1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 07-10635
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn E. Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Oni A. Holley, Esquire, Meredith Carter, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA), on April 18, 2006.
On April 16, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under foreign preference
(Guideline C), foreign influence (Guideline B), and financial considerations (Guideline
F). 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 his answer to the SOR on May 15, 2008. DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on August 19, 2008, and the hearing was held on September 10,
2008. The transcript was received by DOHA on September 19, 2008. 
At the hearing, the government submitted eight exhibits (GE 1 through 8).
Administrative Notice was also taken of several documents from United States
2
Government agency publications that describe the government of Nigeria, its human
rights record, and various problems U.S. citizens face in traveling to the country. I shall
also take administrative notice of Applicant’s Administrative Notice Memorandum,
including two decisions from other Administrative Judges, being offered for that
purpose.
At the hearing, two witnesses testified in Applicant’s behalf. Applicant also
testified and presented nine exhibits (AE A through AE I), that were received in
evidence without objection. AE F through AE I were offered following the hearing. AE F
is an affidavit from Applicant’s security officer. AE G is a letter from Applicant’s church
regarding his travel in 2003. AE H is a letter from a collection firm regarding a debt
described in SOR 3.c. AE I is a Nigerian passport that expired in June 2004. In AE J,
Applicant’s additional comments to the SOR three pages in length, Applicant indicates
he is an associate pastor and head of the council of his church, responsible for the
financial and administrative resources of the church. Based upon a review of the case
file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
Rulings on Procedure
In a Memorandum For Administrative Judge Regarding Post Hearings
Submissions, filed on October 2, 2008, Department Counsel stated the government had
no objection to AE F through AE I, but made certain observations which have been duly
noted. 
Findings of Fact
The three guidelines alleged in the SOR are foreign preference, foreign
influence, and financial considerations. Applicant admitted some allegations and denied
others. Applicant’s admissions shall be incorporated in the factual findings. Applicant is
45 years old, married with three children. He seeks his first security clearance. He has
been employed as a project coordinator and program manager with his current
employer since June 2004. 
Applicant was born in Nigeria on March 10, 1963. He began undergraduate
school in 1979 and received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1985. He immigrated to
the U.S. in 1989 (Tr. 58) to find better opportunities in life, and has voted in every U.S.
election. (Tr. 59) He considers the U.S. his home. (Id.) 
Applicant received his U.S. citizenship on March 21, 2003, and his U.S. passport
on March 31, 2003. As indicated in SOR 1.b., when he answered interrogatories on
November 30, 2007, Applicant had a Nigerian passport that was issued in September
2005, with an expiration date of September 2010. (GE 2) When Applicant was issued
the Nigerian passport, he already had a U.S. passport that he was issued in March
2003. See, SOR 1.c. Applicant obtained the passport because he believed that there is
a certain bias that exists in the consular community against Nigerians who seek
3
citizenship in another country. (Tr. 69) In 2005 and 2006, as alleged in SOR 1.d.,
Applicant used his Nigerian passport instead of his U.S. passport for travel in and out of
Nigeria (Tr. 70, 113) 
Applicant turned in his passport on September 9, 2008 to one of the federal
facility security officers (FSO) for the federal disease control agency. (Tr. 72; AE B) On
September 16, 2008, Applicant’s Nigerian passport was transferred to the FSO of
Applicant’s employer since the FSO for contractor employees, not the FSO for federal
employees, has authority to assume custody over foreign passports. (AE F) When
asked why he waited so long to surrender his passport after receiving the SOR in April
2008, he replied he was very busy at work with hurricane responses, and was recently
advised by his attorney to turn the passport over to the FSO. (Tr. 123) Applicant did not
seek advice from anyone from DOHA on how to relinquish the passport. (Tr. 124)
Applicant opined that if he had known that having a Nigerian passport would cause a
security problem, he would not have applied for it. (Tr. 70-73)
Foreign Influence
SOR 2.a. Applicant’s wife was born in December 1963. She immigrated to the
U.S. on a student visa in 1989 to begin graduate school. In 1989, she completed a
Master’s degree in Communications in the U.S. She married Applicant in March 1993
(GE 1), and not March 2003. (Tr. 60, 65, 105) She has her permanent resident card.
She did not apply for citizenship in 2000 when first eligible because she was not
interested in becoming a U.S. citizen; she applied on September 9, 2008. (Tr. 105) Due
to a debilitating health condition that makes it difficult for her to sustain employment,
Applicant’s wife has not been employed since his two-year period of unemployment
between May 2002 and June 2004. Applicant and his wife have three children, all born
in the U.S. The first was born in December 1993, the second in March 1995, and the
third in February 2000. (GE 1) 
SOR 2.b. Applicant’s father and stepmother are resident citizens of Nigeria. His
father was born in April 1933. Applicant’s mother is deceased. The father, formerly an
associate director of a Nigerian radio corporation, retired after a military coup in 2004,
and lives on a pension. (Tr. 65) As noted below, he also receives income from
commercial buildings he owns. Applicant is very close to his father (Tr. 64), and
telephones him about twice a month, but estimated his wife’s communication with her
parents was more frequent. (Tr. 66) Applicant sent his father about $500.00 in 2005 and
2006 to address immediate medical problems. (Tr. 64, SOR 2.g.) Applicant no longer
sends money as his father is financially self-sufficient now. (Tr. 115) Applicant’s father
tried to immigrate to the U.S. about 1 ½ years ago, but his visitor’s visa was denied
based on his inability to show sufficient ties to Nigeria. (Tr. 130; AE 8) After realizing his
father needed better medical attention, Applicant believes that circumstances warrant
his father seeking a more permanent resident status in the U.S. (Tr. 131)
Regarding the subject of foreign financial interests, Applicant testified he owned
no assets, but his father owns some land and a home or two located in Nigeria, and he
4
has an option to inherit the property. (Tr. 140) Applicant could not apply a value to the
property because he asserted he has been in the U.S. for about 20 years, and he knew
very little about the Nigerian property market. (Tr. 141) He was able to give some
description of the property. He stated, “What it is - - is just commercial buildings that he
leases out to business people and they operate their business out of these areas an you
collect from.” (Id.) 
Applicant’s stepmother was born in Nigeria in April 1935. She holds a U.S.
permanent resident card and is currently living with her sons in a state in the western
part of the U.S. Applicant’s last contact with her was about 1 ½ years ago. According to
Applicant, she visits the U.S. occasionally. (Tr. 137)
SOR 2.c. In his answer, Applicant admitted he had a brother who is a resident
citizen of Nigeria. However, there are no references in GE 1, GE 3, or the transcript to a
brother who is a resident citizen of Nigeria. Applicant furnished testimony about his
stepbrother who lives on the west coast of the U.S.  The step brother is a U.S. resident
alien who served in the U.S. Navy, and is pursuing a career in the pharmaceutical
industry. (Tr. 61, 62) Because the relative was not correctly identified in the allegations
of foreign influence, SOR 2.c. is found for Applicant. 
SOR 2.d. Applicant’s mother-in-law was born in Nigeria in August 1940, and is a
resident citizen of the country. She has always been a homemaker. Applicant’s father-
in-law was born in Nigeria in October 1935. He was a professor at a college in the
Midwest until 2002, when he and his wife relocated Nigeria. (GE 3) The father-in-law is
retired, and also is an education advisor to one of the state governments of Nigeria. (Tr.
67; SOR 2.e.)
SOR 2.f. Applicant traveled to Nigeria about five to six times in the last six years,
but remembered visits in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. (Tr. 62, 113) Because he had not
seen his family for some time, and also had not seen the country since 1989 (Tr. 62-63),
particularly his ill father, Applicant visited the country in 2003. He financed his first trip in
2003 with his own money. All his visits to see relatives lasted about two weeks. (GE 3) 
Applicant has an older sister who was born in Nigeria in November 1961. She is
a naturalized U.S. citizen, and employed as an administrative law judge in a
northeastern part of the U.S. (Tr. 61; GE 3) A younger sister, born in Nigeria in August
1964, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and an attorney with a federal maritime agency in the
middle Atlantic region of the U.S. 
In his interview (GE 3) with an investigator with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), Applicant indicated he could not be pressured into disclosing
information to a foreign entity. No one has ever threatened or pressured him to divulge
classified information. Applicant indicated his allegiance is with the U.S. Applicant
testified he would abide by security rules by disclosing any effort to pressure or
influence him. (Tr. 101)
5
Financial Considerations
In GE 3, Applicant attributed his financial problems to his unemployment from
May 2002 to June 2004. During the period he was to survive for a time on his severance
package from his previous employment. Then, he had to depend on his savings,
unemployment compensation, and sporadic monetary dispensation from the church. He
tried to resolve his debts through two Chapter 13 petitions (SOR 3.a., 3.b.), but both
petitions were dismissed because the payments were too large. 
SOR 3.c. The creditor filed a judgment against Applicant in April 2003 for
$9427.00. (AE C) The amount is currently $15,010.00 as noted in the SOR. Applicant
has not paid the debt because he is waiting for a reasonable payment plan. (Tr. 82) AE
H shows that the collection firm offered Applicant a judgment payoff of $14,041.00 that
expired on April 23, 2008. 
SOR 3.d. The credit card creditor is due $8,927.00. Applicant recalls he was a
user on this card. (Tr. 82, 83, 159) There is no record of action on this debt. 
SOR 3.e. The revenue debt was paid in March 2008 (AE A) and the account was
deleted. (AE D, credit agency dispute resolution reporting mechanism) The account no
longer appears in GE 6. 
SOR 3.f. The tax debt of $1,809.00 was paid in December 2004. (AE C)
SOR 3.g. The collection account reflects a zero balance based on GE 7 and AE
D.
SOR 3.h. The account does not appear in GE 7. AE D reflects the account was
deleted. Applicant never had an account with this bank. (Tr. 163)
SOR 3.i. The telephone account does not appear in GE 7, and according to AE
D, was disputed account was deleted. 
SOR 3.j. This account is not addressed in AE D, but it does not appear in GE 7.
Applicant believes that the errant accounts appear in his credit report due to a
security breach that occurred at his employer. (Tr. 166)
Applicant currently earns about $65,000.00 from his employer (Tr. 154), and has
a monthly remainder of between $500.00 and $700.00 a month. (Tr. 175) He owns a
1994 auto that is paid for. His wife drives a 2004 car. (Tr. 177) Applicant’s current rent is
approximately $1,800.00 a month. Applicant and his wife have tried to keep control over
their expenditures by following a budget. Having carefully compared GE 7 with AE C
and AE D, the only delinquent financial accounts are the judgement identified in 3.c. of
the SOR, and the charge card account reflected in 3.d. The judgment and the credit
card account total almost $24,000.00.
6
A review of GE 7, AE C, and AE D reflects Applicant settled with four creditors
(listed and unlisted in the SOR) in an amount totaling approximately $7470.00
Character Evidence
Ms. A, the tax management group lead, explained that her job includes
monitoring the account measures that store the pharmaceutical stockpile of drugs. She
met Applicant on her first day of work in June 2005. Ms. A considers Applicant
trustworthy and also knowledgeable about the information needed at the job. Ms. A
explained that the contractor and the stockpile project schedule annual training sessions
for contractor or employees and federal employees that address sensitive information
issues and procedures that an employee should take if he is pressured for sensitive
information. (Tr. 33) 
Mr. B, the lead response specialist and a federal employee, testified his duties
include the stockpile project. When he was a contractor employee in 2004, he hired
Applicant (Tr. 42) and was his supervisor for several months, and now as federal
employee, reviews the billing that Applicant submits. During his testimony regarding
Applicant’s excellent job performance, Mr. B considers Applicant dependable, and cited
an example of completing some accounting work or balancing the books at the end of a
fiscal period. The accounting work involved electronically connecting to the computers
at the stockpile project while Applicant was in Nigeria. (Tr. 44) Applicant performed this
accounting work or “closing the books” periodically. (Tr. 52) Mr. B believes Applicant is
trustworthy. (Id.)
Applicant received an award for distinguished service from a federal agency in
June 2006 for his work during the three major hurricanes in 2005. (AE E) AE G is a
letter dated September 15, 2008 from the senior pastor describing the church’s decision
to send Applicant to Nigeria in April 2003 to reorganize the church’s operations in the
country, and to provide him with an opportunity to see his ailing father; the church
agreed to pay his airfare. 
Administrative Notice
I have taken administrative notice GE 4 that consists of the following government
documents:
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of African Affairs, Background Note: Nigeria,
dated April 2008;
U.S. Department of State, Consular Information Sheet, Nigeria, dated April 16,
2007;
U.S. Department of State, Travel Warning: Nigeria, dated October 30, 2007
7
U.S. Department of State, Nigeria: Country Reports of Human Rights Practices-
2006, dated March 6, 2007; and,
Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, Nigeria: Current
Issues, January 30, 2008. 
Nigeria, since gaining its independence in 1960, has been controlled more by
military rulers than democratically elected civilian rulers. Even though the government
returned to civilian rule in 1999, the government continues to have a poor human rights
record. The lack of law and order in various areas of the country results in internal,
periodic armed conflicts between religious, political and ethnic factions, and also creates
strife for U.S. citizens traveling to the country, particularly in the Niger Delta region. The
problems emerge in the form of kidnaping and shakedowns at checkpoints. Recognizing
the troubling problems in the Niger Delta region, the current president, elected in May
2007, has pledged to restore peace and security to the region, while instilling long-term,
electoral reform throughout the country. President Bush considers Nigeria an important
partner in the war on terror. 
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 flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation 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.
Reasonable 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
8
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 between an applicant and the federal government. 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.
Analysis
Foreign Preference (FP)
9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a
preference for a foreign country over the U.S., then he or she may be prone to provide
information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the U.S. ¶ 9.
When Applicant obtained and used his Nigerian passport in 2005 and 2006 after
receiving his U.S. citizenship and passport in March 2003, he was exercising dual
citizenship. FP DC 10.a.(1) (exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign
citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family
member - possession of a current passport) applies. Possession, renewal and/or use of
the foreign passport after being naturalized as a U.S. citizen constitutes the exercise of
a privilege of his Nigerian citizenship that he was not entitled to.
Applicant’s dual citizenship is based on more than his birth in a foreign country.
Hence, FP MC 11.a. (dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a
foreign country) is not applicable. Though Applicant has provided statements
concerning his willingness to renounce his Nigerian citizenship, there has been no
action to support these statements. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence in the
record to confer meaningful consideration to FP MC 11.b. (the individual has expressed
a willingness to renounce dual citizenship)
FP MC 11.e. (the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant
authority, or otherwise invalidated) indicates in unequivocal language that if the person
wants to demonstrate his intent to relinquish his foreign citizenship, then he must take
action set forth in the mitigating condition. Even though Applicant may not have taken
sufficient action to revoke his dual citizenship, he complied with FP MC 11.e. On
September 9, 2008, Applicant surrendered his passport to the FSO. Within seven days,
Applicant’s Nigerian passport was transferred to the appropriate official to maintain
permanent custody over the passport. The surrender of the passport, while taking more
9
than four months to consummate, complies with the FP mitigating condition and
warrants a conclusion for Applicant under the FP guideline. 
Foreign Influence (FI)
6. The Concern. “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 U.S.
citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with the risk of terrorism.” ¶
6.
The mere possession of family ties in foreign country is not automatically
disqualifying under the foreign influence guideline. However, one relative living in a
foreign country creates the potential for foreign influence. 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) 
In determining whether FI disqualifying condition (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, pressure, or coercion) applies to this
case,  an evaluation of factors other than the citizenship and residence of the family
members, including the political character of the foreign country in question, its
relationship to the U.S., and the prospects an applicant’s family members may be
subject to pressure or coercion. If the foreign family member is associated/employed or
dependent on the government, or the government is authoritarian, then the chances for
foreign influence directed to and through the foreign family member are more likely.
Even friendly nations commit acts that infringe upon another nation’s sovereignty.
Significantly, there is no evidence of the Nigerian government targeting U.S. citizens for
protected information. Yet, criminal activity continues to present significant dangers
throughout areas of Nigeria, even though the present leader is determined to improve
the overall peace and security in the country. 
The citizenship/residence status of Applicant’s father and stepmother, his trips to
Nigeria, and the money transferred to his father in 2005, create a heightened risk of
foreign influence under FI DC 7.a. This heightened risk for foreign influence is magnified
by the option Applicant has to inherit his father’s property. 
Regarding Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law, the DOHA Appeal Board
has held that there is a rebuttable presumption that an applicant has close ties of
affection, or at least obligation, to members of his wife’s family. ISCR Case No. 01-
10
03120 at 8 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2002). Therefore, the heightened risk of foreign influence
extends to Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law who are resident citizens of
Nigeria. 
The citizenship of Applicant’s wife in Nigeria, and residence in the U.S. invokes
the application of FI DC 7.d. (sharing living quarters with a person or persons,
regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion)
Only Applicant’s father-in-law is employed by one of the Nigerian state
governments as an advisor on educational matters. He is not connected to the military
or a security position within the government of Nigeria. None of Applicant’s other,
immediate family members work for the government of Nigeria. None are agents of the
country’s government. Applicant’s wife is a homemaker, partly due to her health
condition. She has her permanent resident card and is applying for her U.S. citizenship.
His father draws a pension in his retirement from a civil servant job with the national
radio corporation. According to Applicant, he also derives earnings from space he
leases in his commercial buildings. Applicant’s mother-in-law is a homemaker. Her
husband (Applicant’s father-in-law) is semi-retired and works as an education advisor
for one of the states in Nigeria. Applicant no longer sends money to his father because
of his self-sufficiency. The close ties Applicant has to his father, mother-in law and
father-in-law, who are resident citizens of Nigeria, and the close ties he has with his
spouse, a citizen of Nigeria and resident of the U.S., creates a heightened risk of foreign
exploitation, pressure or coercion for Applicant because of the law and order problems
in Nigeria. This heightened risk for foreign influence has not been established regarding
his stepmother who he has not has contact with for about 1 ½ years. 
FI DC 7.a. can potentially be mitigated by FC mitigating condition (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); and 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) First, Applicant’s contacts with his father, mother-in-law and
father-in-law are not casual nor infrequent. He has regular contact with his father, and
sent him money in 2005 and 2006. Applicant’s close relationship with his father is
substantiated by the fact he has an option to inherit his father’s property. The record
reflects that through his wife, Applicant has a close relationship with his mother-in-law
and father-in-law. The inheritance option that Applicant has to his father’s property,
notwithstanding his inability to apply a value,  precludes a finding that Applicant can be
expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. 
11
Reviewing the evidence for longstanding relationships in the U.S., the American
citizenship of Applicant’s two sisters involved in the legal profession constitutes
favorable evidence of ties Applicant has in the U.S., even though the extent of that
relationship was not developed in the record. Applicant’s three children, U.S. citizens,
establish additional evidence of his bonds to this country. However, neither his bonds to
immediate family members or his professional ties for the last four years are sufficient to
remove the heightened risk of foreign inducement or coercion created by his spouse, a
citizen of Nigeria living with Applicant, and his father, mother-in-law, and father-in-law
who are resident citizens of Nigeria. Viewing the totality of the evidence, I am unable to
conclude that Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the
U.S. On balance, while his stepmother is removed as a security concern under FI MC
8.a., the evidence adduced under FI MC 8.a., FI MC 8.b., FI MC 8.c. does not
sufficiently remove the foreign influence concerns associated with Applicant’s spouse,
his father, mother-in-law, and father-in-law. 
Financial Considerations (FC)
18. The Concern. “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. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.” 
This case activates FC disqualifying condition (DC) 19.a. (inability or
unwillingness to repay debts) and FC DC 19.c. (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) based on the SOR 2.c. and 2.d. debts totaling almost $24,000.00 that are
still outstanding. A history of not meeting financial obligations is underscored by the
existence of the judgment (SOR 3.c.) since 2003.
FC mitigating condition (MC) 20.b. (the conditions that resulted in the financial
problem were largely beyond the individual’s control, and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances) and FC MC 20.d. (the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) receive some
consideration based on Applicant’s unemployment from May 2002 to June 2004, and
his responsible conduct in paying off four debts totaling $7470.00 since 2004. The fact
that he was successful in having certain debts correctly deleted from his credit report
constitutes evidence of good judgment also. Considering all the evidence presented
under the FC guideline, including his wife’s inability to work and the cost requirements in
raising their three children, Applicant is making a good faith effort to work out a
settlement with one of the two delinquent accounts demonstrated by AE H, the
notification from the collection firm in SOR 2.c. advising Applicant of a payoff figure he
could not meet. I believe he will continue to meet the remaining past due obligations.
The FC guideline is resolved in his favor. 
12
Whole Person Concept (WPC)
My finding for Applicant under the FI and FP guidelines must still be evaluated in
the context of nine variables known as the whole person concept. In 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. 
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions have been considered in light of the
evidence as a whole. Applicant has met his burden of persuasion under the foreign
preference guideline by surrendering his passport in September 2008. Concerning the
foreign influence guideline, Applicant’s character evidence from Ms. A and Mr. B weighs
heavily in his favor, along with the recognition Applicant received for his contributions
during the hurricane season of 1995. I have considered his position in his church, and
his sisters being naturalized U.S. citizens. However, his inheritance option of
commercial buildings as he described them, even though he was unable to apply a
value, and his close ties with his wife, a citizen of Nigeria, and the other identified family
members who are resident citizens of Nigeria raise continuing security concerns about
his vulnerability to coercion or influence. Applicant has not mitigated the security
concerns that remain regarding foreign influence. The two financial debts that currently
total almost $24,000.00 occurred when Applicant was unemployed. His document
payment of four of the overdue debts in the last four years provides sufficient grounds to
believe he will satisfy the remaining creditors. Though Applicant has mitigated the
foreign preference and financial considerations guidelines, he has failed to mitigate
foreign influence. 
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 Preference, Guideline C): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
13
Subparagraph 2 (Foreign Influence, Guideline B): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g. Against Applicant
Paragraph 3 (Financial Considerations, Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b. For Applicant.
Subparagraph 3.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.e. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.g. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.i. For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.j. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record 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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge