1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-14961
SSN: ------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Faryhn Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On May 29, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
B. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program,
January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on June 22, 2008, admitting all of the allegations
and requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on September 4, 2008. On
September 8, 2008, DOHA issued a notice of hearing scheduling the case for October
3, 2008. During the hearing, I received two government exhibits, one Applicant exhibit,
and Applicant’s testimony. DOHA received the transcript on October 10, 2008. Based
upon a review of the record evidence, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 41-year-old, married woman with four children, ages sixteen,
fifteen, four, and one. She earned a master’s degree in international business in 1995
(Tr. 15). Currently, she works for a defense contractor as a management consultant (Tr.
15). According to her supervisor, she is a “conscientious, honest, and loyal” employee
(Exhibit A). 
Applicant was born and raised in Senegal (Tr. 18). She emigrated to the United
States in 1987 when she was 20 years old, and became a naturalized citizen in 1993
(Tr. 19). She has been married since 1991. She earned both her undergraduate and
graduate degrees in the U.S.
Applicant’s husband is a citizen of Cape Verde, a small country composed of
approximately 10 islands located off the west coast of Africa (Tr. 92). He is an
economist (Tr. 79). From 1991 through approximately 1999, he worked for the Cape
Verde embassy in the U.S. as a commercial attache (Answer at 1). Before then, he
worked in the Cape Verde ministry of finance (Answer at 1). His work responsibilities at
these two jobs are unknown from the record.
From 1999 to 2006, Applicant’s husband worked for an African foreign aid and
development bank (Tr. 40). Since then, he has served as president of a Cape Verde
investment agency which is part of the Cape Verdian government. His current job at the
investment agency and earlier job with the development bank both focused on providing
assistance to the poor (Tr. 78).
Applicant and her husband have not lived together since 1999, when he took the
job with the African development bank. He visits her in the U.S. two to three times per
year. They communicate by phone or e-mail approximately once per week (Ex. 2 at 14).
Applicant’s husband lives in Cape Verde with his mother. He is seeking to gain a
job in the U.S. in his field of expertise (Tr. 47). He wants to live in the U.S. with his
family (Id.). He has an adult son from a prior relationship who lives in France (Tr. 50).
Applicant’s contacts with her husband’s son are infrequent (Answer at 2).
Applicant’s mother has dual Senegalese and Cape Verdian citizenship (Answer
at 2). She lives in Cape Verde where she owns and manages a restaurant (Tr. 98).
Applicant speaks with her approximately once per month (Tr. 56, 98). Applicant’s
mother last visited her in the U.S. in 1998 (Tr. 90).
In 2000, Applicant and her husband lent her mother $30,000 (Tr. 29). She used it
to purchase land in Cape Verde. Applicant has no interest in the property. Her mother
has satisfied approximately $18,000 of the loan (Tr. 32).
Applicant maintains a savings account in Cape Verde (Answer at 3). The balance
is approximately $18,000. Approximately $17,000 consists of money her mother
3
reimbursed her for the loan (Id.). Applicant and her husband have approximately
$240,000 of savings and investments in various accounts in the U.S. (T. 21-22).
Applicant’s brother is a dual U.S. and Senegalese citizen living in Senegal. He
manages a restaurant his mother owns there. Applicant and her brother communicate
by e-mail sporadically, and on birthdays and holidays (Tr. 98).
Applicant’s sister holds dual citizenship with Cape Verde and France. She lives
with her husband, a French native, in France. She is a homemaker (Tr. 60). Applicant
speaks with her by phone approximately once a month. Applicant traveled to France to
visit her sister once in 2004 and once in 2006 (Exhibit 2 at 12). 
Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Cape Verde (Tr. 66). She
has resident alien status with the U.S. (Tr. 95). They talk by phone once every few
months (Tr. 93). Recently, in 2007, she visited Applicant in the U.S. to assist her in
caring for her newborn child (Tr. 95).
Applicant’s sister-in-law is a citizen and resident of Cape Verde. She is a
pediatrician who works at a local hospital and at her own private clinic (Ex 2 at 11).
They talk approximately once or twice per year. She has U.S. resident alien status, and
periodically visits relatives in the U.S. Her last visit with Applicant in the U.S. occurred
approximately 10 years ago (Tr. 95).
Applicant’s brother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Cape Verde. He works at a
local bank (Exhibit 2 at 11). Applicant talks with him on birthdays and holidays (Tr. 96).
Applicant’s last two trips to Cape Verde occurred in 2002 (Tr. 71). She traveled to
Senegal in December 1998 and December 2000 (Exhibit 2 at 12). Each trip lasted
approximately one month. In 2004, Applicant visited her sister in France. Later, she
visited Tunisia where her husband was then living. 
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, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 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.
4
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. 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. 
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
Under this guideline, “foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if
an 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 interests” (AG ¶
6). Applicant’s family and financial ties to Cape Verde, Senegal, and France raise the
issues of whether 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,” 7(b), “connections to a foreign person, group,
government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the
individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s
desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information,” or 7(e),
“a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any
foreign-owned business, which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign
influence or exploitation,” apply.
Department counsel correctly noted in her closing argument that friendly
countries may just as readily conduct espionage against the U.S. as hostile countries.
This observation alone does not establish a foreign influence security concern. Instead,
it is one of several factors including whether the country is known to target U.S. citizens,
whether it is a stable democracy, and whether it is associated with a risk of terrorism.
Such an assessment of the “‘geopolitical situation’ and the ‘security/intelligence profile
of the country vis-a-vis the U.S.’ is crucial in Guideline B cases” (ISCR Case No 07-
05686 (App. Bd., November 12, 2008 at 4). 
Here, the government presented no such information about Cape Verde, France,
or Senegal. Consequently, I do not conclude that Applicant’s contacts with relatives
living in these countries generates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement,
manipulation, pressure, or coercion. AG ¶ 7(a) does not apply.
Conversely, Applicant’s husband’s employment in Cape Verde, and her Cape
Verdian bank account trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 7(b) and 7(e). Applicant’s
husband is dedicated to helping the poor in Cape Verde through economic
5
development. Before working with the Cape Verde investment agency, he worked for an
organization dedicated to the economic development of the entire African continent.
Cape Verde, like any other country, may sometimes disagree with the U.S. on the
means toward generating growth in the developing world; however, its ultimate goal -
regional economic development - is not inimical to U.S. interests. Under these
circumstances, the position and activities of Applicant’s husband within the Cape Verde
government “are such that it is unlikely that [she] 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.” (AG ¶ 8(a)).
As for AG ¶ 7(e), Applicant’s Cape Verdian bank account constitutes less than
7% of her net worth. The remainder is invested in various U.S. accounts. 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,” applies.
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):
(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.
Applicant is a solid, respected employee within the company where she works.
She has lived in the U.S. for nearly her entire adult life, receiving both her
undergraduate and master’s degrees here. Upon considering this case in light of the
whole person concept, I conclude she has mitigated the security concern. Clearance is
granted.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.k: For Applicant
6
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge