1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-07467
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concern posed by his foreign
relatives, and the financial considerations security concerns generated by his history of
financial difficulties. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On May 17, 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, and Guideline F, financial considerations. 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 June 28, 2010, denying all of the allegations
except subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d. He requested a hearing, and the case was assigned
2
to me on October 7, 2010. On November 17, 2010, a notice of hearing was issued
scheduling the case for December 9, 2010. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. I
admitted nine Government exhibits marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 9,
and eight Applicant exhibits marked as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through H. Also, I
received Applicant’s testimony.  At Department Counsel’s request, I took administrative
notice of facts about Nigeria contained in 12 documents marked as Hearing Exhibits
(HE) I through XII.
At the end of the hearing, I left the record open, at Applicant’s request, to allow
him to submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, he submitted eight additional
exhibits marked AE I through P that I incorporated into the record.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 42-year-old married man with three children, ages ten, nine, and
six. He has a bachelor of science degree in economics, earned in 1990 from a
university in Nigeria, his native country. (Tr. 55) Applicant immigrated to the United
States in 1994 and has been living here since then. He became a naturalized U.S.
citizen in May 2001. (GE 3 at 2) In 2001, he returned to school, earning a master’s
degree in information security and database administration. (Tr. 55)
Since 2008, Applicant has been working as an information assurance analyst for
a defense contractor. (Tr. 79) With the exception of a two-year period between 2004
and 2006 when he worked as a realtor, Applicant has been working in the information
security field since 1998. (GE 1 at 16-25)
Applicant’s mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen living in the United States, and his
father is deceased. Applicant has five brothers, one sister, and two half-brothers. Four
of his brothers are naturalized U.S. citizens and residents, as is his sister. His remaining
brother is a Nigerian resident who lives in the United States with his family. They are
permanent U.S. residents. (AE B)
Both of Applicant’s half-brothers are Nigerian citizens and residents. One of his
half-brothers is married with children. Applicant’s mother is petitioning for his half-
brother and family to become U.S. citizens. (AE G; Tr. 46) Applicant does not know
what his half-brother does for a living. (AE 3 at 5) He went to his half-brother’s wedding
in March 2010. Applicant does not know where his half-brother intends to live when he
immigrates to the United States. (Tr. 179)
Applicant knows little about his other half-brother, and has only seen him five
times. (Tr. 62) He knows that this half-brother was studying to be a teacher, but does
not know whether he is actually working as a teacher. Also, Applicant does not know
where this half-brother lives. (Tr. 62)
Applicant’s brother-in-law and his brother-in-law’s wife are Nigerian citizens and
residents. His brother-in-law is vice president of a bank, and Applicant’s sister-in-law is
Applicant financed the condominium without his wife’s assistance.1
Applicant used the cash from the refinancing for significant repairs and home improvements.2
3
a bank manager. (Tr. 64) Applicant speaks with them three to five times per year during
holidays or when there is a death in the family. As bankers, they enjoy a “comfortable
living.” (Tr. 181)
Nigeria is a federal republic located in western Africa. Since gaining
independence from Great Britain, it has undergone significant political instability marked
by periodic civil wars, ethnic turmoil, and military dictatorships. (See generally, HE II)
Although Nigeria transitioned to a civil republic in 1999, it is still plagued by corruption
and rampant poverty.  Moreover, its predominantly Islamic north is becoming increasing
radicalized. (Id. at 24)
Nigeria’s relationship with the United States has improved since it became a
democratic republic in 1999. (HE I at 10) It has played a leading role in forging an anti-
terrorism consensus within sub-Saharan Africa. (Id.)  The United States is Nigeria’s
largest foreign investor. U.S. assistance focuses on development aid, the promotion of
the rule of law, and the continuing development of a modern market economy. (Id. at
11) 
Although Nigeria has made some progress in its evolution toward a
representative democracy, its human rights record continues to be poor. (HE V at 1)
Over the years, there were numerous instances when elements of the security forces
acted outside of the law, beating journalists, torturing suspects, and using excessive
force against civilians. (Id.) The judicial system remains vulnerable to coercion through
bribes, and international observers characterized recent elections as fraudulent. (Id. at
18)
In 2000, Applicant purchased a condominium for $145,000. (Tr. 96) He and his
family lived there for five years before moving to a single family home in November
2005. (Tr. 96) Applicant was unable to sell the condominium before moving. This
impeded his ability to qualify for a loan to finance the new home. Consequently,
Applicant and his wife decided that she purchase the new home solely in her name and
apply for financing without Applicant’s assistance.  (Tr. 45)1
The bank approved Applicant’s wife’s loan, facilitating the purchase of the home.
The amount of the loan was $500,000. At the time, Applicant’s wife’s salary averaged
between $40,000 and $60,000. (Tr. 196) Within a year after moving into the $500,000
home, Applicant sold the condominium. Although he sold it for nearly $200,000 more
than his original purchase price, he made a nominal profit because of two refinances
over the years, and the corresponding transactional costs.  (Tr. 99)2
In September 2006, Applicant’s father died. (GE 1 at 50) The costs related to the
funeral, including travel to Nigeria, strained Applicant’s finances. 
Although Applicant’s name was not on the title to the home and he was not responsible for it under the3
mortgage terms, he shared the responsibility of making the mortgage payments with his wife.
4
In November 2006, some time after selling his condominium, Applicant and a
friend purchased an investment property for $140,000. (Tr. 96) They financed the home
with a $2,000 down payment, and two mortgages, as listed in SOR subparagraphs 2.b
and 2.d. (Tr. 137) Before the housing bust, splitting the purchase price of a home into
two mortgages was a common strategy that banks employed to enable buyers to
circumvent having to pay mortgage insurance, or otherwise qualify for the mortgage.
(Tr. 137)
Under Applicant’s agreement with his friend, the friend was to move into the
investment property and pay rent to Applicant that would offset the mortgage. (Tr. 111;
AE A at 3) Shortly after moving in, Applicant’s friend became unable to pay the rent. At
or about the time Applicant’s friend stopped paying the rent, the real estate market
crashed. Consequently, Applicant was unable to sell the property.
In 2007, Applicant’s wife was laid off from her job, and was subsequently
unemployed for approximately 16 months. (Tr. 87-88) Applicant was now solely
responsible for the $4,000 monthly mortgage payment.  Applicant began to fall behind3
on his debts.
In December 2007, Applicant and his family moved to an apartment. (Tr. 214)
The apartment’s rental payments were approximately $2,500 less than the mortgage
payment on the home from where he moved. (AE L) Applicant and his wife were unable
to sell their home before moving. (Tr. 105) Subsequently, it went into foreclosure.
Applicant does not know whether the house was sold through the foreclosure process.
Also, he does not know whether his wife owes a deficiency. (Tr. 105-107)  
Applicant unsuccessfully sought a loan modification with the bank that held the
investment property mortgages. Subsequently, the bank foreclosed Applicant’s
investment property in June 2009. (GE 2) Since then, the bank has resold the property
and informed Applicant no deficiency is owed on either of the two mortgages. (Tr. 141,
222; AE J)
The SOR lists three additional debts, subparagraphs 2.a, 2.c, and 2.e.  SOR
subparagraph 2.a is a debt owed to a credit union in the amount of $390. Applicant
satisfied this debt in 2004. (AE D) The creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 2.c is a
multilevel marketing company. (Tr. 224) Applicant purchased a start-up package from
this company about ten years ago for approximately $270 with the understanding that
he could return the materials within 30 days if he was not satisfied. (Tr. 224) Applicant
contends he returned the product, but never received his money. When Applicant
discovered the bill was listed as delinquent on his credit report, he disputed it with the
credit reporting agency. (Tr. 227) He did not provide documentary evidence of his
dispute.
5
The creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 2.e is a collection agent for a phone
company. The bill totals $850. (Tr. 227) Applicant disputed the bill, and unsuccessfully
attempted to settle it for a lesser amount. (Tr. 229) The bill has been outstanding for
eight years.
In August 2009, Applicant completed a six-week financial counseling course. (AE
E) Through the course, he learned how to negotiate expenses with his creditors, and to
develop a budget plan that includes money set aside for emergencies and “pocket
money” for each child. (AE L) Applicant also learned how to distinguish liabilities from
assets and to work toward maximizing his assets and minimizing his liabilities. (Tr. 237)
Consistent with the lessons learned through the counseling course, Applicant saves
$150 monthly in a regular savings account and $430 monthly through a 401k plan. (AE
L) After expenses, Applicant has approximately $600 remaining each month. (Tr. 76,
231) He earns approximately $71,000 per year. (AE N)
Since 2009, Applicant’s wife has been working part-time. He did not include her
income in his budget. (Tr. 232) Through Applicant’s budget, he sets aside $200 each
month for his wife. (AE L) 
Applicant is active in the community. Through his church, he provides job
counseling to unemployed people, critiquing their resumes, and offering job search
advice. (Tr. 238) Also, he periodically volunteers at homeless shelters. (Tr. 239)
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,
6
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)
Although Applicant’s brother, sister-in-law, and niece are Nigerian citizens, they
live in the United States. There is no record evidence that Nigeria either possesses an
intelligence infrastructure significant enough to target citizens beyond its borders, or is
attempting to develop such an intelligence infrastructure. I resolve SOR subparagraph
1.a in for Applicant.
Nigeria is a staunch U.S. ally in confronting terrorism, and is steadily evolving
into a representative democracy with a developing market economy. However, it
remains plagued by rampant corruption, ethnic strife, and rising Islamic radicalism.
Disqualifying Condition (DC) 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 citizen, resident
Nigerian relatives.
Applicant knows one of his half-brothers well enough to have attended his
wedding. However, he does not know what this half-brother does for a living or where
his half-brother intends to live after he immigrates to the United States. Applicant has no
relationship with his other half-brother, having only seen him five times in his life.
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 Applicant’s relationships with his half-brothers or
their respective families.
Applicant keeps in touch with his in-laws three to five times per year. The context
of their communication is limited to special occasions, holidays, and deaths in the
7
family. MC AG ¶ 8(c) applies to these relationships, also. Applicant has mitigated the
foreign influence security concern.
Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, the “failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy
debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶¶
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.” Given the nominal amount of the debt listed in SOR subparagraph
2.a and the fact Applicant satisfied it nearly ten years ago, I conclude it does not pose a
security concern. 
Of the four remaining SOR debts, two resulted in the foreclosure of an
investment property, and two, though disputed, remain outstanding. Although
Applicant’s decision to purchase an investment property with a friend under the
circumstances described at the hearing was not a good one, it was not irresponsible.
Rather, it was a good-faith business decision that proved to be unsuccessful. Applicant
tried to cut his losses by selling the property, but was unable to do so because of the
downturn in the real estate market. Applicant’s ability to meet the mortgage payments
on this investment property was further compounded when his wife lost her job. 
Applicant made a significant lifestyle change by moving from his primary
residence, a single family home, to live in a cheaper apartment. In doing so, he
generated savings of approximately $2,500 monthly. Applicant completed a
comprehensive financial counseling course and now maintains a budget. Under this
budget, he saves money each month and has approximately $600 of monthly income
remaining. MC AG 20 (b), “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were
largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn,
unexpected problems,” and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances,”
applies.
Although Applicant does not owe a deficiency on either mortgage, he did not
satisfy them. Rather, the bank resold the investment property and informed him that he
owed no deficiency. Consequently, MC AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” does not apply. 
Applicant sought the help of a credit counselor and organized a budget that
enables him both to have significant after-expense monthly income and money to set
aside for savings. The first prong of MC AG ¶ 20(c), “the person has received
counseling for the problem . . .” applies.
Applicant’s wife was unable to sell their home before they moved to an apartment
in December 2007. Applicant did not know if the bank had foreclosed the mortgage on
this home, or if his wife owed a deficiency. Although this mortgage was not in
8
Applicant’s name and was not alleged in the SOR, both Applicant and his wife were
responsible for making the mortgage payments. Consequently, the status of this
mortgage is relevant in assessing Applicant’s financial stability regardless of whether
the mortgage was in his name, or listed on the SOR.
Applicant is currently supporting his entire family on his income alone, and still
has ample remaining discretionary income to make ends meet. Consequently, the
uncertain status of his wife’s mortgage has minimal potential to negatively affect his
financial well-being. I conclude the second prong of MC AG ¶ 20(c), “. . . there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” applies. 
Applicant provided no evidence supporting the basis of his dispute of the
delinquencies listed in SOR subparagraphs 2.c and 2.e. MC AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual
has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause
of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute
or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” does not apply. The negative
inference generated by this failure is minimized by the nominal amount of these debts in
comparison to Applicant’s monthly disposable income and his good-faith effort to
organize his finances. Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security
concern.
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.
The foreign influence security concern was mitigated by the casual and
infrequent nature of Applicant’s contacts with his relatives remaining in Nigeria, and
bears no further discussion. As for Applicant’s past financial problems, he contended
that circumstances beyond his control contributed to them, but frankly acknowledged
they were not entirely to blame. Taking responsibility for his money management
problems, Applicant enrolled in, and successfully completed a credit counseling course.
Using lessons learned from the financial counseling course, Applicant maintains a
detailed budget. He has ample, monthly discretionary income.
9
Upon evaluating this case in the context of the whole-person concept, particularly
the presence of rehabilitation, and the minimal likelihood of continuation or recurrence, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the financial consideration 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.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e: 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