KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant has used a Brazilian passport and voted in Brazilian elections.  Applicant’s
exercise of Brazilian citizenship and his relationship with a Brazilian national raised security
concerns which he failed to mitigate.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-01038.ind
DATE: 07/22/2009
DATE: July 22, 2009 
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-01038
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Francisco Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Elizabeth L. Newman, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 16, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and
Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 20, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
The Judge’s finding that Applicant promised at the earlier hearing to surrender his Brazilian passport and1
renounce his Brazilian citizenship is not a fair reading of the evidence.  Applicant made a conditional commitment to
undertake those acts if it would make a difference.  There is no indication that anyone communicated to Applicant that
it would, in fact, make a difference in his case.  The first Judge did not rely on the conditional promises in his favorable
decision.  To the extent that Department Counsel’s brief argues for sustaining this finding, it is not well founded.  The
Board has frequently noted that conditional promises are entitled to little weight.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-14151
at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2008).
  
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an information
technology network administrator employed by a defense contractor.  Born in the U.S. to a U.S.
father and a Brazilian mother, he lived in Brazil from age 11 until age 18.  At that time he returned
to the U.S. to attend college.  After college he lived in Brazil for three years and then returned to the
U.S., where he has lived ever since.  He married a Brazilian woman in the late 1980s.  She is a legal
resident of the U.S. and has applied for citizenship.  The couple have two children, both born in the
U.S.
In the late 1990s, DOHA issued a SOR to Applicant, alleging security concerns similar to
those at issue here.  The Judge granted Applicant a security clearance.  At the earlier hearing,
Applicant promised to surrender his Brazilian citizenship and passport.  He attempted to do so in the
early 2000s but Brazilian authorities would not permit it.  While holding a U.S. security clearance,
Applicant has used his Brazilian passport twice.  He is also required by Brazilian law to maintain
an identification card and to vote in Brazilian elections.  He has voted in Brazilian presidential
elections since the late 1980s.  “If he fails to [do so], he will be denied his Brazilian identification
card, passport, and driver’s license.”  Decision at 4.   In the Analysis portion of his decision, the
Judge stated that “Applicant willfully continued to exercise his Brazilian citizenship knowing that
it raises security concerns . . . Considering the record as a whole, I find Applicant’s behavior
indicates a preference for Brazil over the United States.”  Id. at 8.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant had “failed to mitigate the foreign preference security concern” in his case.  Id. at 11.   
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that, with one exception,  the Judge1
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a
‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of
the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington
Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is
sustainable on this record.  Decision at 11.  See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent
with the interests of the national security.’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board