DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-10438 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Ronald C. Sykstus, Esquire 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance for his employment with a defense contractor on 
December 9, 2007. On June 10, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns 
under Guideline B, Foreign Influence. 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 19, 2009. 
  
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 23, 2009, admitting all of the 
factual allegations with explanation. He requested a hearing before an administrative 
judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 10, 2009. The case was 
assigned to me on July 20, 2009. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on July 30, 2009, 
for a hearing on August 20, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The 
government offered one exhibit, marked Government Exhibit (Gov. Ex.) 1, which was 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
received without objection. Applicant submitted 27 exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits 
(App. Ex.) 1 through 27, which were received without objection. Applicant and six other 
witnesses testified on Applicant’s behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing 
(Tr.) on August 28, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and 
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings 
 
Notice of Hearing 
 
 Applicant did not sign for the Notice of Hearing sent by DOHA on July 30, 2009, 
since he had been suspended from his employment. Applicant is entitled to 15 days 
notice of hearing (Directive E3.1.8). Applicant and his counsel discussed with 
Department Counsel the hearing date of August 20, 2009, prior to the Notice of Hearing 
being mailed so notice was given more than 15 days prior to the hearing. Even though 
Applicant did not sign for the Notice of Hearing, he and his counsel waived the 15 days 
notice requirement (Tr. 8). 
 
 Request for Administrative Notice 
 
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice 
of certain facts relating to India (Tr. 10-11, Hearing Exhibit I). The request and the 
attached supporting documents were not admitted into evidence but were included in 
the record as a Hearing Exhibit. Applicant had no objection to the request for 
administrative notice or the attached documents. Applicant also presented information 
for administrative notice purposes concerning India (App. Ex. 20-26, Articles, various 
dates). The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the 
SOR with explanation. He also provided additional information to support his request for 
eligibility for a security clearance.   
 
Applicant was born in a small village in India and is 44 years old. He was married 
in India in 1990, and has two daughters. His oldest daughter was born in India in 1995, 
and his youngest daughter was born in the United States in 1999 (App. Ex. 6, Birth 
Certificate, dated October 26, 1999). Applicant, his wife, and his oldest daughter came 
to the United States in 1997, and received permanent resident alien status in 2001. 
They became United States citizens in 2006 (App. Ex. 3, 4, 5, Certificates of 
Citizenship, dated August 2, 2006). His youngest daughter is a United States citizen by 
birth. His children are completely immersed in the American culture (Tr. 25-30, 71-72).  
 
Applicant excelled in school in India and received his early education at magnet 
schools in India. He received his bachelor's degree in electronics and communications 
 
3 
 
 
in 1988, and his master's degree in computer science in 1990 from a university in India. 
He then worked for a year as a teaching assistant at the university before being 
employed in the private sector in India. He worked for an Indian company that was a 
subsidiary of a United States company from 1991 until 1995. During that time, he visited 
and worked at various United States sites in 1992 and 1995. He and his family moved 
to the United States in 1996 to take a position with one of those companies. He then 
accepted a position at his present location with another company. He is now employed 
by a defense contractor as a computer programming specialist. He has been 
suspended from work with the company pending the outcome of his security clearance 
request. If he is granted access to classified information, the company will bring 
Applicant back to work (Tr. 30-37). 
 
Applicant admitted that his mother, father, three sisters, and a brother are 
citizens and residents of India. His other brother is a citizen of India but resides in 
Singapore. Applicant's parents are in their 70s and are retired. His father was a farmer 
and his mother a homemaker. He talks to them by telephone about once or twice a 
month. His brother in India is a quality control supervisor for a pharmaceutical company.  
His brother in Singapore is a software developer. His sisters are all homemakers. His 
three brothers-in-law work in agriculture and retail vegetable marketing. He talks to his 
siblings about once or twice a month. None of his immediate family members have 
visited the United States. Applicant sends his parents about $500 per year to assist with 
their medical expenses (Tr. 44-46, 53-55, 66-67). 
 
Applicant's father-in-law is a resident and citizen of India and is a retired 
vegetable vendor. Applicant's brothers-in-law are citizens and residents of India. One 
runs the vegetable vending business since his father's retirement, and the other is a civil 
engineer for a municipality. Applicant's three sisters-in-law are citizens and residents of 
India. Two are homemakers and the third is a teacher. The husbands of two of the 
sisters are retired, one as a civil engineer and the other as a teacher. The husband of 
the youngest sister-in-law is a teacher. Applicant rarely talks to his in-laws. His wife 
talks to them about once or twice a month. His father-in-law is the only member of his 
wife's family who visited them in the United States in 2008 for six weeks. Applicant 
classifies his relationship with his family as a normal close family relationship (Tr. 44-60, 
68-69). 
 
Applicant and his family make trips to India every two years to see their family. 
Only Applicant made the trip in 2006. Their first trip was in 2000, and they have gone 
every two years and stay about three to four weeks each time. They stay with his or his 
wife's family when they visit (Tr. 60-63). 
 
Applicant has financial investments in both the United States and India. He has 
over $267,000 in investments in the United States comprising his house and a rental 
investment house, savings accounts, and mutual funds (App. Ex. 11 through 19, 
Financial reports, various dates). Applicant opened investments in India after he left 
India to come to the United States. He and his wife own two residential properties and 
shares in a computer software company. Applicant and his wife purchased a share in 
 
4 
 
 
piece of land for residential use. They built a house on the property for Applicant's 
mother and father to live in since it is near a medical facility where they receive their 
health care. While Applicant and his wife purchased the property together, it is listed 
only in his wife's name. His parents own no interest in the property. The property was 
listed in the SOR as valued at $19,000. The initial value was approximately $41,000, but 
the value is now about $30,000 (Tr. 40-42, 69-70). Applicant and his wife also 
purchased an parcel of land for $8,000. At one time, it increased in value to $23,000. 
Applicant turned the property over to a Hindu temple trust fund for them to use for 
charitable activities. The value when he gave it to the temple was about $15,000. He no 
longer has an interest in this property (Tr. 42-43, 67-68, 70-72). Applicant and his wife 
also purchased stock in a new Indian software company. His initial investment was 
approximately $41,000. The stock fell in value to about $30,000, and is now worth about 
$5,000 (Tr. 44-45; App. Ex. 27, net worth, June/July 2009). 
 
Applicant's wife testified that she was educated in India and received a 
bachelor's degree in physics and electronics. She came to the United States with her 
husband in 1996. They first settled in another state and moved to their present location 
because her husband changed jobs after seven months. They have lived in the same 
area for about 12 years. At first, she was a homemaker, but in 2005 she and her 
husband opened an Indian grocery store that she managed. They took on a partner 
after a year and sold their interest in the store in 2007. She then attended the local 
college and is studying for a master's degree in accounting. She became a United 
States citizen in 2006. Her daughters are fully involved in school and community 
activities, especially soccer and dance. She and her husband volunteer in the schools 
and help with other activities in the community. They are very comfortable with the 
school system and the community. She talks to her family in India about once or twice a 
month. She stays with her family when she visits India. She and her husband have a 
close family relationship with their relatives in India (Tr. 74-83). 
 
Another witness testified that he was born in India, but came to the United States 
over 20 year ago. He has a doctoral degree in agricultural science and is a full professor 
of crop science at the local university. He knows Applicant and his family from their 
attendance at local Indian cultural events and temple. He sees Applicant and his family 
about two or three times a month. He opined that Applicant and his family are very 
pleasant and social. They have visited each others homes. Applicant's daughter taught 
his son to play soccer. Applicant has an excellent reputation in the local Indian 
community (Tr. 84-89). 
 
Another witness testified that he was born in Bangladesh and came to the United 
States in 1981 to complete his education and received a doctorate in physics from a 
United States university. He taught college for ten years before working for a defense 
contractor. He is a United States citizen and holds a security clearance. He has known 
Applicant since 2002 when they were working for the same company. He sees 
Applicant and his family socially as well. Applicant is perceived as friendly and helpful. 
He does not believe Applicant poses any threat if he is granted access to classified 
information. He was a very valuable worker for the company. It was a big loss when he 
 
5 
 
 
had to leave because of the lack of a security clearance. He will be coming back to the 
company if granted a security clearance (Tr. 90-98). 
 
Applicant's neighbor testified that he has known Applicant for over five years as a 
neighbor. They interact in the neighborhood about two or three times a week. Applicant 
is perceived as a good person and Applicant's family is a good American family. He 
does not have any issues with Applicant being granted access to classified information 
(Tr. 99-103). 
 
Another neighbor testified that she has known Applicant's family for over five 
years. Their children play together, and Applicant and his wife have watched and cared 
for her children. She has no problems with granting Applicant access to classified 
information (Tr. 103-107). 
 
Applicant's supervisor testified that she is an engineer and has a security 
clearance. Applicant worked for her for about 18 months before being suspended while 
pending a grant of a security clearance. Applicant is a very competent worker and is 
polite and courteous. He is well-liked in the company and can accomplish any task 
assigned. She is aware of Applicant's family members in India, and has no concerns 
with Applicant being granted access to classified information (Tr. 108-114). 
 
Applicant's former supervisor testified that he has known Applicant for over four 
years and worked with him for over two years. He saw Applicant daily. He also knows 
Applicant's family. Applicant was an excellent worker. He does not believe Applicant 
poses any risk to national security if granted access to classified information (Tr. 114-
119). 
 
Applicant presented letters of recommendation and support, and copies of his 
performance evaluations. Applicant's department manager wrote that he has worked 
with Applicant since November 2007. Applicant was a very knowledgeable software 
developer and valued team member. He is a pleasure to work with and is appreciated 
by the other team members. He is not aware of any questions concerning Applicant's 
integrity or character (App. Ex. 1, letter, dated July 28, 2009). Applicant's next door 
neighbor wrote that he has known Applicant and his family for many years. He and 
Applicant work on yard projects together and he sees Applicant almost every day. 
Applicant is polite and soft spoken, and he has complete trust in Applicant. He has not 
heard anything negative about Applicant. (App. Ex. 2, Message, dated August 17, 
2009). Applicant's performance reviews shows he meets or exceeds expectations and 
has many ratings of excellent (App. Ex. 7, 8, 9, 10, Performance Review). 
 
India is not a country hostile to the United States and its interests are not inimical 
to the United States. The United States and India are the world's largest democratic 
republics and enjoy good relations. The United States is India's largest trading partner, 
with trade doubling between the counties from 2004 and 2008. The relationship 
between the United States and India has been strengthened by growing economic and 
business interests and the influx of Indian students in United States universities. 
 
6 
 
 
Although there have been concerns about India's nuclear program, the United States 
and India reached an agreement on the status of India's nuclear program.  
 
The United States and India share a common goal of promoting stability in Asia 
and fighting terrorism. There is a threat of terrorism in India, as reflected in the terror 
attacks in Mumbai in November 2008. However, the area of India where Applicant=s 
family resides is not listed as an area of safety or security concern or of instability 
because of terrorism.  
 
The United States government encourages small and medium size companies to 
expand their business opportunities in India. Many United States based companies, 
including large computer service and software development companies, have subsidiary 
companies and do business in India. However, there have been convictions in United 
States courts of businesses and their employees illegally exporting technology and 
sensitive products to India.  
 
While the Indian government generally respects the rights of its citizens, there 
are some problems that still remain. Police employ arbitrary and abusive practices and 
police corruption is pervasive. The United States and India are natural allies because 
they share a growing convergence of values and interests. There is still some concern 
because of India's continued relationship with Iran. The people and the governments of 
the United States and India engage together in virtually every field of endeavor. There is 
strong and bipartisan support in both the United States and India to cooperate more 
closely. Almost every middle class family in India has a relative studying, living, or doing 
business in or with the United States (Hearing Exhibit 1, App. Ex. 20 through 26, 
Articles, various dates). 
 
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 commonsense 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 
 
7 
 
 
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. . . , and has 
the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security clearance." 
 
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 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline B: Foreign Influence 
 
 Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has 
divided loyalties, may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, 
organization, or government in a way that is not in the U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to 
pressure or coercion by any foreign interests. Adjudication under this guideline can and 
should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or 
financial interest is location, including but not limited to, such consideration 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 (AG ¶ 6).  
 
 Applicant has frequent and extensive contact with his immediate family 
members, who are citizens and residents of India. He talks to his parents and siblings a 
few times a month. He visits them for a few weeks every two years. He sends his 
parents funds for their support and purchased a house for their residence. His wife has 
similar contact with her parents, siblings, and their families. These contacts with his 
family and his wife's family are extensive, and they raise security concerns under 
Foreign Influence Disqualifying Conditions (FI DC) AG ¶ 79(a) (Contact with a foreign 
 
8 
 
 
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); FI DC AG ¶ 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).  
 
 I also considered FI DC AG ¶ 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 FI DC 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). Applicant's in-laws are also 
considered a security risk for Applicant since he and his wife live together and she has 
close contact with her family members who are citizens and residents of India. Applicant 
still owns a residential property in India and has shares in an Indian software 
development company. 
 
 The mere existence of foreign family members is not sufficient to raise the above 
disqualifying conditions. The nature of Applicant’s contact with his and his wife's family 
members must be examined to determine whether it creates a heightened risk of foreign 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. The property or financial 
interest must also subject Applicant to a heightened risk. “Heightened” is a relative term 
denoting increased risk over some normally existing risk that can be said to be inherent 
anytime a family member lives subject to a foreign government. Factors that heighten 
the risk in Applicant’s case are terrorist activities in India, and India's relationship with 
Iran.  
 
 Applicant presented evidence to mitigate the security concerns for his family 
members in India. I have considered Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions (FI MC) 
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.); FI MC 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); FI MC AG ¶ 8(c) (Contact or communication with 
foreign citizens is so casual or infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create 
a risk for foreign influence or exploitation); and FI MC 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). 
 
 
9 
 
 
 Under the old adjudicative guidelines, a disqualifying condition based on foreign 
family members could not be mitigated unless an applicant could establish that the 
family members were not “in a position to be exploited.” The underlying premise was 
that an applicant should not be placed in a position where he or she is forced to make a 
choice between the interest of the family member and the interest of the United States. 
There was no balancing test to assess the extent of the security risk. Under the new 
guidelines, however, the potentially conflicting loyalties may be weighed to determine if 
an applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of the United States 
interest. The nature of the terrorist threat in India, as well as India's continued 
relationship with Iran, places a burden on Applicant in mitigating the disqualifying 
conditions and the security concerns. Applicant's relationship with his family is close, so 
there could be a circumstance where Applicant is placed in a position of having to 
choose between his family members and the interests of the United States.   
 
 India has experienced terrorist activities in its country, but not any more than 
other countries. It is a democracy with strong economic, social, and political ties to the 
United States, even though it has an ongoing relationship with Iran. Applicant has little, 
sense of loyalty to India. He spent only his early and formative years in India and came 
to this country with his wife and young daughter for better living conditions and 
prospects for the future. This approach is no different than generations of immigrants 
who came to the United States for a better life. He achieved his goal, finding good 
employment for him and his wife, better education for his children, and more 
opportunities for his family. He and his family established that they have a deep sense 
of loyalty and admiration for the United States and its way of life. This is confirmed by 
the testimony of his neighbors and co-workers. He and his family members became 
United States citizens as soon as they could, and have been successful citizens. They 
see the United States as offering freedom, justice, and tolerance with an opportunity to 
reach their potential. While Applicant provided funds to assist his parents and 
purchased a house for them, he did so as a son and not to assist the government of 
India or any terrorist element in the country. His visits to India were in the ordinary 
course of visiting his family and not to further any political entity in India.  
 
 A conflict of interest in this case is extremely unlikely. Applicant's siblings are 
homemakers and engineers or production workers. His in-laws are farmers and 
vegetable vendors. Their positions and activities, as well as their location in India, make 
it unlikely that Applicant will be placed in a position to have to choose between their 
interests and the interests of the United States. In balancing all of the factors mentioned 
and considered above, I am satisfied Applicant’s loyalty to the United States is such that 
he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United States 
interest. FI MC AG ¶ 8(a) and (b) apply. It is clear from Applicant's and his wife's 
testimonies that there is a close relationship their family in India. They talk to them 
frequently, provided a house for Applicant's parents to reside, and Applicant sends 
funds for their support. The relationship is close and not casual. FI MC AG ¶ 8(c) does 
not apply.  
 
 
10 
 
 
 Applicant and his wife have investment property in India, but it is only a small 
portion of their total investments. Their investments in the United States are 
substantially greater than any investment in India. The value of the property and 
investment in India is small. In fact, the investment value has fallen during the recent 
economic downturn. FC MC ¶ 8(f) applies. Applicant has met his heavy burden to show 
that his contact with his family and in-laws in India do not cause a security concern. I 
conclude Applicant has mitigated security concerns rising from his contact with his 
family in India. 
 
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.  
 
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. I carefully considered all of the 
circumstances discussed above in regard to disqualifying and mitigating conditions as 
well as the following factors in light of the whole-person concept. The whole-person 
concept requires consideration of all available information about Applicant, not a single 
item in isolation, to reach a commonsense determination concerning Applicant’s 
security worthiness. Applicant has a close relationship with his family members and in-
laws in India because he talks to them frequently by telephone, visits them every two 
years, purchased a house for his parent's residence, and sends funds for his parents' 
medical care. These simple facts alone might be sufficient to raise security concerns 
over Applicant’s vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure. However, mere 
family ties with people in a foreign country are not, as a matter of law, disqualifying 
under Guideline B. Whether an applicant’s family ties in a foreign country pose a 
security risk depends on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the family ties.   
 
Applicant has strong loyalties to the United States. He and his family came to the 
United States for a better life. They succeeded in becoming part of the United States 
 
11 
 
 
culture like many immigrant families before them. He and his family participate in local 
activities like any other family. He is regarded as loyal, trustworthy, and reliable by those 
that know and work with him. His neighbors consider him to be a good citizen and 
neighbor. Applicant has established his loyalty to the United States. His country of birth 
and where his family members reside, India, is a partner of the United States in many 
international endeavors. While India experiences incidents of terrorism and maintains a 
relationship with Iran, these facts create only an ordinary risk of vulnerability to 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. Applicant's loyalty to the 
United States and the position and activities of his family in India make it unlikely that he 
will have to choose between their interest and the interest of the United States. Overall, 
on balance, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant has met the burden of mitigating all potential security concerns 
arising from his family members in India. Accordingly, I find that Applicant has mitigated 
the security concerns arising from 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, Guideline B:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
    Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.l:     For Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a 
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge