1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-05670
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Kathleen Voelker, Esquire
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On May 6, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued 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 (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In his May 26, 2010, response to the SOR, Applicant admitted seven of the nine
allegations raised under Guideline B and requested a hearing before an administrative
judge. The case was assigned to me on August 4, 2010. Department Counsel and
Applicant agreed to a September 14, 2010, hearing date. A Notice of Hearing was
issued by DOHA on August 27, 2010, setting the hearing for that date.
The hearing took place as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted four
exhibits (Ex.) which were accepted into the record as Exs. 1-4 without objection. I also
accepted Department Counsel’s memorandum requesting administrative notice of
 See HE 1, Cover Memorandum, dated Sep. 14, 2010, at 2.1
 U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2009, India, dated Mar. 11, 2010.2
 HE 1, Cover Memorandum, supra, note 1, at 5-6.3
 See also Tr. 134-140.4
2
certain facts related to India, and 15 attachments. They were accepted without
objection as HE-1 and HE 1 (I-XV). Applicant was represented by counsel, introduced
three witnesses, and gave testimony. He presented 28 documents, which were
accepted into the record as Exs. A-BB without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was
received on September 30, 2010, and the record was closed. Based upon a review of
the case file, exhibits, and testimony, security clearance is granted.
Administrative Notice
The Government requested administrative notice of certain facts and materials
regarding the Republic of India. I have reviewed HE 1 and its attachments (I-XV) in full,
as well as Applicant’s comments regarding those documents at Tr. 134-141. Regarding
India, the following facts, in particular, are noted. 
India is a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. Since gaining
independence in 1947, India has had a tumultuous history, particularly with regard to its
relations with Pakistan. Within India, sporadic outbreaks of religious riots and violent
attacks by a variety of separatists and terrorist groups have occurred. In 2008, terrorists
coordinated attacks in Mumbai, targeting areas frequented by Westerners. The U.S.
Department of State issued a travel alert warning U.S. citizens of ongoing security
concerns in India and the possible threat of attacks on Westerners. That alert, however,
was recently cancelled.  1
The Indian government generally respects the rights of its citizens, but serious
problems have been reported regarding extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture,
and the use of vigorous antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessive use of force.2
Individuals and entities within India have been cited for collecting industrial intelligence
from sources in the United States with the goal of selling or transferring such
intelligence to governmental and business entities within India.  Despite past3
differences regarding India’s nuclear weapons program, India’s cooperation with Iran in
some areas of policy, and the pace of India’s efforts toward economic reform, the
United States has actively sought to strengthen its relationship with India.  The two4
countries are partners in the fight against global terrorism. India has demonstrated its
commitment to political freedom. It is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations
Security Council. The United States and India recently issued a joint statement of their
intentions to foster bilateral relations by establishing working groups to address
strategic cooperation, energy and climate change, education, economics, trade,
agriculture, science, technology, health, and innovation.
 Tr. 78-80.5
 Tr. 92. Applicant’s last trip to India was in 1992.6
 Tr. 60, 73.7
 SOR allegations 1.a-1.b incorrectly allege that they are citizens and residents of India.8
 Tr. 85.9
 Id.10
3
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 40-year-old information technology specialist who has worked for
the same defense contractor since June 2010. He has worked on the same contract
project for a longer period, but for another defense contractor. He recently accepted his
present position in order to continue his work on that project.  He is married and has5
two children.
In 1970, Applicant was born in India, where he was raised and educated. In
1991, he earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science and engineering, then
entered the information technology field. After working in India for a few years, and then
spending one year working in Singapore, he sought employment in the United States in
April 1996. He chose to immigrate to the United States, to which an elder sister had
immigrated in about 1991, because of its promise of opportunities. 
In 1997, Applicant visited India. It was one of the four trips he has taken to India
since he immigrated to the United States.  There, he married a physician from his6
region in August 1997. His wife joined him in the United States the following month.
She then secured a work visa, pursued U.S. citizenship, took U.S. medical board
examinations, and started a medical residency program that would continue until 2004. 
In 2002, a year after Applicant and his wife had their first child, Applicant and his
wife were granted permanent resident status. Throughout the mid-2000s, Applicant
continued to work in information technology as his wife built her medical practice. In
2006, they had a second child. The couple was granted U.S. citizenship in 2008. In so
doing, they renounced their Indian citizenship and had their Indian passports
invalidated.  7
Applicant’s parents are residents of the United States.  They immigrated to the8
United States in 1996.  Applicant’s mother, age 73, is a housewife. She remains a9
citizen of India. She is a permanent resident of the United States. She has not taken
the U.S. citizenship test because she is unable to fluently read and write English.10
Applicant’s father, age 77, is a retired factory quality assurance worker. He retired at
 Tr. 121. Applicant does not know whether his father received or receives any benefits from the Indian11
government.
 Tr. 122.12
 Tr. 118.13
 Tr. 119. W hatever care they need is usually provided by Applicant’s sister in the United States.14
 Tr. 88.15
 Tr. 89. Their delay was caused by Applicant’s father’s ill health and need for cardiac care.16
 Tr. 128-129.17
 Tr. 93.18
 Tr. 94.19
 SOR allegation ¶ 1.d incorrectly alleges that Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of India.20
4
age 60 from a manufacturing company controlled by the Indian government.  He does11
not maintain contact with any former colleagues.  He became a United States citizen in12
2004. Applicant speaks with them by telephone about every two to three weeks.  He13
provides them with no regular monetary support, although he has bought them airline
tickets in the past.  Currently, they are in India, where they were providing some help to14
another daughter.  They were expected to return to the United States in late15
September 2010.  They spend the majority of their time in the United States, near a16
daughter living in a state distant from Applicant. That daughter is a resident and citizen
of the United States. She has been here since 1991. She has worked in the technology
field for several years. She is married with one child.
Applicant’s other sister is a citizen and resident of India. She entertains
Applicant’s parents when they visit. She is a school teacher and is married to a private
sector sales representative who has never served in the Indian military. She has two
children. Applicant last visited with her in person during his 2004 trip to India. They do
not actively maintain a relationship.  They have not spoken by telephone in at least17
three years and they do not correspond.  Applicant has incidentally spoken by18
telephone with some of his sister’s children when he has phoned his sister’s home to
speak with his visiting parents.19
Applicant’s mother-in-law, a former school teacher, is deceased.  His father-in-20
law is a citizen and resident of India. He is retired, 77 years old, and in declining health.
He lives with a son, age 46, who is a citizen and resident of India. Both men worked in
the private sector. Neither has served in the Indian military. Applicant last saw his
father-in-law in 2004, although his wife visited her ailing father in the hospital in 2009.
She currently speaks with her father about his health by telephone about once a week.
 Tr. 51, 61.21
 Tr. 61. Applicant’s wife noted that India does not offer any benefits analogous to Social Security. This would22
apparently apply to Applicant’s parents, as well.
 Tr. 96.23
 Tr. 97.24
 Tr. 98. SOR allegation ¶ 1.g incorrectly alleges that this brother-in-law resides in New Zealand.25
 Tr. 54.26
 Tr. 99.27
 Id.28
 Tr. 100. Applicant’s family and his in-laws are from suburbs of the same, remote city. See Tr. 115.29
 Tr. 114-115. Testimony regarding this region and state indicate they are not areas frequented by30
W esterners.
 Tr. 101.31
5
She provides him with no financial support.  He does not receive benefits from the21
government of india.  Applicant maintains infrequent contact with the man, although22
they spoke briefly by telephone in 2009, after Applicant’s mother-in-law died.  Applicant23
maintains no contact with the brother-in-law with whom Applicant’s father-in-law
resides.  24
Applicant also has a brother-in-law who is a resident of India, residing in
Australia.  He is a statistician. Applicant’s sister-in-law living in Australia is a citizen of25
Singapore. Applicant does not maintain a relationship with these individuals and has
had no contact with them in at least five years. Applicant’s wife has telephonic contact
with these siblings about once a month.  Applicant has never visited Australia,26
although he last visited Singapore in 2004 en route to India.  Applicant knows of no27
threats or potential threats against any of his family members.28
Applicant owns a small home in India. Although he has not visited India since
2004, he continues to maintain the property, which he purchased in 2001 for about
$20,000. He bought it as a convenient place for family members or in-laws to stay when
visiting India.  It is located in a quiet residential area near where he and his wife were29
raised. It is unaffected by instability and terrorism.  He has no personal attachment to30
the property.  Applicant stayed there only once, in 2004. Because his family members31
live in a remote residential  area of the region, there are no nearby hotels for visiting
members to use. This small house, valued now at about $25,000, serves that
 Tr. 101. Applicant bought the property for about $20,000.32
 Tr. 116-117, 124.33
 Tr. 103.34
 See Tr. 128-129.35
 Tr. 104.36
 Tr. 104-105.37
 Tr. 106.38
 Tr. 107-108. Financing was managed through a $220,000 mortgage.39
 Ex. M (Assets worksheet); Tr. 109-113..40
 Tr. 109.41
6
purpose.  The closest hotels are 35 kilometers away, which, given suburban road32
conditions, can take over two hours to maneuver.  33
When no family members are present, Applicant’s sister sometimes rents the
house to others. After expenses, any profits are retained by Applicant’s sister, who
functionally manages the property.  She does so willingly, although she and Applicant,34
as noted above, do not communicate.  Applicant has contemplated selling the35
property, but to do so is a complicated process under Indian law. It would require him to
take time off work to visit India in order to effectuate a sale.  He would be willing to sell36
it if its possession would bar his ability to maintain a security clearance.   The house is37
his only financial tie in India.
In the United States, Applicant earns approximately $100,000 a year. He
maintains superlative credit, earning a 971 out of 980 on the Experian Advantage Score
system.  He owns a home currently valued at approximately $245,000.  Not including38 39
automobiles, home furnishings, or any 401k savings with his current employer,
Applicant’s total assets in the United States are valued at approximately $751,000.
Liabilities, including the residential home’s mortgage and a business taken loan for his
wife’s medical office, amount to about $242,600, leaving a net worth of approximately
$508,300.  Applicant has two credit cards, on which he regularly pays off any balances40
owed. He has about $10,000 in a special savings account for his children’s in-state
college education.  Applicant and his wife expect to raise and educate their children in41
the United States. Applicant intends to retire with his wife in the United States. He has
 Tr. 113.42
 Tr. 125.43
 Tr. 127.44
 Tr. 23-27. This individual speaks highly of Applicant and his family. She also used to teach music to45
Applicant’s wife.
 Tr. 33.46
7
no intention to move to India, or any other country, to live.  He has no current plans to42
visit India in the future.43
Applicant and his family are active within their community. Applicant and his
family regularly attend a local house of worship, where Applicant sometimes acts as a
substitute teacher for children’s religion classes.  They are also active in local sports44
leagues. For nearly five years, Applicant’s son has studied piano with an individual who
has since become a family friend.  His younger child is in public preschool. His wife is45
active with the local school system, both as a professional and as a mother. She is also
active with local branches of professional medical organizations. At work, Applicant is a
valued employee. A long-term colleague recommended Applicant for his current
position.46
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions
and mitigating conditions, which are required 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 commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” All available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, must be and were considered 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 my
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence submitted.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).47
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).48
 Id.49
 Id.50
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.51
8
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a47
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  48
 
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 about 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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access49
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily50
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the51
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline B (Foreign Contacts)
to be the most pertinent to the case. Conditions pertaining to this AG that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such
concerns, are discussed below.
9
Analysis
Guideline B – Foreign Influence
The concern under Guideline B is that 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. Consideration should be given to 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 U.S. citizens to
obtain protected information or is associated with a risk of terrorism. Conditions
pertaining to this adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate security concerns, are discussed in
the conclusions below.
The country at issue is India, discussed above. The submitted information
regarding that country, both favorable and unfavorable, has been thoroughly reviewed
and considered. It is particularly noted that while there is no evidence the Indian
government specifically targets U.S. citizens for protected information or practices
terrorism, terrorism and other issues are existent within its borders despite India’s
national and international anti-terrorism efforts. Such considerations demand
heightened scrutiny in this case. At issue are nine allegations related to Indian relatives
or property. SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b are substantially changed because
Applicant’s parents are now residents of the United States, and his father is now a U.S.
citizen. SOR allegation ¶ 1.d is moot in light of the fact that Applicant’s mother-in-law is
now deceased. The facts reflected in SOR allegation ¶ 1.g have been noted as
incorrect, with the record now showing that Applicant’s one brother-in-law is a citizen of
India now residing in Australia. 
Although a permanent resident of the United States, Applicant’s mother remains
a citizen of India. A sister, his father-in-law, and a brother-in-law are residents and
citizens of India. Another brother-in-law and a sister-in-law are citizens of India currently
residing elsewhere. Applicant owns a small house in India, worth about $25,000. Such
facts are sufficient to give rise to Foreign Influence Disqualifying Conditions 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 exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion); 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); and 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
10
exploitation). With disqualifying conditions thus raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to
mitigate security concerns.
Applicant’s father is a citizen and resident of the United States. But for her
inability to learn English sufficiently to pass a citizenship test, Applicant’s mother, who is
a permanent resident of the United States, would probably also be a U.S. citizen. Given
their advanced age, Applicant maintains regular telephonic contact with his parents, but
he has not exerted any effort to personally visit them. He maintains virtually no
relationship with his sister that is a citizen and resident of India. He has only negligible
contact with his foreign in-laws. While his wife maintains more regular contact with her
family via telephone, her only recent non-telephonic contact has been through a trip to
India to visit her ailing father in the hospital. None of these individuals are affiliated with,
or dependent on, the government of India or any suspect organizations. Except for their
mostly telephonic contacts with these individuals, Applicant and his wife are highly
focused on their professions and personal lives here in the United States. Given these
facts, the country at issue, and the social milieu in which these relatives live, Foreign
Influence Mitigating Condition 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.) applies, but AG ¶ 8(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) does not
apply. 
Applicant sought a new life in the United States on his own volition. He freely
renounced his foreign citizenship and relinquished his foreign passport when he
became a U.S. citizen. Over the years, he has built a successful career and helped his
wife build a successful medical practice. Both husband and wife are highly active in
their local community. They own a house, attend local religious services, and attend
youth activities involving their young children. It is their intention to educate their
children in the local schools and they are saving money for their children’s post-
secondary education in the United States. Both Applicant and his wife intend to retire
and remain in the United States.
Moreover, Applicant has excellent credit and over $750,000 in assets in the
United States. His net worth exceeds $500,000. In contrast, his only ties to India are
relations with whom he has little to no contact and a small property he has only visited
once. He is thoroughly content with his life in the United States. Since immigrating to
the United States, Applicant has only visited India four times, the last visit occurring six
years ago. Not only does he have no interest in returning to India to live, he has no
plans to visit there in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the evidence suggests that
Applicant would have sold the small house he owns in India, except he has neither the
time nor the inclination to return to India to execute its transfer or effectuate its sale.
Given all these considerations, AG ¶ 8(b) (there is no conflict of interest, either because
11
the individual’s sense of loyalty to 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) applies. 
Applicant’s property in India is valued at approximately $25,000. It is his only
foreign interest. It was acquired not as an investment or as a sentimental attachment to
his former area of residence, but as a practical haven for visiting family members. It is
located in a residential area unaffected by threats of civil unrest or terrorism. Applicant
has visited the property once, in 2004. Since that time, its use and expenses have been
managed by Applicant’s sister, with whom Applicant maintains no regular contact and to
whom Applicant has apparently abdicated all responsibility for the property. Since his
stay there six years ago, Applicant has derived no benefit from its ownership. He has no
present plans to return to the property. But for the time and inconvenience in disposing
of the property, it appears he would have divested himself of its ownership earlier. At
present, it represents less than one-thirtieth of his total assets, which are in excess of
$750,000. Such facts are sufficient to raise 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).
Applicant’s relationships with relatives and in-laws who are citizens and residents
of India are negligible, as are his relationships with other in-laws residing in Australia.
His parents no longer reside in India. While Applicant is a respectful son, their American
daughter is their primary care-giver in times of need. While Applicant’s spouse
maintains relationships with her family, they appear to be mostly by telephone to a
residential area of India unaffected by civil strife and the threat of terrorism. Applicant’s
small house in India remains his in name, but he derives no tangible benefits from the
ownership of this modest investment. In light of these considerations, the mitigating
conditions raised, and the country at issue, I find that foreign influence security
concerns are mitigated.   
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;
12
(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, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is a credible and mature individual who is also a successful
information technology professional. He has earned a bachelor’s degree. He chose to
emigrate from India, like an elder sister had before him, in search of a better life and
more opportunities to succeed. He has achieved his objectives. He married a young
physician. Together, they became United States citizens and started a family. They
both built successful and lucrative careers while becoming involved within their
community, where they own a family home. Their children are active with local sports
and schools. Applicant and his wife look forward to educating their children in the
United States, then retiring. Applicant has maintained excellent credit and incurred no
significant debts. He has accrued domestic personal assets in excess of $750,000 with
a total net worth of over $500,000. The family intends to remain in the United States.
The only foreign connections Applicant currently retains are some relatives and a small
investment property in India.   
India is a partner of the United States in the global war against terrorism. While
terrorism and some domestic unrest exist within some areas of India, none of it appears
to threaten the enclave in which Applicant’s family, in-laws, and property are located.
There is no evidence any of the individuals at issue are state-dependent, nor is there
evidence that they are involved with, or under scrutiny by, interests antithetical to the
United States. Applicant has only returned to India four times since he immigrated to
the United States and has no immediate plans to visit. Applicant’s small house in India
is a negligible investment, yielding him nothing in terms of tangible benefits or
sentiment. It has been constructively ceded to his sister, with whom he has had no
contact in several years. Applicant’s father is now a resident and citizen of the United
States, accompanied by Applicant’s mother, who is a permanent United States
resident. Applicant’s relationships and contact with his in-laws is not intimate or
frequent. 
While the relationships and contacts of a spouse are generally attributed to an
applicant in these cases, Applicant’s wife’s familial contacts appear to be contentedly
long-distance. Her only physical contact with a foreign relation was with her father last
year, when the ailing septuagenarian was hospitalized. Her contact has not shifted her
focus from life in the United States. While Applicant’s wife’s contacts and relationships
with her foreign family members are more apparent than those of her husband, which
are virtually non-existent, none appear likely candidates for manipulation by adverse
influences. Applicant’s wife’s focus is clearly on her life in the United States. 
13
Regarding Applicant’s life in the United States, he is a contented American
citizen, with a stable family, social, and professional life. His life is entirely focused here.
His family is part of the local community. He is admired by his peers. He and his wife
intend to continue their lives in the United States past retirement. There is no evidence
indicating that he may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign power or interest. In
light of these facts and the country at issue, I find that Applicant successfully mitigated
foreign influence security concerns. 
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.i: For Applicant
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. Clearance granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge