1
                                                             
                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
             DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-----------, -------- ------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-17673
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Roger C. Cartwright, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of Russia. His wife owns
investment property in a resort area in southern Russia worth about $100,000, and has
a close relationship with her parents. Foreign influence concerns were not mitigated.
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigation Processing
(e-QIP), on May 24, 2006. On August 13, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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. 
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 21, 2008. He answered
the SOR in writing (AR) on September 3, 2008, and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on October 8,
2008, and the case was assigned to me on that same date. DOHA issued a notice of
hearing on October 20, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on November 7,
2008. Without objection, I granted the Government motion to amend the SOR by adding
an inadvertently omitted paragraph identifying and describing Guideline B. The
Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 3, which were admitted without objection.
The Government also offered HE II, comprising a request that I take administrative
notice of certain facts concerning the Russian Federation and nine Government
documents supporting the veracity of those facts. Applicant had no objection, and
administrative notice was taken of these facts. Applicant testified on his own behalf, and
submitted exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. I granted Applicant’s
request to leave the record open until November 21, 2008, to permit his submission of
additional evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on November 17,
2008. On November 18, 2008, Applicant submitted AE B, which was forwarded by
Department Counsel without objection on December 2, 2008. It was admitted into
evidence, and the record closed on that date.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted some of the factual allegations and
denied others with explanations. Applicant’s admissions, including those contained in
his response to DOHA Interrogatories (GE 2 and 3), are incorporated in the following
findings.
Applicant is a 43-year-old technician employed by a defense contractor. He has
worked for his present employer for almost three years. He served in the Army for just
under nine years, and took early separation as part of a draw-down program in 1994.
His two other jobs since leaving the Army have also been with defense contractors
providing maintenance support for military equipment. He has never held a final security
clearance. He briefly held an interim clearance during the first few months of his first
post-service job, but was then promoted to a position that did not require a clearance.
He was also granted an interim clearance in connection with his current employment.
(GE 1; AE A at 16; Tr. at 60-66.)
Applicant’s first job after leaving the Army was in a Middle Eastern country. He
had recently divorced his first wife. After about a year, he met his current wife. She had
been born and raised in Moscow, Russia, and went to the Middle East in 1994 to work
as a secretary after finishing college with a degree in history. They married in June
1996. They moved back to the United States in connection with a job change in 1999.
They have one son, born in 2003. Applicant’s wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in
February 2005, and renounced her Russian citizenship in the process. She now works
as a social worker. Both of them testified persuasively concerning their appreciation of,
and loyalty to the United States. 
3
Applicant’s father-in-law worked as the head of the Building Maintenance
Department at a Russian state university from 1984 to January 2005, when he was
promoted to Chief Engineer for the university. In that capacity, he is responsible for the
Building Maintenance Department, as well as construction and utilization of new
campus facilities, ongoing repair and renovation of all buildings and utility systems, and
fire safety. (AE A at 13.) His mother-in-law retired from her position as a science teacher
at a Russian college some 17 years ago, and has been a home-maker since then. (GE
3 at 3; Tr. at 38, 53.)
Applicant speaks virtually no Russian, and his wife’s parents speak very little
English, so they communicate through her. He met his father-in-law during two 14-day
visits to Russia, in 1997 and 1998, and when his father-in-law visited them in the United
States, most recently for 10 days in 2006. He met his mother-in-law when she came to
the U.S. for a second wedding ceremony held here in December 1996 at Applicant’s
mother’s request. He also saw her during the Russia visits, and her four visits to their
home in the U.S. since 2000. The most recent of these visits lasted 30 days in
September 2005. Applicant’s wife speaks with her parents by telephone several times
per month. She last visited them in Russia during summer 2006. (GE 2 at 8; GE 3 at 3;
Tr. at 36, 39-40, 66-68, 77.) 
Applicant’s wife and her parents decided to buy some undeveloped resort-area
land in southern Russia near the Black Sea in 2005. They anticipated developing a hotel
or bed and breakfast on the land at some future time as a place for her parents to
operate when her father retires. She and her parents each invested half of the
approximately $100,000 purchase price for the land. Her $50,000 contribution came
from cashing in her 401(k) savings and some of the stock she purchased in the
company that formerly employed her. In order to avoid unfavorable inheritance and tax
consequences, the land is titled solely in Applicant’s wife’s name. Other than supporting
his wife’s decision, Applicant was not actively involved in this transaction, but he and his
wife live in a community property state. Applicant’s wife testified that development plans
are not being actively pursued at present due to her mother’s deteriorating health, and
may be canceled with the property sold to finance her parents’ retirement. She is her
parents’ only child. (GE 2 at 9; GE 3 at 3, 6; Tr. at 40-42, 47-50, 69-71, 95-97.)
Applicant and his wife submitted earning statements showing that his gross
earnings for 2008 were about $60,500, and hers were about $51,000. They submitted a
sworn statement estimating the value of their assets in the U.S. as well, subject to
recent market fluctuations and reductions. They have a principal residence valued at
$345,950 and a rental home valued at $255,950, for a total of $601,900 in real estate.
Their other retirement, investment, and personal property assets were estimated to total
$79,000. No information was provided concerning their mortgage balances, any equity
loans, or other debts against which to calculate their net worth.  (AE B.)
Applicant submitted letters, certificates, and performance evaluations from his
current and former employers and co-workers attesting to his excellent work
performance, reliability, dedication and integrity. (AE A at 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 15, 17-21.) He
4
was awarded an Army Commendation Medal, two Army Achievement Medals, and two
Good Conduct Medals during his active duty service, which ended with an Honorable
Discharge. (AE A at 16, 22-27.) His wife’s supervisor considers her to be an honest and
caring person, who is calm, objective, and conscientious about her work. (AE A at 5.)
The wife of Applicant’s long-time close friend and former co-worker also speaks
Russian, and has known Applicant’s father-in-law for more than 13 years. She speaks
with him during his visits to the U.S., and found him to be trustworthy, hardworking and
considerate. (AE A at 9; Tr. at 77.) Another Russian-speaking couple who are family
friends of Applicant and his wife have met his father-in-law both during his U.S. visits
and during their visits to Russia. They wrote that he is a nice and modest person, with a
low key demeanor and quiet manner. He told them that he is very proud of his daughter
becoming a U.S. citizen, and happy that she is living and raising her family in this
country. (AE A at 10; Tr. at 77.)
I took administrative notice of the facts set forth in HE II concerning the Russian
Federation. That country is a very large nuclear superpower that has continued to
develop economically, socially and politically since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Recent events that have escalated tensions between Russia and the U.S. include the
incursion into internationally recognized sovereign Georgia territory by the Russian
army, threats against Poland, suspicious poisonings and killings of journalists and other
persons considered to be undesirable, and manipulation of energy resources to
pressure NATO allies and other U.S.-friendly countries. Russia has an active, recent,
and ongoing intelligence collection program targeting the U.S. As of 2005, Russia and
China were the most aggressive collectors of sensitive and protected U.S. technology
and accounted for the majority of such targeting. Russia has been a leader in industrial
espionage against the U.S. since at least 1997, with no indication of abatement. Russia
also practices substantial intelligence collection and espionage against the U.S., and
shares various technologies of security concern with other countries whose interests are
contrary to those of the United States. Russian officials reportedly engage in human
rights abuses, including abductions, torture, coerced confessions, and unlawful
surveillance of citizens and visitors. (HE II.)
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 over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶¶
2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in
the context of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The
5
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 “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of the 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under this order adverse to
an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no
sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” 
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding foreign influence:
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.
6
AG ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Department Counsel argued that the evidence in this case established
one of them: ¶ 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.” (Tr. at 101.) Although not directly asserted by Department
Counsel, disqualifying conditions ¶ 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;” and ¶ 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;” were clearly raised by the evidence and discussed by both counsel.
Russia is a country of significant concern for information security and espionage
against the U.S., so connections there are more likely to generate heightened risk of
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion than most other countries.
Applicant has a close and loving relationship with his wife, and through her has entirely
legitimate, serious interest in the welfare of her parents who are citizens and residents
of Russia. Their visits to Russia to visit these family members, her parents’ multiple
visits to the U.S., and her multiple monthly telephone contacts demonstrate the
importance of their family relationship. Applicant’s wife invested $50,000 in a joint
venture with them to purchase undeveloped resort property in Russia worth $100,000,
and this property is titled only in her name. Although insufficient evidence was supplied
to determine what percentage of their net worth this investment represents, it equals
almost a full year of gross earnings for both of them. Accordingly I conclude that it
represents a substantial property interest. These facts meet the Government’s burden
of production by raising all three of the aforementioned disqualifying conditions. These
contacts, relationships, and property interest shift a heavy burden to Applicant to prove
mitigation under applicable Appeal Board precedent. 
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Those with
potential application in mitigating AG ¶¶ 7 (a), (c), and (e) security concerns are:
(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.;
(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; and
7
(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.  
Applicant’s wife’s relationships with her family in Russia are close and important
to her, and his relationship with her makes him susceptible to pressure and exploitation.
It is not necessary that such pressure or exploitation be shown to have occurred to
establish these concerns. Her father holds an important position responsible for all
building and utility matters at a Russian state university, a government entity. Applicant
did not establish that either his fully appropriate family relationships or his in-laws’
position and activities in Russia make the risk of exploitation or pressure unlikely. Their
contact, particularly with his wife, is frequent and their relationship is close. The direct
and substantial investment in the resort property, held solely in his wife’s name, and her
position as the sole heiress of her parents’ other property, preclude a conclusion that
such property interests could not be used to exert effective influence, pressure, or
manipulation.
Given the nature of the Russian government and Applicant’s family’s ongoing
presence and property holdings there, the heightened risk of foreign exploitation,
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion remains a concern. Applicant failed to
establish the mitigating conditions set forth in AG ¶¶ 8 (a), (c), or (f), because his
relationship with his wife and, through her, to her family is not one that supports a
conclusion that such risk of exploitation is unlikely. 
One Guideline B mitigating condition was established to some degree by
Applicant, but it is framed to provide mitigation for a disqualifying condition that was not
asserted by the Government. This mitigating condition is 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.
This mitigating condition addresses security concerns under AG¶ 7(b), that
Applicant’s foreign connections could create a potential conflict of interest between his
obligation to protect information and his desire to help the foreign people or entity by
providing the information. Applicant’s deep and longstanding loyalty to the U.S. is
unquestioned. However, this mitigating condition does not squarely address the ¶¶ 7
(a), (c), and (e) security concerns arising from heightened risk of foreign pressure,
manipulation or exploitation from the contacts, relationships, and property of concern.
Accordingly, the mitigating effect under this condition is insufficient to overcome those
security concerns raised by the undisputed facts in this case.
8
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 established by the record evidence. 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.
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.    
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s conduct of security
concern does not involve any personal misconduct, dishonesty or disloyal activity. While
other factors including his excellent work record, character and loyalty have been duly
considered, the primary whole-person issue that is of concern under these
circumstances is his marriage to a former Russian citizen with Russian citizen/resident
parents. This raises, “(8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;”
and “(9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.” 
Applicant has not sufficiently met his burden to mitigate the resultant security
concerns. His close family ties, through his wife, to people who currently reside in and
are citizens of the Russia create an ongoing potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation or duress, and the likelihood of continuation in the medium-term and long-
term future is established by the evidence of record. As long as his wife’s family still
lives there, and she owns the resort property, he may well visit there again and be
personally subject to the actions of the Russian government as well. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from foreign influence considerations.
9
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge