1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-01934 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
June 22, 2012 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant mitigated the foreign interest concerns related to his family members 
associated with the government of Brazil. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On January 11, 2012, 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 (EO) 
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 after September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 14, 2012, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on March 22, 2012. 
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 27, 2012, scheduling the hearing for April 
 
2 
 
19, 2012. Applicant requested a continuance, and based upon good cause it was 
granted. On April 2, 2012, an amended notice of hearing was issued, and the hearing 
was convened as scheduled on April 26, 2012. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 
through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf 
and called three witnesses. The record was left open until May 3, 2012, for receipt of 
Applicant’s exhibits. On May 2, 2012, Applicant offered Exhibits (AE) A through H, 
which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) 
on May 4, 2012.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 41 years old. He was born in Brazil and grew up there. He attended 
school and earned a bachelors, masters, and doctorate degree from a Brazilian 
university. Applicant was awarded an $80,000 “scholarship” from the Brazilian 
government, based on academic achievement, which paid for his masters and doctorate 
degrees. The terms of the scholarship required him to return to Brazil for two years after 
completion of his doctorate. During his graduate studies, he lived and studied for two 
years in England. After he completed his Ph.D., including his study abroad, he returned 
to Brazil for six months. Applicant testified that after six months, the Brazilian 
government sent him a letter that released Applicant from any obligation to repay the 
$80,000 scholarship. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 29-30, 49-53.) 
 
 In October 1999 Applicant moved to the United States to do post-doctorate work 
with a government contractor. He worked for the contractor as a post-doctoral student 
from October 1999 to October 2001. After he completed his post-doctoral work, he was 
hired by the contractor as an employee. He has worked for the U.S. Government 
contractor for the past 13 years. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 25-27.) 
 
 In 2002 while on a trip home to Brazil, Applicant met his wife. They married in 
Brazil in September 2003. Applicant’s wife is a dual citizen of both Brazil and the United 
States. They reside together in the United States. They have no children. (GE 1; GE 2; 
Tr. 44-45.) 
 
 In 2005 Applicant received a “green card.” Five years later, he was eligible to 
apply for and receive U.S. citizenship. He did so, and became a U.S. citizen in 2010. In 
October 2010 he contacted the Brazilian consulate to renounce his Brazilian citizenship. 
That process was completed in August 2011. At that time, Applicant surrendered his 
Brazilian passport to his security office. He is now solely an American citizen and uses 
only a U.S. passport. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 26-27.) 
 
 Applicant’s mother, father, two brothers, sister, parents-in-law, three sisters-in-
law, brother-in-law, uncle, and other extended family members are all residents and 
citizens of Brazil. He travels to Brazil once or twice each year to visit his relatives. He is 
close to a number of his immediate relatives. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 27-28, 31-67.) 
 
 Applicant’s mother is 69 years old. She is retired from a retail job selling women’s 
accessories. She lives in Brazil and is supported partially by the $450 Applicant sends 
 
3 
 
her each month to help her pay for health insurance. Applicant has a joint bank account 
in Brazil with his mother, but claims the account only contains a few hundred dollars at 
any given time. His mother is divorced from Applicant’s father. Applicant speaks to his 
mother once per week. He stays with her when he travels to Brazil. She also visits 
Applicant in the United States. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 28, 31-34.) 
 
 Applicant’s father is 80 years old. He is a retired contract engineer for a private 
company. Applicant speaks to his father once per week on the phone. He also sees his 
father in person when he travels to Brazil. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 35-36.) 
 
 Applicant’s oldest brother is 48 years old. He served as an officer in the Brazilian 
Navy for 16 years. After his military service, he transferred to the civilian sector of the 
Brazilian government. For the past ten years, he has been serving as a federal judge. 
Applicant did not know many details about his brother’s military service or judgeship, 
because they do not speak about work. This brother is married. His wife works as a 
homemaker. Applicant communicates with his brother and sister-in-law once per week 
and sees them daily when he is in Brazil. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 27, 37-40.) 
 
 Applicant’s other brother is 43 years old. He is employed in a private legal firm 
where he builds computer systems for the law firm. He is married and has two 
daughters. His wife is a homemaker. Both of his daughters are currently students. 
Applicant communicates with his brother and his brother’s family once per week and 
sees them when he visits Brazil. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 40-42.) 
 
 Applicant’s sister is 50 years old. She is employed as a dentist and recently was 
awarded a contract to work in a military facility. However, she is not a government 
employee. She is not married and has no children. Applicant communicates with his 
sister on a weekly basis and sees her when he visits Brazil. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 42-44.) 
 
 Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are each approximately 75 years old. 
Applicant’s father-in-law worked as an engineer for a private company, but has been 
retired for approximately 15 years. Applicant’s mother-in-law is a retired homemaker. 
Applicant and his wife sometimes send her parents financial support when they are in 
need of assistance. Applicant communicates with his in-laws when he visits Brazil. (GE 
1; GE 2; Tr. 45-48.) 
 
 Applicant’s wife has a brother, a sister, two nephews, and one niece. All are 
citizens and residents of Brazil. His wife’s brother is 48 years old and works as a private 
aircraft pilot. Her sister is 54 years old and is a public middle school teacher. Applicant’s 
niece and nephews are minors and attend school. None of his wife’s relatives have 
served in the Brazilian military or have any affiliation with the Brazilian government. 
Applicant saw his brother-in-law and sister-in-law briefly on one of his recent trips to 
Brazil, but otherwise they do not have telephone or email contact. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 67-
70.) 
 
 Applicant also identified two uncles, one aunt, and a friend of his mother’s as 
Brazilian residents with whom he has occasional sporadic in-person contact. He 
 
4 
 
identified his uncle as a contractor for the Brazilian government at a nuclear plant. He 
does not keep in contact with this uncle by telephone or email. Applicant saw him on 
two occasions, for two hours each time, in the last five years when visiting Brazil. This 
uncle is married. Applicant’s aunt has not worked for the Brazilian government or 
military. He has infrequent contact with her. His other uncle is a medical doctor and has 
no affiliation with the Brazilian government or military. Applicant has infrequent contact 
with this uncle. Applicant sees his mother’s friend when he visits his mother in Brazil. As 
far as Applicant is aware, the friend has never served in the Brazilian military or worked 
for the Brazilian government.  (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 45-46.) 
 
 Applicant testified that he has a retirement account in Brazil, as a result of 
working in Brazil for a year, valued at $1,000. However, he presented documentation 
that shows he has a portfolio of investments totaling $103,404 in the United States. He 
testified that he intends to remain in the United States, but does not foreclose the option 
of retiring in Brazil. (AE A; Tr. 54, 58-59.) 
 
 He has considered purchasing a home in the United States. He presented a copy 
of correspondence between himself and a realtor in 2008 regarding his requests to view 
properties. However, he prudently decided not to make an offer on the property due to 
the housing price levels at that time. (AE C.) 
 
 Applicant is well respected by three colleagues that spoke on his behalf. Each 
indicated that Applicant is discreet. He was said to have unquestionable honesty, 
integrity, and judgment. (Tr. 70-79.) His Program Security Manager indicates that since 
the time Applicant was hired, “there have been no reported incidents of [Applicant] 
mishandling sensitive material. He has been exposed to [unclassified//for official use 
only] documents on numerous occasions and this office has never called into question 
how he handled the information either on paper or through verbal communication.” (AE 
D; AE F.) Applicant’s assessments are highly complimentary and show Applicant is a 
valued employee. (AE E.) He has been awarded four spot awards and three bonus 
awards for his accomplishments. (AE G.) Applicant presented documentation of his 
service as a volunteer in his community tutoring program, where he works with area 
high school students to improve their academic performance. (AE B.) 
 
 The Government presented a “Background Note: Brazil,” and “Brazil-Country 
Specific Information,” both documents published on the U.S. Department of State 
website, into evidence (GE 4; GE 5.). It presented no documentation for administrative 
notice. GE 4 and GE 5 establish that Brazil is a federal republic, with independent 
executive, judicial, and legislative branches.  
 
 The “Background Note: Brazil,” states: 
 
The United States and Brazil have traditionally enjoyed friendly, active 
relations encompassing broad political and economic agendas. The 
excellent bilateral relationship was foreshadowed when United States was 
the first country to recognize Brazil’s independence in 1822. Since then, 
 
5 
 
deepening U.S.-Brazil engagement and cooperation are reflected in high-
level contacts between the two governments. (GE 3.) 
   
 The “Brazil-Country Specific Information,” includes a section entitled, “Threats to 
Safety and Security.” This section addresses potential labor strikes that occur in urban 
areas and may cause temporary disruption to public transportation. It cautions U.S. 
citizens to avoid large gatherings. It also warns of risks of kidnappings to residents and 
tourists near the Colombian border; cautions U.S. government employees should avoid 
areas where narcotics traffickers and other criminals have recently engaged in violence; 
cautions travelers of dangerous rip tides, flooding, mudslides, and blackouts; and warns 
of high levels of crime in Brazil’s largest cities. (GE 4.) 
 
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 to be used in evaluating an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According 
to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables 
known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all 
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and 
unfavorable, in making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 
 
6 
 
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 EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the 
national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
 The security concern for the Foreign Influence guideline is set out in AG ¶ 6: 
 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual 
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or 
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a 
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by 
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should 
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or 
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such 
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United 
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a 
risk of terrorism. 
 
 The guideline notes nine conditions that could raise security concerns under AG 
¶ 7. Four are potentially applicable in this case: 
 
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional 
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a 
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
creates 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;  
 
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of 
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and 
 
(e) a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign 
country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which 
could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or 
exploitation. 
 
7 
 
AG ¶¶ 7(a), 7(d), and 7(e) require substantial evidence of a “heightened risk.” 
The “heightened risk” required to raise one of these disqualifying conditions is a 
relatively low standard. “Heightened risk” denotes a risk greater than the normal risk 
inherent in having a family member living under a foreign government. The Government 
failed to introduce sufficient information with respect to Brazil to find having relatives in 
Brazil alone presents a heightened risk. Brazil has good relations with the United States 
and the threats to safety and security identified in GE 3 and GE 4, do not denote a 
greater than normal risk. However, a finding of “heightened risk” is not limited to the 
nature of the foreign country, but also applies to a greater than normal risk inherent in 
having family members employed by or working for a foreign government. The totality of 
an applicant’s family ties to a foreign country as well as each individual family tie must 
be considered in light of the heightened risk identified. (ISCR Case No. 01-22693 at 7 
(App. Bd. Sep.22, 2003).) In the instant case, Applicant’s associations with his brother, 
sister, and uncle all represent a “heightened risk.” His brother is a federal judge, his 
sister is a dentist with a military contract, and his uncle works at a government run 
nuclear power plant. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a) and 7(e) apply. 
 
Applicant’s connections to Brazil, and family within Brazil, could potentially create 
a conflict between Applicant’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology 
and his desire to help family in Brazil or Brazil itself. Therefore, disqualifying condition 
AG ¶ 7(b) also applies. 
 
Applicant lives with his wife, and has a number of in-laws in Brazil. However, 
none of her immediate family members represent a “heightened risk.” The Government 
failed to show any of Applicant’s wife’s associations create a greater than normal risk. 
AG ¶ 7(d) does not apply. 
 
Applicant does not have a substantial financial interest in Brazil. He is not 
required to repay his scholarship funds. His joint bank account with his mother only has 
a few hundred dollars in it. AG ¶ 7(e) does not apply. 
 
 AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all 
of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 including: 
 
(a) the nature of the relationship 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.;  
 
(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 interests in favor of the U.S. interests;  
 
 
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; and 
 
(d) the foreign contacts and activities are on U.S. Government business or 
are approved by the cognizant security authority; 
 
Here, the primary concern is Applicant’s relationships with his brother, sister, and 
uncle, and their ties to the Brazilian government. Applicant’s other family members and 
family friend raise concerns through their ties to their family members employed by, or 
contracting with, Brazil.  
 
Applicant’s brother is a federal judge for the independent judiciary in Brazil, his 
sister is a dentist with a military contract, and their uncle works with a government run 
nuclear reactor. Applicant’s brother has not served in the military for at least ten years. 
Applicant does not discuss work with this brother. However, they are close. Applicant 
communicates with his brother on a weekly basis and sees him daily when he is in 
Brazil. As a member of the independent judiciary branch of the Brazilian government, 
and as an independent judge, it is unlikely the Applicant 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 United States.  
 
Likewise, Applicant’s sister is a dentist. He is close to his sister and 
communicates with her frequently. She has a contract to provide dental care to military 
members, but the routine nature of her position is unlikely to place Applicant in a 
position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, 
organization, or government and the interests of the United States.  
 
Similarly, it is unlikely that Applicant’s distant relationship with his uncle could 
place him in a questionable position. Not only does the nature of all of Applicant’s family 
member’s positions within Brazil make potential conflicts unlikely, but also the nature of 
Brazil itself. Brazilian relations with the United States are friendly and have been since 
Brazil became a nation. AG ¶ 8(a) is mitigating with respect to all family members and 
friends. AG ¶ 8(c) applies with respect to Applicant’s uncles, aunts, and other extended 
family members. It is inapplicable to Applicant’s immediate family members. He is close 
to his immediate family members and in frequent communication with them. 
 
AG ¶ 8(b) also applies. Applicant showed that, while he loves his family in Brazil, 
there is no conflict of interest, because his sense of loyalty or obligation to Brazil is 
minimal. Admittedly, he has strong ties to his family in Brazil. While he does not 
completely foreclose the possibility of retiring in Brazil on some distant occasion, he 
plans to remain in the United States permanently throughout his career.  Applicant 
came to the United States 13 years ago and chose to remain in the United States. He 
has formally renounced his Brazilian citizenship by actively taking steps through the 
Brazilian consulate to have it rescinded. Applicant presented evidence of substantial 
ties to the United States, including his assets in the United States, his community 
 
9 
 
service, and his efforts to purchase a home in the United States. He can be expected to 
resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. 
  
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 relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guideline B in my whole-person analysis. Independent of my analysis under 
Guideline B, I find that the whole-person factors also support the finding that Applicant 
is eligible to be granted a security clearance. 
 
Applicant is 41 years old and is a mature, educated engineer. He has spent the 
past 13 years in the United States. He is solely a U. S. citizen, after actively having his 
dual citizenship with Brazil revoked. His act of renunciation is weighted heavily and 
establishes his loyalty to the United States.  
 
Applicant is known to his colleagues to be discreet, and does not discuss work 
with his family members. Even though he has family members employed by or 
contracting with the government of Brazil, the potential for pressure, coercion, 
exploitation, or duress is low, given his positive attitude about security as attested to by 
his company’s security manager, his candid disclosures to the U.S. Government before 
and during the hearing, and the nature of the Brazilian government.  
 
Security clearance decisions ultimately come down to judgments as to whether 
an Applicant is ultimately trustworthy and will protect information with which he is 
entrusted. This Applicant has demonstrated to those that know him best and to this 
court that he possesses the good judgment, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness to 
possess a security clearance. 
 
 
10 
 
 Overall, the record evidence overcomes the doubts raised about Applicant’s 
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the security concerns arising from his foreign influences. 
 
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.k:   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. 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge