1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-03559
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 19, 2014
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On February 28, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline B for Applicant. 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 with an undated written response to the SOR (RSOR), and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to this
Administrative Judge on May 2, 2014. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 12,
2014, and the hearing was set for June 19, 2014. Because of a scheduling conflict,
DOHA issued a second notice of hearing on May 27, 2014, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on June 25, 2014. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 7, which
were received and admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and
submitted Exhibit A, which was also admitted without objection. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr) on July 2, 2014. At the hearing, the record was kept open
2
until July 17, 2014, to allow Applicant to submit additional evidence. The documents that
were timely received and incorrectly identified by Applicant as Exhibit 1 through 5, but
now properly identified as Exhibits B through F, have been entered into evidence
without objection. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of
Applicant, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of certain facts
relating to the country of Ghana. The request and the attached documents were
admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. The facts administratively noticed are set out in the
Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 43 years old. He was born in Ghana in 1971, and he moved to the
United States in 1985, when he was 13. He became a United States citizen in 1987. (Tr
at 29-31.) 
Applicant has been married to his present wife since 2003. They have three
children, two who were born in the United States and reside with Applicant, and one
who was born and resides in Ghana with Applicant’s wife. Applicant’s parents are
United States citizens and residents, and his brother and sister reside with their families
in the United States and are U.S. citizens. 
Applicant received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering in
the United States  in 1995.  Applicant is employed as an Engineer Fellow by a defense
contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in
the defense sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
The SOR lists five allegations regarding Foreign Influence, under Adjudicative
Guideline B: 
1.a. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident of
Ghana. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. Applicant testified that he met
his wife in the United States in 2001, and they were married here in 2003. In 2003, their
first child was born in the United States. Applicant’s wife first came to the United States
on a visitor’s visa, and she remained in the U.S. after the visa expired. His wife had
applied for permanent residency status after they were married, and Applicant testified
that it had been approved pending an interview. (Tr at 34, 50.) 
3
In April 2004, Applicant drove to San Diego with his wife, and their first child.
During their trip they took an accidental and unintended detour and were unable to exit
the road before entering Mexico. As they attempted to reenter the U.S., they were
stopped by a United States customs officer. Applicant indicated that he later learned
that his wife was accused of representing herself as a U.S. citizen, but he strongly
averred that she had never stated that she was a citizen of the U. S.  She was detained
for two weeks, during which she was coerced into admitting in writing that she had
represented herself as a United States citizen. After two weeks she was released on
bail. Approximately a year and a half later, their second child was born in the United
States. (Tr at 34-35, 51-55.)
In November 2005, his wife received a deportation notice ordering her to return
to Ghana. His wife has remained in Ghana since 2005, and Applicant has remained in
the United States with the two children who were born here. Applicant filed a petition in
2009 to allow her to return to the United States which was denied. In 2010 or 2011, after
he received the rejection, he filed a second appeal, but he has received no response.
He has visited his wife in Ghana every year or every other year, but they both agreed
that he would continue to live in the United States for the benefit of the children living
with him. (Tr at 36-38.) Applicant talks to his wife by phone about four times a week.  (Tr
at 43.) He believes that his wife has not been allowed to reenter the United States
because of the accusation that she misrepresented her citizenship status to an
American official. (Tr at 56-57.)   
1.b. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s son is a citizen and resident of
Ghana. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. Applicant testified that his son is
20 months old and was born in Ghana; he was conceived in Ghana during a trip
Applicant took there. In April 2014, Applicant filed a petition for his son, since he was
born abroad as the son of a U.S. citizen, to allow him to be considered a United States
citizen and live with Applicant in the United States. (Tr at 41.) Applicant testified that the
process has been approved and his son will be coming to the United States to live in the
current year. (Tr at 60.) 
1.c. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and
resident of Ghana. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.  Applicant testified
that his mother-in-law is an unemployed widow. She had worked with her late husband,
who had owned a pharmacy. Applicant only speaks to his mother-in-law when he
travels to Ghana. (Tr at 43.)  
1.d. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant provides monthly financial support to
his wife and son in the approximate amount of $200.  Applicant admitted this allegation
in his RSOR. Applicant testified that he sends $200 a month. (Tr at 63-64.) 
1.e. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant owns real estate in Ghana worth an
estimated $118,000.  Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.  He testified that
this is a house in Ghana that he purchased in 2010 as joint tenants with his wife, and
this is the house in which his wife lives. The purchase price was $118,000, and they
have about $20,000 left to be paid. (Tr at 44-45.) 
4
Applicant testified that he also has assets in the United States. He owns a home
with an estimated value of $500,000. He also has a 401k worth $120,000. (Tr at 67-68.) 
Applicant expressed strong feelings of loyalty and support for the United States; he also
expressed his continuing devotion to his wife and son, both of whom continue to reside
in Ghana. (Tr at 65-66, 70-71.) 
 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted several post-hearing exhibits. These included: a
Performance Review for 2013, in which Applicant was rated, “Constantly Exceeds
Expectations,” and he was described as an “exemplary employee” (Exhibit B); 19
Certificates of Appreciation that Applicant has received during his current employment
(Exhibit C); six extremely positive character letters, including two from high-level
directors and program managers at Applicant’s current employer who have known
Applicant for 10 years. One director described Applicant as having a “high level of
performance and integrity [that Applicant] displays every day,” and the second director
stated “in my ten years working with [Applicant] I have never once had a reason to
question his loyalty to our Company, our Program and most importantly, our Country.
[Applicant] is an outstanding citizen.” (Exhibit D.) I reviewed and considered all of the
mitigating material submitted by Applicant. 
Current Status of Ghana
I take administrative notice of the following facts regarding Ghana. Following
Ghana’s independence from the United Kingdom, the United States established
diplomatic relations with Ghana in 1957. Ghana has developed a democratic
government after 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.
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. 
(Exhibit 7.) 
Applicant testified that his native country of Ghana is a democratic, peaceful
country that has had a continuing cordial relationship with the United States.  (Tr at 46-
47.) 
Applicant also submitted a U.S. Department of State report, dated January 22,
2014, and  titled, “U.S. Relations With Ghana.” (Exhibit F.) The report states, 
The United States and Ghana share a long history promoting
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Ghana has set an example
for countries throughout Africa in promoting governance and regional
stability.  
5
The U.S. and Ghanian militaries have cooperated in
numerous joint training exercises through U.S. Africa
Command, and there is a bilateral international Military
Education and Training (IMET) program, in which U.S.
facilitates the development of an interoperable peacekeeping
capacity among African nations. 
The United States has enjoyed good relations with Ghana at a
nonofficial, people-to-people level since Ghana’s independence.
Thousand of Ghanians have been educated in the United States. Close
relations are maintained between educational and scientific institutions,
and cultural links are strong, particularly between Ghanians and African-
Americans.
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
6
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). 
Analysis
Paragraph 2 (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. Those that could be applicable in this case include the following: 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.” Applicant’s wife and son, who are citizens and residents of Ghana, make AG
¶ 7(a) a concern to the Government. Applicant continues to have a close and
meaningful relationship with his wife, which suggests that he is at “a heightened risk of
foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.” [Also 7(e).]
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. AG ¶ 8(b)
states, “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.” AG ¶ 8(f) is also applicable because “the value . . . of the foreign . . . property
interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used
7
effectively to manipulate, or pressure” Applicant. I find that these mitigating conditions
are applicable to this Applicant and controlling in this case because of the following
reasons: While Applicant was born in Ghana, he moved to the United States when he
was 13, and he has lived here for 30 years, and been a United States citizen for 27
years; Applicant’s mother, father, sister, brother, and their families are all United States
citizens and residents; all three of Applicant’s children are United States citizens, and
although only two live here now, the third child will be moving to the U.S. this year;
Applicant received his college education in the U. S., and he has only been employed in
the United States; Applicant received very positive character letters from individuals
who lauded Applicant’s loyalty and integrity; finally, Applicant has significantly more
assets in the United States compared to his assets in Ghana.  
Additionally, I considered Applicant’s credible testimony, in which he expressed
strong feelings of loyalty and support for the United States; and finally, I considered the
fact that Ghana, the country in which Applicant’s wife continues to live until such time as
she may be allowed to return to the United States, is a country with a democratic
Government and a positive relationship with the United States. Therefore, I find that
Applicant does have such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S.,
that he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. I
conclude Guideline B 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. 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 under Guideline B. Based on all of
the reasons cited above as to why the mitigating conditions apply, I find that the
evidence leaves me with no significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these
8
reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the whole-
person concept. 
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.g.:              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.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge