1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-03743
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: William T. O’Neil, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 12, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On October 28, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
B and F for Applicant. (Item 1.) 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) effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing with an undated response, and
he requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item
4.)  On December 3, 2010, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case.
A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In
the FORM, Department Counsel offered nine documentary exhibits. (Items 1-9.)
Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on January 14, 2011. Applicant
submitted no additional evidence. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge
2
on February 3, 2011. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel requested in the FORM that I take administrative notice of
certain facts relating to the countries of Ghana and Russia. The attached documents
were admitted into evidence as Exhibits I through III on Ghana and Exhibits I through IX
on Russia. The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations1.a. through 1.d.,
under Guideline B, and he denied allegations 2.a. through 2.d, under Guideline F. The
admitted allegations are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the FORM, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 38 years old. He served in the United States Army from May 1997 to
July 2002, and received an Honorable Discharge. He received a Ph.D. that was funded
through the GI Bill. (Item 4.) He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks a
DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Applicant was born in Ghana in 1971, and became a naturalized United States
citizen on July 11, 2000. From then until July 2003, Applicant held dual citizenship with
Ghana and the United States.  Applicant’s mother, his two sisters, and his two
daughters are United States citizens and residents. (Item 5.)
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
The SOR lists four allegations, (1.a. through 1.d.) regarding Foreign Influence,
under Adjudicative Guideline B, which will be reviewed in the same order as they were
listed on the SOR. As stated above, Applicant has admitted all of the allegations listed
in his RSOR:
 
1.a. Applicant’s father is a citizen and resident of Ghana. Applicant wrote in his
ROSR (Item 4), “My father is a 75 years (sic) old man who has been retired for several
years now. He has no ties to the government of Ghana and he is not involved in any
government or organizational entities. . . . While I call my father on a casual and
infrequent basis, it is only to check on his well being.” 
In Applicant’s Personal Subject Interview, it is written that Applicant’s contact with
his father is close, and he has contact with his father two or three times a month. His
father does not know Applicant is applying for a security clearance, and his father has
3
never asked Applicant to provide to him classified, sensitive or proprietary information.
(Item 7.)
1.b. Applicant’s uncle is a citizen and resident of Ghana, and is the Director of
Governors. Applicant wrote, “My uncle is no longer working in the capacity as the
director of Governments. He is now a private consultant for a private company that
works on rural developments. I do not know much and I communicate with him on a
very limited basis (maybe two times a year). He does not know what I do for a living and
has no influence what so ever [sic] on my life.” (Item 4.)
1.c. Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Russia. Applicant wrote,
“My mother-in-law is almost 80 years old, retired and speaks only Russian. I do not
speak Russian and DO NOT communicate with her. She absolutely does not know what
I do for a living and has no influence what so ever [sic] on my life. My wife
communicates with her on a casual basis only to check on her well being and does not
plan on visiting Russia.” (Item 4.)
1.d. Applicant’s brother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Russia. Applicant
wrote, “My wife communicates with her brother on a very limited casual basis only to
check on his well being. My wife does not discuss with him what I do nor is he
interested in what I do. . . . I do not communicate with him as I do not speak Russian
and he absolutely does not have any influence on my life.” (Item 4.)
A review of Applicant’s Personal Subject Interview (Item 7) revealed that, while
Applicant kept his passport from Ghana until 2003, he never used it after he entered the
United States in 1992, and the passport expired in November 2002, when Applicant
mailed it back to his father to return to the Ghana embassy.  Applicant has never
accepted any rights or benefits from Ghana after he became a United States citizen; he
has never voted in an election in Ghana or held any political office in Ghana; he never
served in the Ghana military; nor has he performed any other service for Ghana.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists four allegations (2.a. through 2.d.) regarding financial difficulties
under Adjudicative Guideline F. As stated above, Applicant denied all of the allegations
under Guideline F in his RSOR. The allegations will be discussed below in the same
order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $16,899 for a
mortgage that is more than 120 days overdue. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $55,948 for a
mortgage that is more than 120 days overdue.
 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $129,000 on an
account that has been charged off.
4
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $71,898 on an
account that has been placed in collection.
 Applicant wrote in his RSOR that these four debts should not be reported on his
credit report. They are from the mortgages for four homes that were foreclosed and then
sold or auctioned, which, Applicant contended, resolved the overdue debt. He averred
that he wrote to the four creditors, but he has received no reply.
A review of Applicant’s Personal Subject Interview also revealed that at one point
in time Applicant owned seven investment rental properties. Eventually they all were
entered into foreclosure due to his inability to make the required mortgage payments. 
Current Status of Ghana
I take administrative notice of the following facts regarding Ghana: Ghana is a
developing country on the west coast of Africa. Its population of 24 million people are
comprised of ethnically diverse groups with more than 50 languages and dialects.
Ghana became independent from the United Kingdom in 1957 and has developed a
democratic Government following a history of coups, military regimes, and dictatorial
Governments. The present Government was created under a 1993 constitution, which
consists of a presidency and parliament. Presidential and parliamentary elections held
in 2008 were generally peaceful and transparent.
While the Government of Ghana generally respects human rights and has made
improvements, the country continues to experience problems in several areas of human
rights practices: including excessive use of force by the police, harsh and life-
threatening prison conditions, and some physical and verbal harassment to journalists. 
Current Status of Russia 
I take administrative notice of the following facts regarding Russia: Russia is a
federation comprised of 21 republics. The Government has a centralized political
system, with power concentrated in the presidency and; the office of the prime minister,
a weak multiparty political system, and a ruling-party dominated bicameral legislature.
Russia is a nuclear superpower and a vast and diverse nation that continues to develop
politically, socially, and economically. 
Tensions between the United States and Russia have increased on a number of
issues that have contributed to ever-growing discord in U.S.-Russian relations. Russia
has an active ongoing collection program targeting the United States. Russian
espionage specializes in military technology and gas and oil industry technical
expertise. Russia has provided various military and missile technologies to other
countries of security concern. Finally, Russia’s human rights record remains uneven
and poor in some areas. 
5
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
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, 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 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
6
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding Foreign Influence: 
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 ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The applicable condition in this case is: 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  . . . and the
individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that
information” is applicable in this case. 
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I find that AG ¶
8(b) “there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or
obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the
individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that
the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S.
interest,” is applicable to this Applicant and controlling for the following reasons:  
Applicant has lived in the United States since 1992, and he became a naturalized
United States citizen on July 11, 2000. From then until July 2003, Applicant held dual
citizenship with Ghana and the United States, by maintaining his passport from Ghana.
However, he thereafter became solely a United States citizen, and he returned his
passport from Ghana. Applicant served in the United States Army from May 1997 to
July 2002, and received an Honorable Discharge. Appellant’s two children are solely
U.S. born citizens and residents. Applicant’s mother and two sisters are United States
citizens and residents. He has minimal contact with his uncle in Ghana, and his mother-
in-law and brother-in-law in Russia. Applicant does have more contact with his father in
Ghana; however because of his father’s age and his lack of involvement with the
government of Ghana, he is not a threat. 
7
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18:  
      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. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt because of the seven homes he
owned which went into foreclosure. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties: I do not find that any condition under AG ¶ 20 is applicable. While Applicant
has written that since the homes went into foreclosure he does not owe any money on
them, no evidence was introduced to establish that fact. Rather the credit reports
indicate that Applicant has not resolved these overdue debts listed on the SOR. (Items
7-9.) Therefore, I find that this mitigating condition is not a factor for consideration in this
case.
Since no evidence was submitted to establish that the debts listed in the SOR
have been resolved, Applicant has not mitigated the financial concerns of the
Government.
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.
8
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. Based on the reasons cited above
as to why the Mitigating Conditions do not apply under Guideline F, I find that the record
evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the 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. through 1.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.d.: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge