1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 11-01560
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 10, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigation Processing (e-
QIP), on October 4, 2010. (Government Exhibit 1.) On May 16, 2012, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
the security concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence) and C (Foreign
Preference). 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 submitted an Answer to the SOR on June 4, 2012, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 28, 2012. I received the case assignment on August 7, 2012. DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on August 13, 2012, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
September 6, 2012. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 4, which
2
were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, and submitted
Applicant Exhibits A and B, which were also admitted without objection. DOHA received
the transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on September 14, 2012. Applicant requested that the
record remain open for the admission of additional documents. On September 24, 2012,
he submitted Applicant’s Exhibit C, which was also admitted without objection. The
record closed on September 24, 2012. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits,
and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Procedural Ruling
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice
of certain facts relating to the Republic of Colombia. (Tr. 13-16.) The request and the
attached documents were not admitted into evidence but were included in the record.
The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 24, single, and has a bachelor’s degree. He is employed by a
defense contractor and seeks a security clearance in connection with his employment in
the defense industry. Applicant admitted allegations 1.b and 2.b. in the SOR. Those
admissions are deemed findings of fact. He specifically denied allegations 1.a and 2.a.
Applicant did not admit or deny the remaining allegations, 1.c through 1.f. I view those
allegations as being denied. He also provided additional information to support his
request for eligibility for a security clearance.  
Paragraph 1 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence)  
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has foreign contacts and interests that could lead to the exercise
of poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness on his part, or make him vulnerable
to pressure or coercion.
Applicant was born in the United States in 1988 to an American mother and
Colombian father. His parents subsequently divorced and his father returned to
Colombia. Applicant’s mother was murdered in 1996 and he went to live with his father
in Colombia. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 18.) He lived with his father until
Applicant turned 17, in 2005, when he returned to the United States. He has lived in the
United States continually since then.
Applicant’s father remarried and had two daughters with his new wife. He
recently divorced Applicant’s step-mother. (Tr. 34, 36.) Applicant has had no contact
with his step-mother for at least six years, but he talks to his two teenage half-sisters
3
once a month. (Tr. 37-38.) He also has an older half-brother who is a citizen and
resident of the United States. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 18.) Finally, Applicant
has a cousin who is a dual citizen of Canada and Colombia. This cousin, who is a
renowned physician, is currently residing in the United States. (Tr. 45-46.)
In 2007 Applicant applied for his father to be granted permanent residency in the
United States. The status was granted in 2011. Applicant applied so that his father
could travel to the United States freely, rather than Applicant having to travel to
Colombia. (Tr. 35-37.)
Applicant believes that many of Colombia’s problems stem from a lack of
alternatives for young people. As a very entrepreneurial person, when he was visiting
Colombia in approximately 2010 he saw an opportunity to help. He arranged for a long
term lease on a plot of land and spent less than $15,000 of his own money to have two
soccer fields built. To do this he created a non-profit corporation in Colombia with a
childhood friend who still lives there. The soccer fields are run by his friend. Other than
providing the money to build the fields, Applicant has no further financial involvement
with the activity. He testified, “I don’t disburse any money there. I don’t receive any
money from there.” (Tr. 49.) (See Tr. 26, 47-53, 61-62.)
Paragraph 2 Guideline C - Foreign Preference  
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has acted in a way that shows a preference for another country
ahead of the United States. 
As stated above, Applicant is a native-born American citizen. After his mother’s
death, his father moved Applicant to Colombia. There, in 2001 when he was 12 years
old, he received a Colombian passport. (Government Exhibit 3 at 18-34.) There are no
immigration stamps in this passport after 2006. This passport expired in 2011 and he
has no intention or desire to renew it. (Tr. 43-44.)
Applicant moved back to the United States in 2005, when he was 17, because
that was the first opportunity he had to live on his own. He has a current and valid
United States passport issued to him in January 2005. This passport shows many
immigration stamps from Colombia from 2006 through 2011. (Government Exhibit 3 at
5-17; Tr. 43-44.) 
Applicant is a Colombian citizen because of his father’s citizenship in Colombia.
Applicant has never used his Colombian citizenship after moving back to the United
States in 2005, except when forced to use his Colombian passport by the Colombian
authorities. He has stated that he is willing to renounce his Colombian citizenship and
that he does not think of himself as Colombian. (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 10,
Government Exhibit 2 at page 3; Tr. 61.)
All of the following statements are supported by the documents submitted by the Department Counsel in1
support of his request for administrative notice and its attachments, except as otherwise stated. 
4
Administrative Notice
Applicant has contacts with Colombia. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discuss
the situation in Colombia at this time.  Colombia is a constitutional multiparty1
democracy.  Colombia is a close ally of the United States, as shown by a visit of the
Secretary of Defense to Colombia earlier this year. (Cheryl Perelin, American Forces
Press Service, Panetta Promises Continued Support to Colombia,
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116054 (April 23, 2012).) Colombia
has had major problems with terrorism and narco-terrorism. On February 21, 2012, a
Travel Warning from the State Department states, “Security in Colombia has improved
significantly in recent years, including in tourist and business travel destinations such as
Cartagena and Bogota, but violence by narco-terrorist groups continues to affect some
rural areas and large cities.” (Administrative Notice Document IV at 1.) The United
States also expressed concerns about governmental human rights violations in a
Human Rights Report concerning Colombia dated April 8, 2011. (Administrative Notice
Document V at 1.)
Mitigation
In addition to his job, Applicant has an independent business enterprise here in
the United States. (Tr. 26-27, 55-56, 62-63.)
Applicant has never held a security clearance. However, he understands his
responsibility not to “share any proprietary information with other than the people
appointed to get it.” (Tr. 58.)
Applicant has completed a Project Management Certificate Program that is run
by his employer. (Applicant Exhibit A.) In addition, he has been commended by his
employer for his work with the USO in organizing and running a soccer tournament,
which raised money for the USO. (Applicant Exhibit B; Tr. 56-57.)
Applicant submitted two letters of recommendation. One was from a friend, who
also works in the defense industry. He states that Applicant is “a trustworthy American
citizen,” and “a true moral guide . . . whom you can trust at all levels.” (Applicant Exhibit
C at 4.)
Applicant’s long-time girlfriend wrote an extensive letter on Applicant’s behalf.
She gives many examples of how Applicant is an outstanding and trustworthy American
citizen. (Applicant’s Exhibit C at 5-7.)
5
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. 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 are to be used as appropriate 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. In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own
common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms
of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
6
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant's conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or
mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government's case. The
applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
Paragraph 1 Guideline B - Foreign Influence 
The concern under Guideline B is styled as follows at 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 Applicant has family connections to Colombia. He also established a
company to build two soccer fields for at-risk youths.
The following Disqualifying Conditions apply to this case under 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; 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.
Applicant has proved that he is a conscientious and patriotic citizen, and member
of the defense industry. It was only because of the tragedy of his mother’s murder that
7
he had to live with his Colombian father until he was old enough to return to America to
go to school. He has substantial family and financial ties in the United States that
outweigh his relationship to Colombia. While he still has family in Colombia, the
Applicant has shown that his loyalties are to the United States. His father, who still
resides in Colombia, has permanent resident alien status in the United States, which
means Applicant has no further interest in traveling to Colombia since his father can
travel here freely.
As for the non-profit company Applicant created, he no longer has an active
interest in it. He is to be commended for his desire to help others overseas through his
own generosity.
Applicant has provided compelling evidence to show that the following Mitigating
Conditions under AG ¶ 8 also apply to this particular case, given his particular
background: 
(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.; 
(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; and 
(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.
Based on my analysis of the available information, Applicant has overcome the
adverse inference of his family members presence in Colombia, as well as his
establishment of the non-profit corporation. Guideline B is found for Applicant.
Paragraph 2 Guideline C - Foreign Preference 
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial
evidence that Applicant is a dual citizen of Colombia and the United States, and that he
had a valid Colombian passport.
8
Applicant has mitigated the Government’s concerns about his dual citizenship
with Colombia, and his possession and use of a Colombian passport while an American
citizen.  The concern is stated thus under this Guideline at AG ¶ 9:
When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a
foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to
provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of
the United States.
This is an unusual situation. Applicant is a native born American citizen, who was
forced to live in Colombia because of the death of his mother. His father is a Colombian
citizen, who acquired a Colombian passport for Applicant at a young age. Applicant
used that passport until, at the age of 17, he could acquire his own American passport.
Accordingly, based solely on the fact that he traveled on a Colombian passport while a
minor, Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 10 applies to the facts of this case: 
(a) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying
include: (a) exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign
citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship
of a family member.  
Applicant’s Colombian passport has expired and he expresses a credible intent
not to renew it. Accordingly, “the passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the
cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated,” as required by Mitigating
Condition AG ¶ 11(e).  
Applicant has repeatedly and credibly stated that he only considers himself an
American citizen and is willing to renounce his Colombian citizenship. Mitigating
Condition ¶ 11(b) applies to this case, “the individual has expressed a willingness to
renounce dual citizenship.” In addition, Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 11(a) also applies as
his “dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country.”
Guideline C is found for Applicant.
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. 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. 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
9
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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. My Guideline B and C analysis is
applicable to the whole-person analysis as well. The evidence shows that the Applicant
is a patriotic American citizen. A family tragedy required him to spend part of his youth
in Colombia, but he returned to the United States as soon as he could. Applicant
eloquently testified about the importance to him of being a citizen of the United States,
and his pride in being a member of the defense industry. Though he has never held a
security clearance, he is knowledgeable about security and understands his
responsibility. I find that there is little or no “potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation,
or duress” as set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)(8). Using the whole-person standard, Applicant has
mitigated the security significance of his alleged foreign preference and foreign
connections and is eligible for a security clearance. 
On balance, it is concluded that Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance. Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding for Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations
expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.
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.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline C: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: For Applicant
10
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge