DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
----------------------------------                   )       ISCR Case No. 14-04230
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
 Decision
______________
WESLEY, Roger C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, I conclude that Applicant did
not mitigate security concerns regarding his alcohol consumption. Security concerns
over foreign influence were mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
 
History of the Case
On October 8, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated
Adjudication Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing reasons
why DOD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative determination of
eligibility for granting a security clearance, and recommended referral to an
administrative judge to determine whether a security clearance should be granted,
continued, denied, or revoked. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines
(AGs) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.
2
Applicant responded to the SOR on February 23, 2014, and elected to have his
case decided on the basis of the written record. Applicant received the Government’s
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 31, 2015, and responded to the FORM
within the time permitted with a cover letter and submissions confirming his wife
becoming a naturalized citizen in 2015 with a U.S. issued passport; a record of his
attendance at Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) meetings since 2013; and recent awards from
his employer. 
Applicant’s post-FORM submissions were admitted as Items 5 through 7. The
case was assigned to me on November 18, 2015.
Besides the exhibits offered by the parties, I took administrative notice of 14
documents cited in the Government’s Administrative Notice. Covered documents
included Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial
Espionage - 2008, Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (July 2009);
Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage-
2000, Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (undated); Foreign Spies
Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace, Report to Congress on Foreign
Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, 2009-2011, Office of the National
Counterintelligence Executive  (October 2011); Summary of Major U.S. Espionage,
Economic Espionage, Trade Secret and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases, January
2008 to the Present (October 2014); Press releases, Former Owner of Defense
Contracting Business Pleads Guilty to Illegally Exporting Military Blue Prints to India
Without a License, U.S. Department of Justice (April 2015); Six Defendants Indicted in
Alleged conspiracy to Bribe Government Officials in India to Mine Titanium Minerals,
U.S. Department of Justice (April 2014); Press Releases, HSBC India Client Indicted for
Tax Evasion and Failing to Report Foreign Bank Accounts, U.S. Department of Justice
(November 2011); Reno Man Charged with Conspiring to Provide Material Support to
Terrorism groups in India and Pakistan, U.S. Department of Justice (December 2013); 
Additional documents covered by the Administrative Notice included the
following: Fact Sheet-India, U.S. Department of State (August 2014); Quick Facts,
India, U.S. Department of State (January 2015); Country Reports on Terrorism 2013,
Chapter 2-Country Reports, U.S. Department of State (2014); 2008 Country Reports on
Terrorism, Chapter 2-Country Reports, U.S. Department of State (April 2009); Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: India, U.S. Department of State (2013);
and CRS Report for Congress: India-U.S. Relations: Strategic Issues, Congressional
Research Service (January 2013).
In addition to the documents requested by Department Counsel for official
notice, I also took official notice of Background Note: India, U.S. Department of State
(April 2012) This document contains important background information covering India.
See Administrative Notice, infra, at 3. 
Administrative or official notice is the appropriate type of notice used for
administrative proceedings. Administrative notice is appropriate for noticing facts or
government reports that are well known.  See Stein, Administrative Law, Section 25.01
3
(Bender & Co. 2006). For good cause shown, administrative notice was granted with
respect to the above-named background reports addressing the geopolitical situation in
India and India’s relationship with the United States, consistent with the provisions of
Rule 201 of Fed. R. Evid. 
Summary of Pleadings
 
Under Guidelines G and J, Applicant allegedly was arrested and charged on
three occasions with alcohol-related offenses between September 2010 and June
2013. Specifically, he was arrested in June 2013 for driving under the influence (DUI)
and indecent exposure/disorderly conduct (not covered in the record); January 2013 for
DUI; and in September 2010 for DUI. 
Under Guideline B, Applicant allegedly has (a) a wife who is a citizen of India; (b)
a sister who is a citizen and resident of India; (c) a father-in-law and mother-in-law who
are citizens and residents of India; (d) ownership in three properties (or land) in India
with an estimated value of approximately $22,500; and (e) past payments from an
Indian company in exchange for his services.
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the alcohol-related
incidents, as well as most of the foreign influence allegations. He denied only the
allegation contained in subparagraph 3.e, claiming he was not paid by the Indian
company in issue and accepted only travel expenses from the Indian company, and
only on one occasion, inadvertently over four years ago. Addressing the alcohol-related
incidents in the SOR, he claimed he has attended AA for the past year and has
maintained his sobriety for the past one and a half years without any incident. And he
claimed he has since shed all of his properties in India.
Findings of Fact
 Applicant is a 50-year senior systems engineer for a defense contractor who
seeks a security clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by
Applicant are adopted as relevant and material findings. Additional findings follow.
Background
                               
Applicant immigrated to the United States in June 1981 and became a U.S.
citizen in August 1987. (Item 2) He received a U.S. passport an August 1987 after being
certified as U.S. citizen. In becoming a U.S. citizen, he gave up his Indian citizenship, a
requirement he understood to exist in Indian law. (Item 4)
Applicant married his wife (a citizen of India) in March 1999. She has since
become a naturalized U.S. citizen with a U.S. passport she obtained in March 2015. As
with Applicant, she gave up her Indian citizenship when she became a naturalized U.S.
citizen. Applicant has two children from this marriage, both of whom are U.S. citizens by
birth. (Items 2 and 4) 
4
Applicant earned a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university in May 1985
and claimed no military service or training in either India or the United States. (Item 2)   
Alcohol-related incidents 
Applicant was arrested and charged with alcohol-related offenses on three
occasions between September 2010 and June 2013. (Items 1-4) In September 2010,
he was arrested for DUI and refusal of a chemical test. He had attended a Labor Day
party at the home of a friend. He consumed three to four martinis at the party and drove
home by himself. When stopped by police, he was asked to take a full sobriety test,
which he took and failed. (Item 4) He was then taken to a local police station, where he
was administered a breathalyzer. (Item 4)  
After failing the breathalyzer test, Applicant was charged with DUI and failing to
take the breathalyzer test properly. When he appeared in court to answer the charges,
he pleaded guilty to the refusal, and the DUI charge was dropped. The court fined him
and suspended his license. The alleged charge of indecent exposure and disorderly
conduct in the SOR is not referenced in Applicant’s April 2014 interview with an agent
of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and is not sustained by the evidence.
In January 2013, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, reckless driving,
and refusal to take a chemical test. (Items 2 and 4) He pleaded guilty to the refusal, and
the DUI charge was dropped. The court fined him and suspended his license. (Item 4) 
In June 2013, Applicant was again arrested and charged with alcohol-related
offenses. The night before his arrest, Applicant had a friend over to his house, where
they consumed five to six drinks over a period of several hours before retiring. (Item 6)
The following morning, Applicant drove his friend to a meeting. While his car was still
running, police arrived, and noticed a bottle of scotch in the back seat of Applicant’s
vehicle. (Item 4) When asked to take a field sobriety by police, Applicant refused,
claiming he hurt his back, and was arrested and taken to the local police station. (Item
6)
Once at the police station, arresting police asked Applicant to take a breathalyzer
test. Applicant complied, but when the breathalyzer did not register a reading, Applicant
was charged with DUI, reckless driving, driving without a license registration, failure to
wear a seat-belt, and having an open container. (Item 4) In court, he pleaded guilty to
reckless driving and refusal. He was fined and had his license suspended for three
months. Additionally, the court ordered him to get alcohol counseling. Applicant
completed his mandatory counseling between August 2013 and December 2013. (Item
4) The remaining charges were dropped. 
In Applicant’s interview with an OPM agent in April 2014, he assured the agent
that he has continued with his counseling since January 2014. (Item 6) He told the
agent that between 1987 and 1995 he consumed two beers a night on weekends, in
social settings, and at home. Occasionally during this time frame, he drank to
intoxication. (Item 6) 
5
Between 1995 and March 1999, Applicant consumed two beers or scotches
every night, either at home or in social settings. And from March 1999 through August
2013, he consumed six to eight drinks at home, or in social settings, two to three times
a month. (Item 6) Drinking at this level would intoxicate Applicant.  He assured the OPM
agent that he does not plan to drink in the future and ceased drinking altogether after
beginning his alcohol counseling in August 2013. (Item 6) Believing that his drinking
hurt his relationships with his wife and children, he takes medications in concert with his
counseling. 
Applicant has not provided any counseling documentation or inclusive dates of
counseling and diagnosis and prognosis, if any. At this time, nothing is known about his
drinking condition, other than the background information he provided the OPM
investigator in April 2014 and what can be gleaned from his AA attendance and sobriety
assurances he provided in his post-FORM submission. (Items 7 and 8)
Applicant has since accepted his alcohol dependence and attended AA meetings
on a regular basis. He documented his bi-weekly meetings between May 2013 and
September 2015. (Item 6) A fellow AA attendee credited Applicant with being her
cornerstone of recovery and with playing a major role in her maintaining her sobriety for
the past two years. (Item 6) 
What Applicant learned from his AA attendance is not clear. Applicant has had
no reported alcohol-related incidents since his last incident in June 2013.  Whether or
not he considers himself a recovering alcoholic is not clear. Nor can any inferences be
drawn as to what risks (if any) of recurrence Applicant is currently exposed to.
Applicant’s India connections and interests
Applicant has family members and in-laws who are citizens and residents of
India. (Items 2 and 4) He has a sister who is a citizen of India and resides in the
Bhubaneswar state of India. (Item 2) She is a retired homemaker with no reported
affiliation with the Indian government, military, or intelligence services. (Item 4)
Applicant maintains contact with his sister when he visits India. Besides his sister,
Applicant has five brothers, all of whom are naturalized U.S. citizens who reside in the
United States. (Items 2 and 4) 
Both of Applicant’s in-laws are citizens and residents of India. (Items 2 and 4) His
father-in-law is a retired Indian air force civilian, and his mother-in-law is a homemaker.
Neither in-law has any currently reported ties to the Indian government, military, or
intelligence services.
Applicant currently owns three properties in India. One property is a 4,000
square foot building lot that he purchased for $2,500 in April 2003 for investment
purposes. (Item 4) He bought 1,500 square feet of farm land in August 1998 for
investment purposes. And he owns a plot of family farmland that he purchased with his
brother and sister. (Item 4) His share in this property is worth approximately $9,000 in
U.S. dollars. He continues to explore options for addressing these properties, but to
6
date has not provided any documentation of the sale or transfer of any of his properties
in India or provided concrete plans for doing so. (Items 6-7) Their collective value
appears to be  relatively small when comparing Indian real estate values with property
values in the United States. And the potential market for these properties is not known.
In June 1997, Applicant invested approximately $45,000 in an Indian company
owned by a high-school friend. He provided unpaid engineering advice to this company,
which specialized in fire protection systems. On two occasions in 2012, the company
paid for a portion of Applicant’s travel expenses (around $2,000) to India on trips
primarily devoted to Applicant’s personal interests. (Item 4) Applicant sold his stock in
this Indian company in 2011.
Applicant has made frequent trips to India since becoming a U.S. citizen in
August 1987. (Item 4) Since 2005, he has traveled to India three to four times a year to
address family situations. (Item 4) In his most recent trip to India in March 2014 to see
family members and dispose of family assets and property, he encountered no
incidents with local Indian police. In his trips to India, he has never been threatened,
coerced, or pressured by Indian government officials because of family members,
friends, or other contacts residing in India. (Item 4)
Country information on India
Considered the world’s largest democratic republic, India is also a very diverse
country, in population, geography, and climate. (Background Note, India, supra, at 2-4)
India is the world’s second most populous country and the world’s seventh largest
country in area. (Id.)
India is a constitutional democracy, whose Constitution defines it as a
“sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic.” (Background Note: India, supra) It is
a “multiparty, federal, parliamentary democracy with a bicameral parliament” and it has
an historical reputation for respecting the rights of its citizens. See id.  However, there
have been reports of extrajudicial killings of persons in custody, disappearances, torture
and rape by police and security forces, who generally enjoy de facto impunity. (2012
Human Rights Reports, India, supra, at 2-12) The basic problem stems from the lack of
clear accountability, which too often has resulted in cited human rights violations going
unpunished. (Id., at 1) Police and security officials reportedly use torture and threaten
violence during interrogations to extort money and summarily punish prisoners. (Id. at
6-8)
Since gaining its independence from Great Britain in 1947, India has been
involved in wars with Pakistan in 1947, 1965, and 1971, and has had to defend itself
against a 1999 intrusion of Pakistani-backed forces into Indian-held territory that nearly
turned into full-scale war. (CRS Report for Congress: India-U.S. Relations, supra, at 7;
Background Note: India, supra, at 3-4)  India survived a 1975 declaration of a state of
emergency that carried a suspension of many civil liberties. (Id. at 3) The country has
experienced two assassinations of its leaders: Prime Minister Indira Ghandi in October
1984 and Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. (Id)  
7
In recent years, India has been confronted with sporadic outbreaks of religious
riots that resulted in numerous deaths and casualties, and violent attacks by separatist
groups in various parts of the country. See id. The Indian state of Jammu and  Kashmir
remains unstable, and a number of terrorist groups operate there, particularly along the
Line of Control that separates Indian and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. See Quick
facts, India, supra, at 8 and Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013:
India, supra at 2
Before its demise in the early 1990s, the Soviet Union was India’s principal and
most reliable trading partner, and an important source of economic and military
assistance. (Background Note: India, supra, at 8-9) U.S. efforts to strengthen its ties
with India have been hampered some by U.S. differences over India’s nuclear weapons
programs, its cooperation with the Iranian military, its lack of a negotiated resolution of
the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, and the pace of India’s efforts to achieve long-
planned economic reforms. (CRS Report for Congress: India-U.S. Relations, supra, at
11, 22-23, and 45) 
Important U.S. concerns have been raised, too, over reported cases involving
government-sponsored entities and their illegal export, or attempted illegal export, of
U.S. restricted dual use technology to India, including: (1) military night vision
components; (2) vibration amplifiers and cable assemblies for use in both military and
civilian aircraft; (3) manufacturing equipment related to improving the accuracy of
strategic ballistic missiles with nuclear capabilities; and (4) multiple cases involving
illegal export of products presenting what the U.S. Government deemed to be an
unacceptable risk of diversion to programs for the development of weapons of mass
destruction: or related delivery systems. See Administrative Notice, supra, at 3, and the
specific cases referenced, supra.    
Recommended travel restrictions do exist for U.S. citizens visiting India. The
State Department cautions U.S. citizens to avoid travel in general (with several noted
exceptions) to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. (Administrative Notice, supra, at 3;
Background Note: India, supra; and  Quick Facts, India, supra, at 6-7)
Endorsements and awards
In his post-FORM submissions, Applicant documented a number of awards and
certificates of achievement. (Item 7) His awards include individual and team
achievement awards recognizing his ongoing commitment to outstanding job
performance in 2015 and 2014, respectively. (Items 7) 
Policies
The AGs list guidelines to be used by administrative judges in the decision-making
process covering DOHA cases. These guidelines take into account factors that could
create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as well as considerations
that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information. These guidelines include "[c]onditions that could raise a security concern
8
and may be disqualifying” (disqualifying conditions), if any, and many of the "[c]onditions
that could mitigate security concerns.” 
The AGs must be considered before deciding whether or not a security clearance
should be granted, continued, or denied. The guidelines do not require administrative
judges to place exclusive reliance on the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in the guidelines in arriving at a decision. Each of the guidelines is to be
evaluated in the context of the whole person in accordance with AG ¶ 2(c). 
In addition to the relevant AGs, administrative judges must take into account the
pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in AG ¶ 2(a) of
the AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial
commonsense decision based upon a careful consideration of the pertinent guidelines
within the context of the whole person. The adjudicative process is designed to examine
a sufficient period of an applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be made about
whether the applicant is an acceptable security risk. 
When evaluating an applicant’s conduct, the relevant guidelines are to be
considered together with the following AG ¶ 2(a) factors: (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 chances; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following individual
guideline is pertinent in this case:
          Alcohol Consumption 
The concern: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the
exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and
can raise questions about and individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.
See AG ¶ 21.
Criminal Conduct
The concern: Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into
question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations. See AG ¶ 30.
Foreign Influence
The Concern: Foreign contacts and interests may be a security
concern if the individual has divided  loyalties or foreign financial interests,
9
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 the this Guideline can and should considered 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.   See AG ¶ 6.
Burden of Proof
By virtue of the principles and policies framed by the AGs, a decision to grant
or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold
finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.  Because the
Directive requires administrative judges to make a commonsense appraisal of the
evidence accumulated in the record, the ultimate determination of an applicant's
eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and
materiality of that evidence. See United States, v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509-511
(1995).  As with all adversarial proceedings, the judge may draw only those inferences
which have a reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of record. 
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) it must prove by substantial
evidence any controverted facts alleged in the SOR, and (2) it must demonstrate that
the facts proven have a material bearing to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or
maintain a security clearance. The required materiality showing, however, does not
require the Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has actually
mishandled or abused classified information before it can deny or revoke a security
clearance. Rather, the judge must consider and weigh the cognizable risks that an
applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted
or controverted facts, the evidentiary burden shifts to the applicant for the purpose of
establishing his or her security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation. Based on the requirement of  Executive Order 10865 that all security
clearances be clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has the
ultimate burden of demonstrating his or her clearance eligibility. “[S]ecurity-clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). 
Analysis  
Applicant presents with a considerable history of recent alcohol-related arrests
(three in all). Since May 2013, he has attended regular AA meetings but provided no
evidence of counseling, diagnosis and prognosis, or proof of sustained abstinence.
Additional security concerns are raised over Applicant’s (a) ties with relatives who are
citizens and residents of India, (b) identified property interests in India, and (c) and
reimbursed business expenses from a high-school friend in India.
10
Alcohol and criminal conduct concerns
Principal security issues raised in this case center on Applicant’s history of
alcohol-related offenses. Applicant has provided little detail about his drinking patterns
since June 2013. He has provided little proof of counseling and no proof of treatment
or diagnosis and prognosis. While his documented commitment to AA is
commendable and supportive of his commitment to managing his claimed sobriety, it
does not explain the seriousness of his past drinking problems, professional
recommendations (if any) for managing his alcohol issues in the future, or proof of his
establishing and sustaining his sobriety since his last DUI arrest in June 2013. 
Without a documented clinical evaluation by a licensed substance abuse
counselor and a detailed historical summary of his drinking history (especially after
June 2013), safe assessments cannot be made of his drinking consumption practices
and his ability to avert abusive drinking in the future. Applicant’s recent history of
alcohol-related incidents and associated court-ordered counseling makes any
predictions about risks of recurrent drinking hazardous without a detailed summary of
his drinking history (past and present) and professional evaluations.
Applicant’s recurrent problems with alcohol-related arrests (three in all) over a
compressed four-year period of time and implicit acknowledgment of possible
dependency issues associated with his AA attendance raise concerns over his risk of
recurrent alcohol abuse. On the strength of the evidence presented, two disqualifying
conditions (DC) of the AGs for alcohol consumption (AG ¶ 21) may be applied: DC ¶
22(a), “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace or other incidents of
concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or
alcohol dependent;” and DC ¶ 22(c), “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the
point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.” 
While Applicant’s commitment to AA meetings is indicative of his concerns
about his drinking abuses, his choice to attend AA meetings on a regular basis does
not answer the important questions of just how serious was his drinking problem and
what did professional evaluators recommend he do about it. More information is
needed to make a complete and accurate assessment.
Applicable disqualifying conditions under the AGs for criminal conduct AG  ¶ 30
are as follows: DC ¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,” and  DC
¶ 31(c), “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person
was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.” Even though none of
Applicant’s alcohol-related offenses resulted in DUI convictions they involve underlying
alcohol-related offenses that are cross-covered by the disqualifying conditions of
Guideline J.
Applicant’s demonstrated sensitivity to abstinence implicit in his AA attendance
between 2013 and 2015 entitle him to partial application of MC ¶ 23(a) of Guideline G,
“so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
11
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Applicant’s lack of any
documented diagnosis and evidence of sustained abstinence since his last alcohol-related offense
in June 2013 makes assessments of his current alcohol status too uncertain to warrant any more
than partial application of MC ¶ 23(a)
Some mitigating conditions invite consideration. Potentially applicable mitigating
conditions for alcohol consumption are comprised of the following: MC ¶ 23(b), “the
individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of
abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser),” and MC ¶
23(d), “the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or
rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations, such as participation in meetings of [AA] or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical
professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized
alcohol treatment program.”
Considering Applicant’s number of  alcohol-related incidents over the past four
years (three in all) and the absence of any documented drinking history since June
2013 and confirming professional diagnosis and prognosis by a licensed substance
abuse counselor, application of MC ¶ 23(b) and  MC ¶ 23(d) is very limited. Too much
uncertainty exists about the quality and pace of Applicant’s recovery efforts to extend
any more than partial mitigation credit to Applicant using these mitigating conditions 
In the same vein, potential mitigating conditions under the criminal conduct
guideline are not available to Applicant. Applicant’s alcohol-related offenses are still
relatively recent and lack sufficient proof of post-rehabilitation counseling and sustained
sobriety to free Applicant of any reasonable risks of recurrence.
From a whole-person perspective, Applicant’s three alcohol-related offenses and
still unproven drinking history make predictable assessments about his recurrence risks
too uncertain at this time. To his credit, he has made AA participation a priority for him
and is considered a highly regarded mentor to a co-participant of his AA chapter.  More
information is needed, though, about his drinking history (especially after June 2013)
and professional evaluations before he can be deemed free of recurrence risks. 
Taking into account both Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse and incidents away
from work and corresponding lack of convincing probative evidence of his drinking
history (especially after June 2013) and a professional evaluation (inclusive of a
diagnosis and prognosis), the applicable guidelines, and a whole-person assessment, it
is still too early to make safe predictions about his drinking status and recurrence risks
without a documented summary of his drinking history and professional evaluation.
While his documented AA participation over the past two years is certainly encouraging,
it is not enough without corroborative evidence of his post-June 2013 drinking practices
and professional assessments. Unfavorable conclusions are warranted with respect to
the allegations covered by Guidelines G and J.
12
Foreign influence concerns
Both Applicant and his wife, and their families, have deep roots in India, a
country rich in history and socio/political traditions, constitutional government, and
institutional respect for human rights, intermixed with periodic reports of abuses by
police and government authorities. Despite encouraging efforts in the development of
strategic partnerships between India and the United States in recent years, there have
been cited instances of illegal and damaging export practices by Indian firms and
individuals to create dual use diversion risks.  
The Government urges security concerns over risks that Applicant’s wife, a U.S.
resident and naturalized citizen of the United States. It urges security concerns as well
over Applicant’s sister and in-laws  residing in India, who might be subject to undue
foreign influence by Indian government authorities to access classified information in
Applicant’s possession or control. 
Because Applicant’s sister and in-laws have Indian citizenship and residency in
India, they present potential heightened security risks covered by disqualifying condition
(DC) ¶ 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,” of the AGs for foreign influence. The citizenship/residence status of these
family members in India pose some potential concerns for Applicant because of the
risks of undue foreign influence that could potentially impact the privacy interests
subject to Applicant’s control. 
Neither Applicant’s wife (a U.S. Naturalized citizen who resides with Applicant in
the United States) nor sister and in-laws who reside in India have any identified Indian
government or military service affiliation. As a result, less consideration of DC  ¶ 7(b),
“connection 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 the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by
providing that information,” and DC  ¶ 7(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,” are warranted. To be sure,
there is no evidence in the record that Applicant’s wife, or sister and in-laws residing in
India, have any history of being subjected to any coercion or influence, or appear to be
vulnerable to the same. 
The AGs governing collateral clearances do not dictate per se results or
mandate particular outcomes for applicants with relatives who are citizens/residents of
foreign countries in general. What is considered to be an acceptable risk in one foreign
country may not be in another. See ISCR Case No. 00-0317 at 6 (App. Bd. March 29,
2002)  The AGs take into account the country’s demonstrated relations with the U.S. as
an important consideration in gauging whether the particular relatives with citizenship
and residency elsewhere create a heightened security risk. The geopolitical aims and
policies of the particular foreign regime involved do matter. 
13
While the reports of human rights abuses and terrorist activities in certain sectors
of India, along with identified illegal exporting of potential dual-use technology to India,
are matters of continuing security concern to the United States, India’s emergent status
as a strategic partner of the United States in controlling the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is an important political development that serves to promote political solidarity,
and reduce security risks and concerns between the two nuclear powers.
Based on his case-specific circumstances, MC ¶ 8(a), “the nature of the
relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or
the persons or activities of these 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 a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the
United States,” has partial application to Applicant. Neither Applicant’s wife nor sister
and in-laws residing in India pose any heightened security risks that could subject them
to potential pressures and influence from Indian government and military officials. 
Applicant’s property interests in India consist of three unvalued parcels that
cannot be accurately valued using current market data. Based on the information
provided by Applicant these properties appear to be relatively low valued parcels
relative to priced real estate in the United States where Applicant resides, not enough to
warrant any serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His only other
identified financial interest in India involved his stock ownership interest in an Indian
company founded by a high school friend. After selling his stock shares in this company
in 2011, he provided unpaid engineering advice to his high-school friend on two
occasions in 2012 and was reimbursed for a potion of his travel expenses. Applicant
has no current business interests with this company or any other company in India. 
Another mitigating condition available to Applicant is MC ¶ 8(b): “there is no
conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of loyalty or obligation to the
foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such
deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the
individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S.
interest.” Applicant’s demonstrated loyalty and professional commitments to the United
States are well demonstrated and sufficient under these circumstances to neutralize
any potential conflicts that are related to his relationships with his sister and in-laws.
MC ¶ 8(c), “contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent
that there is little likelihood that it could create risk for foreign influence or exploitation,”
has some applicability, too, based on Applicant’s relatively infrequent contacts with his
sister and in-laws residing in India.   
Whole-person assessment is available also to minimize Applicant’s exposure to
potential conflicts of interests with his sister and in-laws.  Most importantly, Applicant is
not aware of any risks of coercion, pressure, or influence that his sister or in-laws
residing in India might be exposed to. So, in Applicant’s case, the potential risk of
coercion, pressure, or influence being brought to bear on him, his sister, or his in-laws
is minimal and mitigated. Applicant has lived in the United States since 1981 and been
a naturalized U.S. citizen since 1987. He has enjoyed success in his U.S. employment
relationships and has five siblings who are naturalized U.S. citizens residing in the
United States.
14
Overall, potential security concerns over Applicant's wife’s having family
members in India are sufficiently mitigated to permit safe predictive judgments about
Applicant's ability to withstand risks of undue influence attributable to his wife’s  familial
relationships in India. Favorable conclusions warrant with respect to the allegations
covered by Guideline B.
Formal Findings
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached in the
context of the findings of fact, conclusions, conditions, and the factors listed above, I
make the following formal findings:
GUIDELINE G (ALCOHOL CONSUMPTON): AGAINST APPLICANT
   
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1c:         Against Applicant
GUIDELINE J (CRIMINAL CONDUCT):          AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1c:         Against Applicant
GUIDELINE B (FOREIGN INFLUENCE):        FOR APPLICANT
   
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e:         For Applicant
Conclusions
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security
clearance.  Clearance is denied.
                                          
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge 
                                        
15