1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-08052
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire fo Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on July 12, 2007. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline B
on April 27, 2009. 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 May 11, 2009. She answered the
SOR in writing in May 2009. Department counsel decided to proceed with a hearing
Response to SOR.1
GE 1; Tr. 13-14.2
GE 1; Tr. 13, 15, 18-19, 28-29, 37.3
2
before an administrative judge, and was prepared to proceed on July 21, 2009, and I
received the case assignment on September 3, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on September 25, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 20, 2009.
The government offered two exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, which were received and admitted
into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf. She did not
submit any exhibits at the hearing. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
October 28, 2009. I requested documents from the Applicant and held the record open
until November 4, 2009. She timely submitted three exhibits (AE) A through C, without
objection. The record closed on November 4, 2009.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Request for Administrative Notice 
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice
of certain facts relating to Ukraine. (Tr. 11-12.) The request and the attached documents
were not admitted into evidence but were included in the record as Hearing Exhibits I
and II. In addition, Hearing Exhibits III and IV are included in the record. The facts
administratively noticed must be limited to matters of general knowledge and matters
not subject to reasonable dispute. (Tr. 12.) The facts administratively noticed are set out
in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.b, and 1.c of the SOR.   1
Applicant, who is 48 years old, works as an engineer for a Department of
Defense contractor. She began her work with this employer in November 2006.  2
Applicant was born in the Ukraine when it was part of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union). She graduated from high school and attended
college in the Ukraine. She received a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering.
She married her first husband in 1981 in the Ukraine. They had two sons, now ages 27
and 23, who were born in the Ukraine. She and her first husband divorced in 1998 while
still living in the Ukraine. Applicant’s contact with her first husband is limited to special
occasions and matters related to their sons. Her first husband works in private
construction, building houses.  3
Tr. 24-25.4
Applicant’s first husband lives in the apartment with his wife.5
Tr. 18-19, 37.6
GE 2; Tr. 13-14, 19-207
AE B; AE C; Tr. 13-14, 20-21.8
3
Applicant worked as a ship designer in the Ukraine ship building industry until
1991. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, her employer laid her off. For the next
ten years, she worked in a hospital as an engineer.4
Applicant and her first husband purchased an apartment in the Ukraine. Although
they are divorced and her first husband has remarried, Applicant still owns a 25%
interest in this apartment.  Applicant’s sons each own a 25% interest in this apartment5
and her first husband owns the remaining 25%. Applicant estimates the value of the
apartment at $40,000. When the real estate market improves, she would like to sell the
apartment.  6
Applicant met her second husband, an American citizen, in 2000. She
immigrated to the United States as a fiancee in 2001. Her two sons immigrated with her
in 2001. After arriving in the United States, Applicant married her second husband. She
became a United States citizen in 2006. She possesses a passport from the United
States, which she uses to travel to the Ukraine. She and her second husband divorced
in 2007, but are discussing remarriage.  7
Applicant’s oldest son became a United States citizen on July 20, 2009. He
married a Ukrainian citizen, whom he met in the United States, in the Ukraine. His wife
recently gave birth to a son in the Ukraine. Applicant’s grandson is a citizen of the
United States. Her son is currently in the process of completing the necessary
paperwork to bring his wife and son to the United States. Applicant’s younger son has
applied to become a United States citizen and had his citizenship interview on
November 10, 2009.8
Applicant’s parents are citizens of and reside in the Ukraine. Her father, who is
75 years old, served in the Navy of the Soviet Union as a machinist mate, from 1954
until 1957. He worked in the ship building industry as a mechanical engineer for many
years. He still works one day a week for a privately owned shipbuilding company. Until
1991, her father’s company built warships. Since 1991, the company builds skin for
cruise ships, including European companies, under contracts. Her mother, who is 71
years old, is a retired nurse. She receives a retirement benefit from the government. Her
Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, her parents were required to be members of the communist party9
if they wanted to work. This requirement ended in 1991. Tr. 32.
Tr. 16-17, 29, 31-34. 10
Id. 14, 22-24, 36. 11
Id. 37-39.12
4
parents are not politically active and are no longer members of the communist party.9
Applicant is an only child.10
Applicant’s parents visit her in the United States every other year. She has
visited them four times since immigrating to the United States, the last time in 2009,
when she attended her son’s wedding. Applicant talks with her parents once a week.
She would like to bring them to the United States, but is not sure if they will come.
Applicant has one cousin in the Ukraine. She visits with her cousin when she is in the
Ukraine. She does not have any other close family members. She does not have
regular contact with her former co-workers. When she is in the Ukraine, she may pass
one of them on the street. They stop and talk briefly. She visits with friends when she is
in the Ukraine, but she does not have any additional contact with them.11
Applicant has substantial assets in the United States. She lives in a trailer on six
acres of land, which she values at $125,000. She has a $92,000 mortgage on this
property. She has a 401k account worth $5,000, two Individual Retirement Accounts
(IRA) worth about $4,500, a car, and a savings account worth $50,000. Her second
husband gave her a quit claim deed to the house they owned when married. The value
of this house is unknown. She does not owe any money to anyone in the Ukraine and
will not receive any benefits from the Ukraine. She voted in the recent elections in the
United States. She may inherit her parents apartment, which is valued at $35,000. She
does not anticipate a significant inheritance as her parents are not wealthy.12
I take administrative notice of the following facts. The Ukraine is a republic with a
mixed presidential and parliamentary system. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, the Ukraine has been an independent country, undergoing significant political and
economic change. The Ukraine has rich farmlands, a well-developed industrial base, a
highly trained labor force, and a good educational system. The Ukraine seeks
admission into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). To achieve this goal, the
Ukraine must modernize its military. The Ukraine has taken the first steps towards this
goal. The Ukraine also seeks entry in the World Trade Organization and European
Union. The Ukraine tries to maintain a good relationship with Russia, a relationship that
is difficult and complex. The Ukrainian government respects the rights of its citizens to
free speech, to practice religion, and to free press. There are significant human rights
issues with the police when arresting or detaining individuals. There is no evidence that
the Ukraine seeks to obtain sensitive or classified information from the United States.
The Ukraine has received billions of dollars in aid from the United States to help with its
development as a democratic state. The documents provided do not discuss terrorism
Hearing Exhibits 1 to 4.13
5
or acts of terrorism in the Ukraine. There is no evidence that terrorist groups operate in
the Ukraine or that the Ukrainian government targets its citizens or citizens of the United
States. Overall, the Ukraine and the United States have a good relationship.13
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 used 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
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, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
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
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
an 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.
 
6
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
The security concern relating to the guideline for Foreign Influence is set out in
AG & 6:
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. 
Under the potential disqualifying conditions described in AG ¶ 7, the following
conditions could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case:
(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; 
(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; and
(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 has a son who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and resides in the United
States. He second son is a resident of the United States and is actively applying for his
United States citizenship. Thus, no security concern is raised by these family members.
Applicant’s mother and father are citizens and residents of the Ukraine. Applicant
maintains a normal, familial relationship with her mother and father. She talks with them
7
by telephone about once a week. She visits her parents at least every two years. She
returned to the Ukraine for her son’s wedding in May 2009. She does not provide
financial support to her parents. Her family relationships are not per se a reason to deny
Applicant a security clearance, but her contacts with family members must be
considered in deciding whether to grant Applicant a clearance. The government must
establish that these family relationships create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation,
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion or would create a potential conflict of
interest between her obligations to protect sensitive information and her desire to help
her family members.  
In determining if a heightened risk exists, I must look at Applicant’s relationship
and contacts with family members as well as the activities of the government of the
Ukraine and terrorist organizations within the Ukraine. See ISCR Case No. 07-05809
(App. Bd. May 27, 2008). The risk that an applicant could be targeted for manipulation
or induced into compromising classified information is real, not theoretical. The record
contains no information which indicates that terrorist organizations are active in the
Ukraine. While there is no indication the government of the Ukraine targets its citizens,
the human rights record of the Ukrainian police forces is dismal. The information of
record fails to show that the Ukrainian government engages in espionage activities in
the United States or that it targets United States citizens in the United States or the
Ukraine by exploiting, manipulating, pressuring, or coercing them to obtain protected
information. As a former nation in the Soviet Union and because the Ukraine continues
to foster ties with Russia, Applicant’s relationship and contacts with her mother and
father in the Ukraine raises a heightened risk of security concerns.
Under the new guidelines, the potentially conflicting loyalties may be weighed to
determine if an applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of the U.S.
interests. In determining if Applicant’s contacts in the Ukraine cause security concerns, I
considered that the Ukraine and the United States have a close relationship and there is
no evidence that the Ukrainian government targets United States citizens for protected
information. The human rights issues in the Ukraine continue to be a concern. While
none of these considerations by themselves dispose of the issue, they are all factors to
be considered in determining Applicant’s vulnerability to pressure or coercion because
of her family members in the Ukraine. Thus, Applicant’s recent trips to the Ukraine and
contacts with her family in the Ukraine raise a heightened risk concern under AG ¶¶ 7(a)
and (b).
In deciding if Applicant has established mitigation under AG ¶ 8(a), I must
consider: 
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.;
8
and under AG ¶ 8(b), I must consider whether Applicant has established:
 
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. interests.
Applicant’s normal relationship with her parents is not a basis to deny her a
security clearance; however, her burden of proof on mitigation requires her to establish
that she will not be placed in a position of having to chose between her parents and the
United States. See ISCR Case No. 07-02485 (App. Bd. May 9, 2008). Her parents have
never held a political position. Applicant’s parents have not been targeted by the
Ukraine and there is little likelihood the Ukrainian government would do so in the future.
Her parents have never been imprisoned and there is not any evidence that they have
suffered any abuses from the Ukraine government. Her closest family members, her two
sons, are residents of the United States. She owns two pieces of property and has
significant monetary assets in the United States. She owns a 25% interest in an
apartment in the Ukraine. Her interest is valued at $10,000 and equals about 5% of her
total assets. Balancing these factors and the lack of evidence that the Ukrainian
government targets U.S. citizens for protected information against the Ukraine’s poor
human rights record, I find that Applicant would resolve any conflict in favor of the U.S.
interests. Her loyalties are to the United States, not the Ukraine. Applicant has mitigated
the government’s security concerns as to her family contacts specified in the SOR
under AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b).
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant 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. The decision to grant or deny a security
clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and
9
unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record,
not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then
whether it is mitigated.  
 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
was born and raised in the Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union. When the
Soviet Union collapsed, she continued to live and work in the Ukraine with her first
husband and their sons. In 2001, after her divorce, she came to the United States as a
fiancee with her sons. She married the same year and became a naturalized citizen in
2006. Her older son is now a United States citizen and her younger son is in the
process of becoming a citizen. She regularly talks with her parents and visits them in
the Ukraine periodically. Her parents do not know she works for a federal contractor.
Other than her mother’s retirement income, her parents have no contacts with the
Ukrainian government. Her parents are not in a position where they are likely to be
exploited or pressured by the Ukrainian government. There is little chance Applicant will
be placed in a position of having to chose between her parents and the United States.
In the event she should be placed in such a position, her strong loyalty to the United
States would prevail. Applicant’s contacts with her parents in the Ukraine and her
minimal financial interest do not raise an unacceptable security concern.  
Overall, 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 mitigated the security concerns arising from her 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
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
10
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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge