DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 14-00565
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government, John B. Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Eric A. Eisen, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was born in India in 1969. Desiring additional education, he immigrated
to the United States in 1997, after receiving two degrees in India. He has been working
for his American employer since 1999. He received his U.S. citizenship in September
2009. The understandable foreign influence concerns created by Applicant’s four
foreign family members, citizens and residents of India, are credibly mitigated by his
strong relationships and loyalties in the United States to his family, and his extended
family, as well as his employment and his community. Eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.  
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on October 8, 2012. He was interviewed by an investigator from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on December 3, 2012. The summary appears in
Government Exhibit (GE) 2, notarized by Applicant on December 11, 2013.
2
On March 27, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under foreign influence (Guideline B). The
action was taken pursuant to 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 in DOD on September 1, 2006.
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on May 16, 2014. A notice
of hearing was mailed to Applicant on August 5, 2014, scheduling a hearing for August
28, 2014. The hearing was held as scheduled. The Government’s four exhibits (GE 1-GE
4) and the Applicant’s five exhibits (AE A-AE E) were admitted in evidence without
objection. Applicant and his wife testified. The transcript was received by the Defense
Office of Hearings an Appeals (DOHA) on September 8, 2014. The record closed on
September 8, 2014. 
Ruling on Procedure
Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of certain facts
about India. The facts which I will administratively notice appear after Findings of Fact.
The facts administratively noticed are limited to matters that are obvious to the average
person, easily verifiable, and relevant to this case. (Tr. 11-13) The Administrative Notice
Memorandum and list of administrative notice documents shall be marked as Hearing
Exhibit (HE 1) and admitted into the record. 
At the beginning of the hearing, I was informed that in August 2013, Applicant’s
public trust employment position was converted to a position requiring security clearance
access. References to the transcript (Tr.) will be followed by the page number. (Tr. 60)
See also, Tr. 2-6.
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains four allegations under foreign influence (Guideline B).
Applicant admitted his mother, father, sister, and brother-in-law are citizens and
residents of India. (SOR 1.a-1.d) These allegations are based on Applicant’s e-QIP (GE
1), his December 2013 interrogatory responses containing his December 2012 interview
summary (GE 2), the hearing transcript, HE 1, and his character statements. Applicant
agreed with the December 2012 interview summary and indicated that it could be
admitted into evidence to determine his security suitability. (GE 2) Based on the entire
record, I make the following factual findings. 
Applicant is 44 years old and has been employed for approximately 16 years as a
software engineer by a defense contractor. He is married with two children. He is
applying for a secret clearance. 
 Applicant’s employer sponsored his immigration to the U.S. in 1997. (AE A)1
3
Applicant was born in India in 1969. In the early 1990s, he received a bachelor’s
degree in physics from a university in India. He continued his education and received a
master’s degree in material science in 1995. He worked at a materials testing facility for
a period, but a disagreement with management influenced him to consider additional
education in the United States. With the financial help of his parents, he came to the
United States in January 1997 and enrolled in an American university to study
engineering management and information systems.  While pursuing his degree, he1
worked part-time for his current employer in 1998. After receiving his engineering
management degree in May 1999, he became a full-time computer software engineer
with the same employer. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in September 2009.
Applicant’s five-year-old son and three-year-old daughter were born in the United States
and are U.S. citizens. (GE 1 at 12-13, 19; Tr. 37-44, 60, 70) 
Applicant’s wife, a U.S. citizen because of her birth in the United States, is 41
years old. For the last 14 years of her teaching career, she has been an instructor at a
preparatory day school. Applicant met his wife in 2004 and they were married in March
2005. Anticipating a desire to grow their family, they moved out of an apartment and
purchased a home in 2007, where they still live. Applicant enjoys a very close
relationship with his wife’s family and her parents. His wife’s sister (AE C) has two
children who interact with Applicant’s children during yearly holiday visits. The holidays
provides Applicant time to exchange information with his wife’s father (AE D) about their
shared interest in woodworking. (GE 1 at 10-11; Tr. 22-30)
Applicant’s mother, father, sister, and brother-in-law (his sister’s husband) are
citizens and residents of India. (SOR 1.a-1.d) Applicant’s mother is 74 years old. (SOR
1.a) She was a “lecturer” (teacher) at a high school until she retired in 1998. His contacts
with her are by telephone and video transmissions, and range from daily to twice a week,
in addition to regularly travelling to India yearly for family visits. He travelled to India in
2013 to assist his mother while she was recovering from a double knee replacement.
(GE 1 at 19, Tr. 51, 65, 77) 
Applicant’s father is 72 years old. (SOR 1.b) In 2003, he retired from a
commandant position in the government of India border security, spending time in
assignments around the country. Applicant telephones his father on a monthly basis. His
father supports himself and Applicant’s mother with a pension and rental earnings from
commercial property inherited from the grandfather of Applicant’s mother. Applicant’s
provides no additional support to his parents. (GE 1 at 19; Tr. 67-70, 88)
Applicant’s sister is 46 years old and is the housewife (SOR 1.c.) of Applicant’s
brother-in-law (SOR 1.d) She married her husband in 1996 and Applicant attended the
wedding. His sister has a 16-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter, who are residents
and citizens of India. Applicant’s contacts with his sister are between once a month to
once every three months. (GE 1 at 19; Tr. 71-72)
4
Applicant’s brother-in-law has been in the army of India for approximately 20
years. He completed an officer’s academy to become an officer. Currently, he is a
colonel. Applicant’s last contact with his brother-in-law was about a year ago. At several
locations in his October 2012 e-QIP, Applicant indicated that he contacted his brother-in-
law during yearly family visits to India. (GE 1 at 35, 39; GE 2 at 1; 72-74)
Applicant had a bank account in India from 2000 to 2005. He used the account,
which contained approximately $1,100, to assist his parents in times of need. The bank
issued Applicant an unsecured credit card with the Applicant’s bank funds as collateral.
The funds were misused by someone who had intercepted the credit card. When the
bank refused to reimburse Applicant, he closed the account in 2005. (GE 1 at 31; GE 2
at 2-3) 
In addition to their home, Applicant and his wife have retirement accounts and a
family savings account. Applicant’s retirement account is approximately $90,000. They
have no assets or interests in India. (Tr. 31, 62)
Applicant has never been involved in any organization that seeks the overthrow of
the U.S. Government. He does not believe that the presence of his foreign family
members in a foreign country make him susceptible to pressure or influence by a foreign
entity. He does not have a sympathy for a foreign country over the United States. In
sum, Applicant would not consider compromising his allegiance to the United States. His
children are U.S. citizens and he will not jeopardize their security. (GE 1 at 50; GE 2 at 2-
3; Tr. 64)
Character Evidence
Applicant submitted four character statements from his employer, his neighbor,
his wife’s sister, and his wife’s parents. The vice president of Applicant’s American
employer, who is also the facility security officer (FSO), and has been his supervisor for
16 years, has worked with Applicant on several projects. She considers him to be a
skilled employee and team player whose integrity and honesty are above reproach. He is
also a good American citizen, patriot, and devoted family man. (AE A)
Reference B indicated that he has been Applicant’s neighbor since 2007.
Applicant is active in the neighborhood watch program that provides security for the
community. Applicant has constructed toys for Reference B’s children. (AE B)
Reference C, the married sister of Applicant’s wife, is a librarian when she is not
raising her two young children. The regular holiday visits between the sister’s family and
Applicant’s family have forged a strong bond. Reference C’s opinion of Applicant’s
trustworthiness is based on the fact that she would have no hesitation trusting her
children to Applicant’s care as she has done in the past. (AE C)
In character reference D, a collaborative statement signed by the mother and
father of Applicant’s wife, they indicated that they maintain contact with Applicant’s family
5
on a weekly basis through emails and other types of social communications media, as
well as yearly holiday visits. They believe Applicant is a good husband and father. They
substantiate reference C’s opinion of Applicant’s trustworthiness. (AE D)
Administrative Notice
India is a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic with multiple political
parties conducting government activities in a federal parliamentary democracy model.
The country has about 1.21 billion citizens. 
The United States considers India key to its strategic interests and has
strengthened its relationship after a period of strained ties caused by India’s
development of nuclear weapons. The United States has removed or revised U.S. export
requirements for sale to India of dual-use and civil nuclear items, including nuclear
reactors, even though there have been several documented cases involving the
attempted or illegal export of U.S. restricted, dual-use technology to India, including
technology and equipment that were determined to be applied for prohibited purposes.
As of 2000, India was considered actively engaged in economic intelligence collection
and industrial espionage directed at the United States. By 2008, India was considered
heavily involved in criminal espionage in illegally obtaining U.S. export-related products. 
Both countries are dedicated to the free flow of commerce, to fighting terrorism,
and establishing stability in Asia. The United States is India’s largest trading and
investment partner. Foreign assistance to the country was about $3 billion, with the
United States providing about $126 million in developmental assistance. 
India continues to have problems with terrorism. Of the more than 2,300 people
who lost their lives in 2008 because of terrorist incidents, 180 were killed during an
attack on an internationally known hotel in November 2008. Terrorist activity is also
concentrated in Kashmir, a disputed area bordering Pakistan. Separatist and terrorist
groups are still active in other parts of the country. 
Regarding human rights issues, the government of India generally respects its
citizens’ rights. However, corruption in the police and security forces continues to be a
problem, particularly in criminal investigations and during efforts to suppress separatists
and terrorist groups. Abusive practices against women and children, and caste-based
discrimination persists, despite criminal penalties for violations. But there is no evidence
that India uses force or duress to obtain economic intelligence from its citizens. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). Following the
security concern definition 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.
6
These guidelines must be considered in the context of the nine general factors
known as the whole-person concept to enable the administrative judge to 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, 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. 
Analysis
Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 sets forth the security concern of the foreign influence guideline:
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 U.S.
citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of
terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 contains two potential disqualifying conditions that may be pertinent 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; and 
(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 or technology and individual’s desire to help a
foreign person, group, or country by providing that information. 
7
The mere possession of ties and contacts with a family member in a foreign
country is not disqualifying under Guideline B. On the other hand, if an applicant has
contact with an immediate or extended family member living in a foreign country, this
single factor may create a potential for foreign influence that is disqualifying under the
guideline. The Government must establish that these family connections create a
heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or would
create a potential conflict of interest between his obligations to protect classified
information and his desire to help his family member who may be experiencing foreign
influence.
The foreign influence guideline is not limited to countries hostile to the United
States, but applies to friendly nations whose disagreements with the United States may
or may not motivate them to engage in some kind of harmful activity against U.S.
interests. 
Applicant’s mother, father, sister, and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of
India. Applicant has daily to monthly contact by telephone and other video
communications with his mother and father. Applicant’s contacts with his sister are
between once a month and once every three months. Applicant’s last contact with his
brother-in-law was about a year ago. Overall, Applicant’s contacts with his family
members in India create a heightened risk of foreign influence because of the possibility
that a criminal agent or corrupt official of the government in India may try to wield
pressure on Applicant through a family member in India to obtain, intelligence, classified
or economic information. AG ¶ 7(a) applies. Applicant’s connections to his family also
create a potential conflict of interest under AG ¶ 7(b) because his relationships are
sufficiently close to generate security concerns about his desire to help his foreign family
members or help the government of India obtain proprietary or classified information. 
The Government has presented sufficient evidence under AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b).
The burden then moves to Applicant to present evidence under AG ¶ 8 that
demonstrates he is unlikely to be placed in a position of having to choose between his
family members and U.S. interests. The potential mitigating conditions are:
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which
these persons are located, or the position 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
minimal, or the individual has such deep and long-lasting 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 
8
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and
infrequent that there is little likelihood that I could create a risk for foreign
influence or coercion.
Applicant’s mother, father, sister, and brother-in law, are citizens and residents of
India. However, his mother has been retired for 16 years from her teaching position in
the school system of India. His father was a commandant in the military service of India.
However, he has been retired since 2003. His primary support comes from the
commercial property rentals rather than his pension from the government of India.
Applicant provides no support to his parents. Regarding his brother-in-law, Applicant has
been entirely candid throughout the security investigation about his brother-in-law’s 20-
year-career in the military service and his current position as colonel. Considering
Applicant’s ties to his foreign family members, AG ¶ 8(a) applies in part.
On the other hand, AG ¶ 8(b) is fully applicable. Although Applicant’s father
receives a pension from the Indian government and his brother currently is a colonel,
there is no evidence terrorists or sinister criminal elements or officials of the government
of India have ever targeted Applicant or any foreign family member for sensitive or
classified information. In addition, while the United States has had substantial
disagreements with India in the past, the ties between the two countries have developed
into a close economic and strategic relationship that India would not want to jeopardize
by exerting foreign influence on its own citizenry to coerce Applicant to betray his
country.
Judging by the total record, Applicant provided credible evidence that he “can be
expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor the U.S. interest.” Applicant
immigrated to the United States in 1997 to continue his education. He met his wife (U.S.
citizen) in 2004 and they married in 2005. Applicant became a U.S. citizen in September
2009, and his citizenship based on his birth in India was automatically revoked.
Applicant’s two children were both born in the United States. Applicant and his wife have
a savings account and retirement accounts. Neither he nor his wife have financial
interests in India. He has worked for his employer since May 1999, and has performed
commendably. He is a good father and devoted husband. While AG ¶ 8(b) is fully
applicable, AG ¶ 8(c) is not applicable because Applicant’s contacts with his family
members are neither casual nor infrequent. Applicant’s regular travel to India has no
independent security significance because the reasons were to visit his family and help
his parents recover from double knee replacements. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have evaluated this case under the specific disqualifying and mitigating
conditions of the foreign influence guideline. I now consider those findings in the context
of the nine general factors of the whole-person concept identified in 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
9
which the participation was 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 on careful
consideration of the specific guidelines and nine factors for the whole-person concept.
Although Applicant has close ties with his family members in India, he has
stronger relationships and ties in the United States. He has lived in this country for 17
years. He has provided a good job performance for the same employer for 16 years. He
has been married to a U.S. citizen for nine years. He does not want to jeopardize the
future of his two young children who are U.S. citizens. He has owned his home since
2007. Applicant’s concern with his community is exemplified by his participation in the
neighborhood watch program. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions,
in the context of the whole person, Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
associated with foreign influence. 
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 (Foreign Influence, Guideline B): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: 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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge