1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-06296
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jon L. Roberts, Ph.D, J.D.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concern posed by his relatives
who are Venezuelan citizens and/or residents. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On April 9, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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 adjudicative guidelines
(AG).
Applicant answered the SOR on May 25, 2010, admitting all of the allegations
except subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c. He requested a hearing, and the case was
assigned to me on October 6, 2010. On November 10, 2010, a notice of hearing was
2
issued scheduling the case for December 2, 2010. The hearing was conducted as
scheduled. I admitted two Government exhibits marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1
and 2, and seven Applicant exhibits marked as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through G.
Also, Applicant and a character witness testified.  At Department Counsel’s request, I
took administrative notice of facts about Venezuela contained in seven documents
marked as Hearing Exhibits (HE) I through VII. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 49-year-old married man with three children, ages 20, 17, and 15.
He has a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, earned in 1981 from a
university in Venezuela, his native country. (AE C at 2) Applicant immigrated to the
United States in 1998 and has been living here since then.
For the past nine years, Applicant has worked in a number of capacities for a
defense contractor. (AE C at 1) Currently, he is the lead engineer in designing satellite
transceiver and implementation software for a DoD satellite tracking system that allows
U.S. forces to minimize friendly fire accidents by pinpointing more precisely the location
of its troops. (AE B, Attachments 3-4)
Applicant is highly respected on the job. In a 2008 job evaluation, his department
head characterized Applicant as “one of [the company’s] true creative forces [whom he]
was glad to have on [the] team.” (AE D at 45) According to a coworker, Applicant
“worked tirelessly - including countless evenings and weekends - to meet U.S.
Government project goals and objectives.” (AE B, Attachment 4) According to the
program manager for Applicant’s client, Applicant possesses a “unique ability to design
complex equipment and software.” (AE B, Attachment 3)
One of Applicant’s former supervisors is a senior intelligence officer in the U.S.
Army Reserve with more than ten years of experience collecting and analyzing
intelligence, in addition to supervising and training junior intelligence officers.  (AE B,
Attachment 1) He has performed his intelligence collecting tasks while assigned, among
other places, to two combat theaters. (Id.) He supervised Applicant for five years before
leaving his job and moving to another company. He characterized Applicant as “a
consistent and valuable member of the development team, whose expertise was
specifically sought . . . to assist in troubleshooting critical problems.” (AE B, Attachment
1) Also, he described Applicant as one “who can absolutely be trusted with access to
classified information.” (Id.) 
Applicant’s wife is also a Venezuelan native. Both were raised in Venezuela and
they met and married in Venezuela. (Tr. 96) In 1998, after 11 years of marriage,
Applicant and his wife emigrated from Venezuela to the United States. (Tr. 98) Applicant
left Venezuela because he was tired of its “culture of corruption,” and because he
wanted his children to receive a better education. (Tr. 118)
One of Applicant’s daughters is a member of  the high school swim team.1
3
Applicant and his wife became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2008. (AE 1 at 7) Both
renounced their Venezuelan citizenship when they became U.S. citizens. (Answer at 1;
Tr. 120) 
Applicant’s children are naturalized U.S. citizens. It is unclear from the record
whether they retain their Venezuelan citizenship. All of Applicant’s children live in the
United States. His oldest child attends college and the two youngest children are in high
school. He pays his daughter’s college tuition. (Tr. 127) Applicant is active in the
community, volunteering at church, remodeling homes for the underprivileged, and
serving as the timekeeper at local high school swim meets.  (Tr. 128)1
Applicant has been a homeowner since 1999. (Tr. 97)  All of his financial
interests are in the United States. (Tr. 86) He has approximately $60,000 to $70,000
invested in his 401k plan and an insurance policy through his employer worth $500,000.
(Tr. 130) Also, he owns about 2,000 shares of stock in his company valued at
approximately $46 per share. (Tr. 133)
Applicant has only travelled to Venezuela twice in the past ten years. On both
occasions, he was attending a parent’s funeral. This last trip was in 2008. (Tr. 129)  He
has no intention of returning to Venezuela. (Tr. 122) His recreational travel is limited to
popular vacation destinations in the United States such as theme parks and beaches.
(Tr. 133)
Applicant’s brother is a citizen of Venezuela who works for a U.S. company and
resides in Mexico. (Answer at 2; AE B Attachment 7) His brother is an electrical
engineer and his brother’s wife is a homemaker. Applicant has a cordial relationship
with his brother and his brother’s family keeping in touch with them approximately once
per month in addition to special occasions and holidays. (Tr. 107, 121) His brother’s
family travels to the United States to visit him every year at Christmas. (GE 2 at 25)
Applicant’s sister is a Venezuelan citizen. She recently moved from Venezuela to
Costa Rica. (Tr. 75) She is a software engineer who works for a European company.
(Answer at 4) Her husband “buys and sells merchandise to the public.” (Id.) They have
one son, an eight-year-old boy. Although Applicant is cordial with his sister’s family, he
speaks with them slightly less than he speaks with his brother’s family. (Tr. 75)
Applicant’s parents-in-law are both retired and in their eighties. Neither worked
for the Venezuelan government. (Answer at 4) Applicant’s father-in-law was a
businessman. (GE 2 at 33) His mother-in-law’s former occupation is unknown from the
record.  Applicant talks with them approximately once a month, and on special
occasions. (Id.) His wife travelled to Venezuela to visit them in 2009.
Applicant has a sister-in-law who is a Venezuelan citizen and resident. (Answer
at 34) She is an unemployed widow who lives with her eight-year-old son and her
4
parents. (Tr. 81) Applicant communicates with these relatives approximately once per
month and on special occasions. (Tr. 81) Applicant considers his relationship with his in-
laws to be close. (Tr. 110)
Applicant has several miscellaneous friends who are Venezuelan citizens and
residents. They exchange periodic e-mails. (Tr. 82) One is a college professor who was
Applicant’s mentor while in school. (Tr. 124) They talk approximately twice per year,
discussing abstract physics theory. (Tr. 124)
Although Venezuela is a constitutional democracy, its current leader, Hugo
Chavez, is a provocative, anti-American ruler who has undermined democratic
institutions and orchestrated a government takeover of significant sectors of the
economy. (HE V at 31-38) President Chavez is dedicated to establishing a Latin
American foreign policy paradigm that is devoid of U.S. influence. (HE I at 7)
Venezuela’s relationship with Iran has grown over the past few years. (HE V at
56) Although the ties are primarily economic, military cooperation has been growing.
(Id.) Venezuela is increasingly buying military hardware from Russia. (Id. at 52) 
Venezuela is not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. (HE IV at 1, 15)
Consequently, in May 2009, the United States prohibited the sale or license of defense
articles and services to Venezuela for one year. (Id. at 15)
Venezuela has grown increasingly uncooperative in fighting illegal drug
trafficking. (HE V at 42) It is a major transit country for cocaine and heroin, as well as a
major money-laundering country. (HE I at 4-5)
Although United States/Venezuelan relations have been strained over the past
few years, their relationship has historically been friendly. The United States is
Venezuela’s most important trading partner, “with U.S. goods accounting for about 25
percent of imports and approximately 60 percent of Venezuelan exports going to the
United States.” (HE I at 8) A significant percentage of Venezuela’s food imports come
from the United States. (Id. at 7) Approximately 12,000 U.S. tourists visit Venezuela
annually, and approximately 500 U.S. companies have a presence in Venezuela. (Id.) 
The United States continues to provide development assistance funding to
Venezuela. The U.S. Agency for International Development funds democracy projects in
Venezuela focusing on developing the rule of law, nurturing public debate, and providing
leadership training. (HE V at 42) 
In August 2007, President Chavez proposed a package of reforms to
Venezuela’s constitution, including measures to allow indefinite presidential re-election
and the redefinition of private property. (HE I at 5) These measures were defeated in a
public referendum after several groups of students, opposition leaders, and former
Chavez allies launched a campaign urging its rejection. (Id. at 5) Gubernatorial and
5
mayoral elections were held nationwide in November 2008 and were deemed to be free
and fair. (Id. at 5)
 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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.” 
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. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
The security concern under this guideline is set forth, as follows:
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. (AG ¶ 6)
6
Applicant’s wife renounced her Venezuelan citizenship when she became a U.S.
citizen. It is unclear from the record whether Applicant’s children still have Venezuelan
dual citizenship. However, as U.S. citizens living either at home with Applicant or in
college, the risk of coercion by the Venezuelan government is minimal regardless of
whether they have Venezuelan dual citizenship. None of the disqualifying conditions
applies to these relatives. Therefore, I resolve SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c in
Applicant’s favor.
Although Applicant’s brother and sister are Venezuelan citizens, neither live in
Venezuela. There is no record evidence that Venezuela either possesses an
intelligence infrastructure significant enough to target citizens beyond its border, or is
attempting to develop such an intelligence infrastructure. I resolve SOR subparagraphs
1.d and 1.e in Applicant’s favor.
Despite all of  President Chavez’ bombastic, anti-U.S. rhetoric, Venezuela’s
economy remains dependent on U.S. trade, tourism, and foreign aid, and  a significant
U.S. corporate presence remains in Venezuela. Moreover, Chavez’ periodic attempts at
increasing his authority have been held in check by a  robust, organized dissent that, for
example, recently organized a successful campaign, through the democratic process, to
block a Chavez-sponsored referendum that would have increased his power under the
constitution. Nevertheless, Venezuela’s relationship with the United States has
deteriorated significantly, with Chavez questioning U.S. trade initiatives, nurturing warm
relations with U.S. adversaries, expanding its military, enabling drug trafficking, and
failing to cooperate in the United States-led regional fight against terrorism.
Consequently, 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 foreign exploitation, inducement,
manipulation, pressure, or coercion,” applies to Applicant’s relationship with his in-laws
and friends who are Venezuelan citizens and relatives. 
Applicant acknowledges that he is close to his Venezuelan in-laws. Conversely,
his contact with his remaining friends living in Venezuela is limited to periodic e-mails
and conversations approximately twice yearly. Mitigating Condition (MC) 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,” applies to
his friends living in Venezuela, but not his in-laws living in Venezuela.
Applicant and his family have been living in the United States for more than ten
years. He has no financial interests in Venezuela. In comparison, his U.S. financial
interests include, among other things, his home, a $500,000 employer-sponsored life
insurance policy, significant stock ownership in his employer’s company, and a 401(k)
plan worth approximately $60,000 to $70,000 dollars. Applicant is active in his
community, serving his church through local public service projects and volunteering at
his children’s high school sporting events. Over the years, he has developed a network
of friends through these activities. AG ¶ “there is no conflict of interest, either because
the individual’s sense of loyalty or obligation to a foreign person, group, government, or
country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships
7
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.
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.
Since immigrating to the United States and becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant’s
career has flourished, his children have thrived in school, and he has immersed himself
in the community. In sum, he is thoroughly integrated into American society. I conclude
Applicant’s relationships and loyalties in the United States outweigh the heightened risk
generated by his in-laws’ Venezuelan citizenship and residency. Applicant has mitigated
the foreign influence security concern.
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 - 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. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
8