7,112 (SOR ¶¶ 3.a-3.h). Applicant admitted the allegations
with the exception of SOR ¶¶ 3.c and 3.d, but offered explanations for his failure to list
his military service and indebtedness on his SF 86 that, if proven, would indicate he did
not intend to conceal or deceive. His admissions are accepted as findings of fact. After
considering the evidence of record, I make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is a 41-year-old mechanic (technical installation) who has been
employed by a defense contractor since late March 2004 (Ex. 1, Tr. 66). He seeks his
first security clearance.
Applicant was born in Albania in April 1967. The youngest of six children born to
native Albanian citizens, he attended an agricultural college in Albania from September
1980 to June 1984 (Ex. 1, Tr. 64). He received training in a military college from
January 1987 to December 1988, and was awarded a degree/certificate (Ex. 1. Tr. 146).
He then served in an artillery division of the Albanian army, and spent about six months
as an artillery instructor, until May/June 1990. On finishing his military obligation, he fled
to Yugoslavia under cover of night. He was opposed to communism, and sought
permission from the U.S. Embassy in Yugoslavia (now Serbia) to immigrate to the U.S.
(Ex. 4, Tr. 66-68).
In late January 1991, he was issued a provisional travel certificate by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that was valid for travel to the U.S. Applicant
was granted permission to immigrate to the U.S. in March 1991, and he came to the
U.S. under the sponsorship of a private foundation (Ex. 9, Tr. 68-70). Applicant knew no
English, and he socialized with another Albanian who had emigrated under the
sponsorship of the same foundation (Tr.  159, 163).
In March 1992, he began working as a driver for a sweeping company. He
worked in excess of 12 hours per day (Tr. 162). From 1994 to 2005, he traveled to
Albania to visit his family members (Tr. 152), passing through various European
Applicant testified he traveled to Albania maybe more than 20 times since 1994 (Tr. 152). On his SF 86 (Ex.1
1), he listed six separate trips between August 1998 and June 2002, although his U.S. passport (Ex. 2) does
not include stamps for all the trips.
The U.S. State Department’s Background Note: Albania, dated January 2008, indicates that communism fell2
in Albania in 1991, but much of the decade was marked by internal political deadlock. In early 1997 anarchy
broke out following the collapse of several pyramid schemes that left thousands bankrupt, disillusioned and
angry. After a UN Multinational Protection Force restored order, Albania was led by a series of short-lived
socialist governments until July 2002. 
4
countries en route.  He had left his Albanian passport behind in Yugoslavia and1
presented documents issued by the U.S. to reenter the U.S. On a trip in August  1998,
he used a reentry permit issued to him by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service in April 1998 (Ex. 6, Ex. 8).
In February 1999, Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Presented with
the opportunity to take a new name, he changed his name from his birth name to his
present name so that he would not be recognized as Albanian on future visits to his
parents. Given the problems in Albania at the time, he feared the country would again
come under communist rule (Tr. 134-35).  Applicant did not renounce his Albanian2
citizenship out of respect for his family still residing there (Ex. 3). In March 1999,
Applicant obtained his U.S. passport under his newly acquired name. The passport is
valid to March 2009 (Ex. 7). Applicant did not change his state motor vehicle operator’s
license to reflect his new name (Ex. 11).
Applicant traveled to Albania on his U.S. passport to visit his family members in
September 1999. His brothers had arranged for him to marry a native Albanian, and
Applicant met his spouse for the first time during his three-week trip to Albania (Ex. 3,
Tr. 33). She is from the same northern district in Albania where Applicant is from and
where his family still resides. Applicant returned to Albania for a couple of weeks in July
2000 to see his parents, siblings, and fiancee (Ex. 1, Ex. 3).
In October 2000, Applicant went to Albania for his marriage. His spouse took his
new last name even though Applicant wanted her to take his family name. They were
told they had no option (“I wanted to put it [his birth surname] at that time I got married
but they won’t let you, you know, you just have to go the last name of your husband,
and I put it, okay, I said no problem.” ) (Tr. 30, 87). He sponsored her immigration and
she eventually joined him in the U.S. in 2002 (Tr. 39, 74). She was only 22 at the time
and had not worked in Albania (Tr. 39). They have two sons who were born in the U.S.
in 2005 and 2006 (Ex. 1, Tr. 22, 65-66).
In early September 2001, Applicant began working as a driver/casket painter for
a casket company (Ex. 1). About a week later, his eldest brother, a veterinarian for the
Albanian government, was paralyzed in an accident involving a horse (Tr. 77-78, 82).
Applicant traveled to Albania the following day and stayed a week (Ex. 2, Tr. ). In June
2002, Applicant went back to Albania for about three weeks (Ex. 1, Ex. 2). 
Applicant’s SF 86 contains an obvious error about a family relationship as his first son is listed as a3
stepmother.
His U.S. passport (Ex. 2) bears stamps showing entry into Albania on “03 LUG 2005" and departing “16 LUG4
2005.” On January 28, 2008, he signed an affidavit in which he indicated he went to Albania from 3 July 05
to 16 July 05 (Ex. 5). Yet, in April 2007, he told the investigator that the trip was in June 2005 (Ex. 3), and at
his hearing, he testified that “LUG” was “month six.” (Tr. 141). The discrepancy is relevant to the extent it
shows another inaccuracy about which the government expressed concern.
5
In March 2004, Applicant started his employment with the defense contractor
learning to be a fabrication technician (Ex. 1). A year later, he applied for a security
clearance for his duties. On his SF 86 executed on May 25, 2005, Applicant listed his
dual citizenship with Albania and the U.S. since his naturalization in 1999. He disclosed
his birth name used until February 1999, his marriage in Albania in November 2004 [sic]
to an Albanian native, and the Albanian citizenship and residency of his parents, his
three brothers, and one of his two sisters.  Applicant listed six foreign trips to Albania3
since August 1998, and listed all the European countries that he had passed through en
route to and from Albania in the past seven years. He did not disclose his prior military
service for Albania in response to question 11, “Have you ever served in the military? (If
yes, provide in chronological order your military history, begin with the most recent
period and include Reserves, National Guard, Merchant Marines, and Foreign Military
service.).” Nor did he indicate any foreign employment in response to question 33 or
any contact with a foreign government in response to question 34, although he listed his
military schooling in response to the education inquiry (question 5). Applicant also
responded “No” to question 38 inquiring into any financial delinquencies over 180 days
in the past seven years, and to question 39 asking about any debts currently over 90
days delinquent (SF 86). A check of Applicant’s credit in August 2005 revealed past due
balances of $1,874 (SOR ¶ 3.a) and $1,772 (SOR ¶ 3.b) on two credit card accounts
charged off and/or placed for collection, a $335 debt in collection since February 2003
(SOR ¶ 3.c), and a $39 debt in collection since November 2002 (SOR ¶ 3.d) (Ex. 15).
During summer 2005, Applicant spent two weeks in Albania visiting his father,
who was very ill (Ex. 1, Ex. 2).  Applicant returned to Albania for his funeral in October4
2005 (Ex. 2, Tr. 76). Applicant and his three brothers inherited hundreds of acres of land
in Albania that they split up in equal shares. Applicant estimates the value of his land is
more than $1 million USD. His mother takes care of his land for him (Ex.  2, Ex. 5, Tr.
34-36, 80-81).
On November 4, 2005, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator
about his dual citizenship and foreign ties to Albania. Applicant explained he kept his
Albanian citizenship to maintain his family heritage, and because most of his family is
there and he owns land there. Applicant denied any other financial interests in Albania.
Applicant discussed his service in the Albanian military from 1987 to 1989, and added
that he had later worked for the Albanian government for one month as an artillery
instructor. Applicant expressed a willingness to renounce his Albanian citizenship as a
condition of access because of the greater opportunities presented to him in the U.S.
Applicant indicated he had close relationships with his mother, three brothers, a sister,
6
and his parents-in-law, all Albanian resident citizens. He was in telephone contact with
his mother daily, with his siblings monthly, and with his in-laws weekly. Applicant denied
any of his relatives were vulnerable to duress or were hostile. He added that he
maintained a friendship with a police officer in Albania, whom he contacted once every
two weeks (Ex. 4).
Applicant was re-interviewed by a government investigator on April 6, 2007,
concerning his foreign travel to Albania. He indicated he went to Albania in June 2005
when his father was sick and then returned in August 2005 [sic] for his father’s funeral.
When asked about his earlier travel, Applicant reported spending up to a week in Italy in
conjunction with his trip to Albania in October 2001 [sic], two weeks in Yugoslavia in
July 2000 en route to/from Albania, and one week in Switzerland and France in
September 1999, again in conjunction with a visit to his family in Albania. When asked
about his name change, Applicant indicated that he wanted a new start when he came
to the U.S. and he feared the U.S. would look down on him for his last name. Applicant
added that his spouse used his birth surname and that she would officially become a
U.S. citizen in September 2007. Applicant reportedly told the investigator that he had
daily contact with his mother but that he had no other contact with foreign nationals. He
denied any close contact with his siblings over the past few years (Ex. 3).
Applicant’s spouse and their two sons spent the summer of 2007 in Albania.
They stayed one month with Applicant’s mother and the other two months with her
parents (Tr. 98). Applicant has not been to Albania since his father’s funeral in October
2005 because of the expense. He is the sole provider for his family (Tr. 77).
Applicant’s spouse became a U.S. citizen in about September 2007. At
Applicant’s request, she changed her last name to the family surname that he was given
at birth.  He no longer had the same concerns if they should travel to Albania under that
name and he wanted to ensure that his siblings’ offspring would recognize the family
relationship (Tr. 30, 84-85). They had already changed their sons’ surnames to his
family name (Tr. 30).
In August 2007, DOHA asked Applicant to clarify his allegiance to the U.S. given
his dual citizenship status, and his ownership of property in Albania. In his response of
August 20, 2007, Applicant averred his allegiance was with the U.S. where his children
are citizens and he would base his decisions on them. Concerning future plans for his
property in Albania, Applicant indicated that he owned several acres of open space
“with future use for hotels or resorts for people through the world, also camping for
holistice [sic] use, possible value $1 million.” Applicant provided a copy of his current
U.S. passport (Ex. 2).
On January 28, 2008, Applicant provided an affidavit to a government
investigator in which he discussed his immigration to the U.S. as a refugee, and his
service in the Albanian military as a commander with last duty from January 1989 to
May 1990. He explained he was still a dual citizen of Albania and the U.S., but that he
was loyal to the U.S. and would not bear arms against the U.S. As for his property
7
ownership, Applicant related he had inherited hundreds of acres of land in Albania on
which stands a vacant house. He denied any obligations associated with his ownership
of that foreign property, including any requirement to pay taxes. He expressed his intent
to bequeath the property to his children on his death. Applicant denied he had used his
birth surname on any official documentation after he became a U.S. citizen. He
explained he had changed his name because he did not want to be identified when he
returned to Albania. Applicant denied traveling to Albania other than on U.S. documents
and indicated that U.S. border officials had not always stamped his passport. Applicant
averred he had traveled to Albania in July and October 2005 after he had submitted his
SF 86. He indicated he had made some mistakes as to the dates of his foreign travel
when he completed his SF 86, and he had inadvertently omitted a May 2001 trip to
Albania. Applicant related he continued to contact his mother daily, and that he had
once weekly to twice monthly contact with his siblings, and he last saw them in October
2005 (Ex. 5).
During the course of Applicant’s background investigation, the government
learned that Applicant had been pulled over for speeding in May 2001 and that he
presented at that time an operator’s license under his birth name (Ex. 11). On January
30, 2008, Applicant was re-interviewed by the investigator about his foreign travel and
use of his birth name after he had changed his name.  He maintained in an affidavit that
before 1999, he used his U.S. permanent residency card and a permit to reenter the
U.S. Applicant denied any intent to conceal information. Concerning his use of his birth
name after he had changed his name in 1999, Applicant indicated that when he was
cited for speeding in May 2001, he may have been using a driver’s license under his
birth name and that could not recall when he changed it. Applicant denied he had
opened any credit accounts using his birth name since 1999 or that he had applied for
any credit under the name he acquired in 1999 (Ex. 6).
A check of Applicant’s credit on December 5, 2007, revealed Applicant had made
no progress toward resolving the debts in SOR ¶ 3.a ($2,449 balance), ¶ 3.b ($2,650
balance), ¶ 3.c ($335 medical debt), or ¶ 3.d ($39 telephone debt), and that he owed on
other delinquent accounts: $905 for phone services placed for collection in August 2005
(SOR ¶ 3.f), $196 owed a satellite television provider since November 2005 (SOR ¶
3.g), and $311 on a retail charge card closed in October 2006 (SOR ¶ 3.h) (Ex. 13). A
more recent check of Applicant’s credit on February 14, 2008 (Ex. 12) showed the debts
were still outstanding with the balance of SOR ¶ 3.a increasing to $2,482. Also a
telephone services provider had placed a $193 debt balance for collection in March
2004 (SOR ¶ 3.e).
Applicant indicates the debts in SOR ¶ 3.e. and ¶ 3.f were for a telephone and/or
services he thought were free, and that he was unable to straighten it out with the
service provider due to his limited English (Tr. 108-10). He claims he incurred only
about $200 in consumer credit charges on SOR ¶ 3.a before he lost the card (Tr. 112).
Applicant made only one payment on the debt thereafter (Tr. 113). He does not
recognize the debt in SOR ¶ 3.b or the medical debt in SOR ¶ 3.c (Tr. 114). As for the
satellite television debt, Applicant bought a satellite dish at a local retail outlet. When he
8
called the provider to initiate service, he was told that he would be sent a new receiver.
He refused to pay for one because he did not need it, and when the creditor would not
listen to him, he did not pay for his second month of service that he received at his
residence (Tr. 116-17). Applicant maintains he incurred only about $125 of the charges
on the department store credit card account in SOR ¶ 3.h and that he received no
statement of his account until his spouse called the creditor (Tr. 117-18). He had
changed addresses (“I lost the address and I didn’t know where I could pay it, and
I–And at that time, we were moving from the other house to our house.” Tr. 129). In
early July 2008, an assignee collecting the debt offered to settle the $311.42 debt on
receipt of $124.57 (Ex. B). As of mid-July 2008, there is no proof that he paid on any of
the delinquent debts listed on his recent credit report. He does not intend to pay the
telephone debt of $905 even though he made the calls (“Because it looks to me not
right, you know, and I said I’m not going to try to pay nothing.” Tr. 131).
As of mid-July 2008, Applicant had not renounced his Albanian citizenship,
although he does not possess any document that currently identifies him as an Albanian
citizen (Tr. 88). He is not required to maintain his citizenship to keep his land in Albania.
Applicant is considering building a small hotel someday on that land as a legacy for his
children (Tr. 95). He continued to telephone his mother in Albania, usually every
weekend. Applicant calls his brothers more often than once monthly. He speaks to his
sisters about once a month. His eldest brother still works as a veterinarian for the
Albanian government although since his accident Applicant is not certain of his brother’s
job duties. His other brothers work in the dairy field (makes milk and cheese) and as a
carpenter. His two sisters do not work outside of the home. One takes care of her
husband who is paralyzed on one side and the other’s husband guards restaurant
premises at night to prevent break-ins (Tr. 77-80). Applicant has not spoken with his
friend the policeman in Albania for about two years (Tr. 83). 
Applicant’s spouse visits her parents about once a year in Albania when she can
afford to do so. She contacts her parents once weekly when she is able to reach them.
She speaks with her siblings in Albania about once a month. Her relatives in Albania
have cell phones (Tr. 36-38). Her father had been a truck driver in Albania until illness
left him unable to work. Her mother was employed on a farm. Her siblings support
themselves by working the land and their animals (Tr. 38-39). They have never worked
for the Albanian government (Tr. 39).
Applicant and his spouse rent an apartment in the U.S. She does not drive.
Applicant and his spouse have a good friend in the U.S. who has helped them deal with
creditors and helped them understand documents confusing to them as non-native
English speakers. She drives Applicant’s spouse when needed because Applicant’s
spouse does not drive and she reviewed all the paperwork from DOHA about
Applicant’s clearance with him (Tr. 157). She believes Applicant and his spouse are
good people who don’t quite understand at times (Tr. 22-25).
A forklift operator with 33 years of experience at the company developed a close
working relationship with Applicant over the past five years. He considers Applicant to
9
be a very professional and diligent installation mechanic. This coworker does not require
a clearance for his work but understands Applicant needs a clearance to perform some
special hull treatment (Tr. 42-44).
Following review of official publications of the U.S. government that address the
history, economic and political activities in Albania and its relationship to the U.S., I take
administrative notice of the following facts:
Albania is a parliamentary democracy that was controlled nearly continuously by
a succession of foreign powers until the mid-20th century, with only brief periods of self-
rule. After World War II until the fall of communism in 1991, Albania adhered to a strict
Stalinist philosophy that led to isolation and underdevelopment. With the election of the
first democratically elected president in 1992, Albania began a deliberate program of
economic and democratic reform, but unscrupulous investment and the collapse of
pyramid schemes led to armed revolt in 1997. Order was restored through international
intervention, and in 1998 Albania ratified a new constitution guaranteeing the rule of law
and protection of fundamental human rights. Since 2002, Albania has made significant
progress in transforming its economy into a market-oriented system, in instituting
democratic reforms and rule of law initiatives, and in developing relations with its
neighbors and the United States. Its primary long-term goals are to gain NATO and
European Union membership and to promote closer bilateral ties with its neighbors and
the U.S. Albania and the U.S. enjoy friendly and cooperate relations. Pro-U.S. sentiment
is widespread among the Albanian population. Since fiscal year 1991, the U.S. has
provided Albania with more than $616 million in assistance not counting food aid.
Albania has aggressively worked with the U.S. and other countries to combat terrorism,
but the government and police forces face substantial challenges in fully enforcing
border security and in combating organized crime and corruption.
Albania generally respects the human rights of its citizens, although the country
continues to experience problems in some areas, including societal “blood feud” killings,
security force abuse of prisoners and detainees, poor prison and pretrial detention
conditions, police corruption, discrimination against women, children and minorities, and
human trafficking. In 2007, domestic and international rights groups were allowed to
operate in Albania without government restriction and government officials were
cooperative and responsive to their findings. The government also respected legal
prohibitions against arbitrary interference with personal privacy.
 
The Albanian government considers any person in Albania of Albanian parents to
be an Albanian citizen. Dual nationals may be subject to Albanian laws that impose
special obligations. Male Albanian citizens are subject to compulsory service obligations
and those guilty of draft evasion are subject to prosecution in Albania. The overall
security situation in Albania has improved in recent years although the crime rate
continues to be high. A passport is required to enter Albania. A visa is not required to
enter but an entry stamp is issued at the point of entry that is valid for a stay of up to 90
days. Foreign visitors are rarely targeted, but travel by U.S. government employees in
the northern administrative districts had been restricted to secure vehicles with escort
10
due to possible threats by criminal elements against the physical safety of American
citizens in the area. As of September 2007, travel restrictions had been lifted for
overnight stays in the area where Applicant’s family lives.
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
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
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 security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
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
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
11
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Foreign Influence
The security concern relating to the guideline for foreign influence is set out in
AG & 6:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a
risk of terrorism.
Applicant’s mother, siblings, and parents-in-law are resident citizens of Albania
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c). He has bonds of affection and/or obligation with his family
members, which raise security concerns under AG ¶ 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, pressure, or coercion”). Applicant calls his
mother every weekend, his brothers monthly, and his sisters every other month. He has
returned to Albania to visit them an estimated 20 times since immigrating to the U.S. in
March 1991. 
Applicant’s ties to Albania through his spouse also heighten the risk of undue
foreign influence. Although his spouse became a U.S. naturalized citizen in 2007, she
has close bonds of affection and/or obligation with her parents and siblings in Albania.
She speaks with her parents by telephone about once weekly depending on whether
she is successful in making contact, and with her siblings about once a month. AG ¶
7(d) (“sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status,
if the relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation,
pressure, or coercion”) applies.
On his father’s death in 2005, Applicant inherited with his brothers hundreds of
acres of land in Albania (SOR ¶ 1.d). When asked to estimate the value of that foreign
property asset, Applicant indicated it was worth in excess of $1 million USD. He testified
at his hearing that he and his brothers have divided the property. It is not clear whether
the $1 million figure represents his share or the entire asset held with his brothers.
Even so, it is a substantial foreign property interest that Applicant intends to retain and
Applicant told a government investigator in April 2007 (Ex. 3) that in conjunction with his trips to Albania to5
see his family, he spent a week in Switzerland and France in September 1999, two weeks in Yugoslavia in
July 2000, a few days in Germany in October 2000, and one week in Italy in October 2001 [sic]. However, he
now claims he stopped only one night in each country, but also that he stayed in Italy three or four nights (Tr,
155). W hen asked about his prior admissions to having stayed as long as a week or two in these other
countries before proceeding to or from Albania, Applicant responded that he might not have understood the
question posed to him by the investigator in April 2007, that “Maybe I said one week or two weeks that I stayed
in my country.” (Tr. 156).
Applicant initially indicated during his interview of April 2007 that he changed his name when he came to the6
U.S. because he wanted a new start and feared that the U.S. would look down on him for his last name. This
does not make sense given he changed his name some eight years after he came to the U.S. W hether out
of fear because he was being reinterviewed, a failure to fully understand what was being asked due to
language issues, or some other reason, Applicant made other statements during that interview,  including that
he has not had close contact with his siblings over the past few years, that contradict his admissions in
November 2005 and his hearing testimony. Applicant had not seen his siblings in person since his father’s
funeral in 2005, but he had telephone contact with them.  
12
then bequeath on his death to his children. Applicant and his spouse testified to
potentially building a hotel on his land to enhance the legacy for their children. AG ¶ 7(e)
(“a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any
foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which could subject the individual to
heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation”) applies.
Applicant’s travels to Albania (SOR ¶ 1.e) primarily implicate AG ¶ 7(a) in that
they reflect the strength of his foreign family ties. There is no indication that Applicant
has engaged in conduct while in Albania that would fall within AG ¶ 7(f) (“conduct,
especially while traveling outside the U.S., which may make the individual vulnerable to
exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government, or country”)
except perhaps maintaining his Albanian citizenship. According to the U.S. State
Department, dual nationals may be subject to Albanian laws that impose special
obligations. As for Applicant’s travels to various European countries (SOR ¶ 1.f), he
credibly explained that on each trip to Albania, he had a flight layover in a European
country. He did not travel to all of the six countries listed (Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany,
Switzerland, Greece, and France) on each trip. Notwithstanding the discrepant
information about the length of his layovers,  it is still difficult to see how a brief visit to a5
European country heightens his risk of foreign influence.
The government also alleges that an unacceptable risk of undue foreign
influence exists because Applicant changed his name, and had his spouse change hers
as well, because he did not want them to be identified as Albanians when they returned
to Albania (SOR ¶ 1.g). The evidence shows that Applicant took on a new name when
he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in February 1999.  Applicant and his spouse both
testified that he changed his name because he feared recognition by Albanian
authorities when in Albania.  This shows real concern on Applicant’s part that pressure,6
coercion, or influence could be placed on him and/or his family members in Albania,
perhaps because of what he had witnessed during Albania’s communist past and the
circumstances under which he left Albania. Given Applicant traveled to Albania before
13
1999 using a U.S. issued entry permit issued under his birth name (see Ex. 8), one
could reasonably question his motivation for changing his name in 1999, but the U.S.
State Department confirms that Albania was ruled by a series of short-lived socialist-led
governments after the anarchy of 1997 until July 2002. Applicant credibly explained that
he still feared Albania could revert to its communist past during that period. As for his
spouse taking on his new surname on their marriage in 2000, she had no choice but to
take his last name. At his urging, she changed her last name to his family name when
she became a U.S. citizen in 2007 as the strengthening of democracy in Albania had
sufficiently alleviated his fears. At present, his name change is not seen as raising
actionable foreign influence concerns.
Similarly, his possession of a record showing his military training in Albania (SOR
¶ 1.h) in and of itself does not generate Guideline B concerns. Applicant explained that
he asked his brother to obtain the document for him as he wanted a record of his
training/education (Tr. 98-100). None of the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 7 are
pertinent to his mere possession of a document confirming past military service before
he came to the U.S.
Applicant and his spouse have strong family ties to Albania that are being
reinforced through frequent telephone contact and annual visits to Albania when their
budget permits. There is nothing untoward about their familial relationships. However,
despite being disabled, Applicant’s oldest brother still works for the Albanian
government as a veterinarian (Tr. 78). It is unclear to what extent he is able to fulfill
veterinary duties since he became disabled. As a dairy farmer and a carpenter
respectively, Applicant’s other brothers do not hold positions that enhance the risk of
Applicant being placed in the untenable position of having to choose between them and
the U.S. His sisters, with whom he has less frequent contact, do not work outside the
home. His mother is elderly and retired, his father-in-law had been a trucker before his
illness, and his mother-in-law works on the farm as do his spouse’s siblings. Nothing
about their duties has military, intelligence, or security implications. Yet, I am unable to
fully apply AG ¶ 8(a) (“the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in
which these persons are located, or the positions 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.”). Little is known about his relatives’ associations and
activities in Albania, so the risk of undue foreign influence cannot be completely ruled
out. It is also noted that while Albania and the U.S. enjoy good relations, it was not too
long ago that Albania was ruled by socialist-led governments.
Moreover, Applicant remains tied to Albania through his ownership of hundreds
of acres of land in Albania. The foreign influence risk presented by his significant foreign
asset cannot be fully assessed without regard to concern for his heritage and perhaps
even for his family members in Albania. Applicant testified that he and his brothers split
up their inheritance, but he presented no evidence to show a legal division of the
property. When asked whether they own property in Albania, Applicant’s spouse
responded, “Well, actually, my husband and his brothers, they do.” (Tr. 34). She
testified further that the family home is located on Applicant’s land (“they have a house,
14
an old house which his grandfather made it, his dad made it, with his mom, and they
raised seven children there.”), and that it is the family’s current residence (Tr. 35). Even
if Applicant owns only a share, and the house is vacant as claimed by him in January
2008 (Ex. 5), he intends to keep the property interest as a legacy for his children, and
even to possibly enhance its value through developing it for tourism purposes. AG ¶ 8(f)
(“the value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property interests is
such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used effectively to
influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual’) does not apply.
Despite the considerable risks Applicant took to flee Albania and immigrate to the
U.S. when he had no family here and knew no English, he retains considerable ties to
Albania through his family and his property interest. He went back to Albania to get
married in a relationship arranged between his brothers and his father-in-law. Applicant
does not own any property in the U.S. of comparable value to his Albanian property. He
and his spouse rent their apartment in the U.S. While his voluntary acquisition of U.S.
citizenship weighs in his favor, I am unable to conclude on the record presented that his
ties to the U.S. are so deep and longstanding to overcome his loyalties and obligations
to his family members in Albania. AG ¶ 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 so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding
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”) does not apply.
Personal Conduct
The security concern related to the guideline for personal conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
When Applicant applied for his security clearance in May 2005, he did not
disclose his previous service in the Albanian military from January 1987 to about May
1990, or that he had worked as an artillery instructor for the Albanian government for
about six months. The government contends that Applicant deliberately did not list his
foreign military service either in response to question 11, “Have you ever served in the
military (“If yes, provide in chronological order your miliary history: begin with the most
recent period and include Reserves, National Guard, Merchant Marines, and Foreign
Military Service.”) (SOR ¶ 2.c), to question 13, “Are you now or have you ever been
employed by or acted as a consultant for a foreign government, firm, or agency?” (SOR
¶ 2.d), or question 14, “Have you ever had any contact with a foreign government, its
establishments (embassies or consulates), or its representatives, whether inside of
outside the U.S., other than on official U.S. Government business?” Applicant had an
15
obligation to list his foreign military service in response to question 11.  The question
unambiguously requires the reporting of any foreign military service. The evidence does
not establish that Applicant was required to report his military service in response to
questions 13 or 14. Civilian employment as an artillery instructor for the military would
fall within the scope of question 13, but it is unclear whether he held the position in a
civilian capacity. As for question 14, it was not sufficiently shown that Applicant had any
contact with a foreign government outside of his military service, which is already
covered under question 11.
Additionally, Applicant did not disclose on his SF 86 any financial delinquencies
in response to question 38 concerning any debts over 180 days delinquent in the last
seven years (SOR ¶ 2.f), or question 39, any debts currently over 90 days delinquent
(SOR ¶ 2.g). Checks of Applicant’s credit revealed a $1,874 past due credit card
balance (SOR ¶ 3.a) on an account charged off in about September 2001, a $1,772
past due balance on a credit card account in collection since about December 2002
(SOR ¶ 3.b), a $39 telephone debt in collection (SOR ¶ 3.d) since June 2003, a $335
medical debt in collection since February 2003 (SOR ¶ 3.c), and a telephone services
debt of $193 placed for collection in March 2004 (SOR ¶ 3.e).
The knowing and willful omission/concealment of information required to be
reported on an SF 86 falls within AG ¶ 16(a) (“deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities”). While Applicant has admitted that
information was not disclosed, he denies the omissions were deliberate. Concerning his
failure to report his foreign military service, Applicant expressed his belief that the SF 86
had a ten-year scope (“When I filled out application, it said I only had to go back last ten
years.” Answer, Tr. 122). There is nothing in the record that corroborates Applicant’s
claim that he was told to go back only ten years, although it also appears that he was
focused on events since he immigrated to the U.S. as a refugee in 1991. His
subsequent disclosure of his military service when he was interviewed in November
2005 shows he lacked the intent to conceal his foreign military record.
 As for his failure to list the debts in SOR ¶¶ 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, and 3.d, Applicant
indicated that his wallet had been stolen and that he had not received any bills
(Answer). When asked about the debts at his hearing, Applicant indicated he had not
heard from the creditors until about two weeks ago, when he received a letter from the
creditor in SOR ¶ 3.h (Tr. 127-28). When asked about his telephone debt in SOR ¶ 3.e,
which was referred for collection in March 2004, Applicant admits he made the
telephone calls, but he claims he did not understand the terms of the service and was
unable to communicate with the creditors due to limited English. He admits he opened
the credit card account in SOR ¶ 3.a and incurred about $300 in charges (Tr. 111).
While he averred that the credit card was in his wallet that he had lost (“I think I made
one payment after that, after I told them, they sent it on paper and I wrote something
down on that paper and I sent the paper to pay, and I sent that to them, and then after
that I didn’t make any more payments. And I tried to call them to say to stop, and I said I
As previously noted in discussing the Guideline B concerns, Applicant was previously interviewed by the7
investigator in April 2007, and he made several statements at that time that contradict not only his prior
admissions of November 2005 but also his hearing testimony. The government did not move to amend the
SOR to allege any falsification of his April 2007 interview, although they are appropriate for considering
Applicant’s suitability for access under the whole person concept.
16
lost it or something. I don’t remember, I’m not sure because it’s a long time, and I didn’t
try to put it in writing to them, to get all the story.” Tr. 113), it is not clear that he knew in
May 2005 that he had an obligation to pay these debts. This bears negative implications
for his handling of his financial matters (see Guideline F, infra) but it falls short of
establishing knowing and willful concealment.
Nor has DOHA proven that Applicant deliberately falsified a written affidavit in
January 2008 when he claimed that he had utilized travel documents provided by the
U.S. for travel (SOR ¶ 2.a). While the passport in evidence does not include entry
stamps for all of Applicant’s listed travel to Albania, and the State Department reports
that an entry stamp will be issued at the point of entry (see Albania, Country Specific
Information, dated September 20, 2007), it is indeed possible that Applicant’s U.S.
passport was scanned but not stamped at the border. Applicant’s U.S. passport bears
stamps showing travel to Albania in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2005, and he furnished a re-
entry permit issued by the U.S. in April 1998. The government presented no evidence
that he traveled on any foreign document, such as an Albanian passport, after he
acquired his U.S. citizenship (see AG ¶ 17(f) (“the information was unsubstantiated”)).
The government established that Applicant falsified his January 28, 2008,
affidavit when he denied that he had used his birth name on any official documents after
February 1999 (SOR ¶ 2.b). The state police checked his traffic record on January 30,
2008, and discovered that Applicant held a state driver’s license under his birth name
and that he had been cited for speeding in May 2001 (Ex. 11). Current information on
record with the state as of January 30, 2008, failed to confirm that Applicant had ever
changed his name on his driver’s license. Applicant can be expected to know what
name was on his driver’s license. When he was confronted about the discrepancy on
January 30, 2008, Applicant indicated that as of May 2001, he “may have still been
using” a state driver’s license issued in his former name, and that he could not recall
when he changed it (Ex. 6). While there is a relevant distinction to be made between
knowingly acquiring a driver’s license under a former name and keeping an old license
under a former name until it was up for renewal, Applicant has not presented a credible
explanation to overcome the inference of falsification warranted by the evidence in this
case. In addition to the state’s retrieval of the traffic record under Applicant’s birth name
in January 2008, Applicant made several inconsistent statements in April 2007 that
undermine his overall credibility.  AG ¶ 16(b) (“deliberately providing false or misleading7
information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official,
competent medical authority or other official government representative”) applies. None
of the mitigating conditions are pertinent.
17
Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG & 18:
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
Available credit reports show that as of February 2008, Applicant owed
delinquent debt totaling about $7,112. He admitted all but $374 (SOR ¶¶ 3.c and 3.d) of
the debt. While this is not an insurmountable financial burden, Applicant demonstrated
disregard of his financial obligations which is incompatible with holding a security
clearance. He stopped making payments on his credit card debt in SOR ¶ 3.a after he
apparently lost the card. He acknowledges he incurred the telephone charges in SOR
¶¶ 3.e and 3.f, and while he now claims to have no knowledge of the debt in SOR ¶ 3.b,
he failed to show that it was not his responsibility. AG ¶¶ 19(a) (“inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts”) and 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial
obligations”) are clearly implicated. His liability for the debt in SOR ¶ 3.c was not
sufficiently established, however.
Assuming that Applicant was unaware of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 3.b and 3.c until
they became an issue for his clearance, he had made no payments on any of his debts
as of his hearing. Rather, he showed an unwillingness to resolve those debt balances
that exceed the original charges. He does not intend to pay the telephone debt of $905
even though he made the calls (“Because it looks to me not right, you know, and I said
I’m not going to try to pay nothing.” Tr. 131). Whatever difficulty Applicant had with
dealing with the creditors because of his limited English skills, it cannot justify his
inattention to the accounts, especially when Applicant could call on the assistance of a
family friend who had dealt with at least one creditor on his spouse’s behalf. After the
hearing, he presented documentation showing the creditor in ¶ 3.h had offered to settle
his debt on receipt of two payments of $124.57 (Ex. B). The payment coupon was
missing so presumably Applicant kept it to send in a payment. Mitigating condition AG ¶
20(d) (“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts”) has limited applicability in this case. His recent efforts to resolve the
debt in SOR ¶ 3.h warrant a favorable finding as to that debt, but it is not enough to
ensure that Applicant can be counted on to deal responsibly with his creditors in the
future.
 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
18
(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 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 ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept.
The salient issue in the security clearance determination is not in terms of loyalty,
but rather what is clearly consistent with the national interest. See Executive Order
10865, Section 7. An applicant may have the best of intentions and yet be in an
untenable position of potentially having to choose between a dear family member and
the interests of the U.S. Applicant’s ties to Albania are familial and financial, and not
sufficiently mitigated by countervailing strong bonds in the U.S. He has his employment
here but he retains his Albanian citizenship despite having fled Albania for refugee
status in the West out of regard for his family. He and his spouse travel to Albania when
their finances permit it. Applicant sent his spouse and children to Albania for three
months last summer. In addition to the foreign influence concerns, doubts persist for his
judgment and reliability because of his handling of his personal credit and his failure to
provide consistent responses at times to U.S. government inquiries, including those
concerning the date of his marriage, the duration of his stay in various foreign countries,
the reasons for changing his name, the dates of his father’s death, when he lost his
wallet, just to name a few. Even if due to inadequate recall or to a failure to understand
the importance of the clearance process, his inconsistencies cast doubt as to whether
Applicant has the requisite good judgment and reliability that must be demanded of
those granted access to classified information. Based on the record before me, I am
unable to conclude at this time that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to
grant him access to classified information.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the
amended SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant 
19
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.h: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
________________________
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge