DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )         ISCR Case No. 14-04006
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government, Stephanie Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Elaine L. Fitch, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
The foreign influence concerns raised by the Indian citizenship and residency of
Applicant’s family members, and his financial interests in India, are overcome by his
strong ties in the United States, and his significant U.S. assets. 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 April 19, 2013. On November 7, 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.
2
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on November 29, 2014. A
notice of hearing was mailed to Applicant on October 19, 2015, scheduling a hearing for
November 10, 2015. The hearing was held as scheduled. The Government’s two exhibits
(GE 1-2) and the Applicant’s exhibit (AE A), consisting of five pages, were admitted in
evidence without objection. Applicant, his wife, and his supervisor testified. The transcript
(Tr.) was received by the Defense Office of Hearings an Appeals (DOHA) on November
20, 2015, and the record closed the same day. 
Ruling on Procedure
Department Counsel and Applicant requested that I take administrative notice of
certain facts about India. The facts which I will administratively notice appear after the
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. The
Administrative Notice Memorandum will be marked as Hearing Exhibit (HE 1) and
admitted into the record. HE 2 and HE 3, which contain updated administrative source
information related to footnotes 27 through 38 of HE 1, are also admitted into the record.
(Tr. 6-7)
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains seven allegations under foreign influence (Guideline B).
Applicant admitted his family members are citizens and residents of India. He admitted
he has an Indian bank account which he is trying to close. He acknowledged owning an
apartment in India, but receives no rental earnings from the property.  
Applicant, 39 years old, was born in India in 1976. In April 1994, he received a
bachelor’s degree in electronics and communications at an Indian university. He never
worked for the Indian government or served in the Indian military. Searching for better
employment opportunities, he immigrated to the United States in April 1999. He worked
for his first American employer from 1999 to 2003. While working for his second software
development company from 2003 to 2007, he performed some subcontract work for his
current employer, whom he has been working for since 2007. Applicant became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in March 2013. This is his first application for a security
clearance. (GE 1 at 7, 22, 37; Tr. 17-27, 100)
Applicant married his wife in India in December 2004. His wife immigrated to the
U.S. in 2005. After receiving her U.S. work visa, she began working in 2007 in a software
development position. In 2014, Applicant’s wife received her resident visa. She intends
to seek American citizenship in 2016 because of the educational advantages for her
children, ages six and four, who were born in the United States. Applicant’s wife has an
aunt, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in the United States. She speaks with her on a
regular basis. (GE 1 at 16; Tr. 34, 66, 69, 79-80, 82-84) 
Applicant’s mother and father are citizens and residents of India. (SOR 1.a) His
53-year-old mother has never worked outside the home. Applicant’s 56-year-old father is
3
an accountant in a commercial paddy mill that processes paddies into rice. He may retire
from this employment, especially if the mill is purchased. He has never worked for the
Indian government nor has he served in the Indian military. Neither Applicant’s mother
nor his father receive benefits from the Indian government. Generally, Applicant
communicates with his parents by telephone on a weekly to monthly basis, but
occasionally there may be no communication for more than a month. These
conversations will last about 15 to 20 minutes and the topics of discussion are the
family’s health and the daughters’ activities. (GE 1 at 18-20; Tr. 38-43; 64, 71-73)
Applicant’s 33-year-old brother is a citizen and resident of India. (SOR 1.b) He is
married with two children. He works in software for an American medical company. His
wife is also employed in software. Neither he nor his wife have worked for the Indian
government. They have never been involved in Indian politics or received benefits from
the Indian government. Applicant communicates with his brother every two months to
every six months by telephone and sometimes through email. Applicant’s brother has
been trying to sell the apartment identified at SOR 1.g. (Tr. 44)
Applicant’s 36-year-old sister and 33-year-old brother-in-law are citizens and
residents of India. (SOR 1.c) Applicant’s sister is a housewife with two children. His
brother-in-law, a software developer, came to the United States in 2012 for work-related
reasons, but did not visit Applicant. Neither have ever worked for the Indian government
or been involved in Indian politics. They have never received benefits from the Indian
government. Applicant does not communicate with his sister or brother-in-law and has no
contact with their two children. (GE 1 at 25; Tr. 44-49)
Applicant’s 53-year-old mother-in-law, a citizen and resident of India, has always
been a housewife. (SOR 1.d) She lives with her son, Applicant’s brother-in-law. (SOR
1.c) She has never had a connection to the Indian government or politics. Applicant’s
communication with his mother-in-law occurs when his wife initiates weekly telephone
conversations. His mother-in-law has visited the United States twice. She is unaware of
Applicant’s job. (Tr. 50-52, 84)
Applicant’s five cousins are citizens and residents of India. (SOR 1.e) He last saw
them in 2011 or 2012, and he last talked to them in 2013 by telephone. He does not
know their occupations. (Tr. 52-53)
In November 2001, Applicant opened an Indian bank account for about $1,000.
(SOR 1.f) He used the funds to pay for the mortgage on an apartment that he purchased
in May 2004. He also used the account to cover some of his parents’ expenses until he
married in December 2004. He tried to remotely close the account in compliance with
Indian bank procedures that apparently have changed. The current procedures require
him to appear in person to close the account. Though he has no immediate plans to
travel to India, he will close out the account during the next trip. (GE 1 at 27; Tr. 54-58;
AE A at 3-4)
4
In May 2004, Applicant purchased an apartment for about $37,500. The property’s
current value is about $45,000. (SOR 1.g) He purchased the dwelling for his parents and
also as a place for him to stay during his visits. Applicant’s father managed the property
for a while. When his brother unsuccessfully tried to sell the apartment for three or four
months, Applicant temporarily transferred ownership of the apartment to his parents to
facilitate the sale. When the property is sold, they will turn over the proceeds to
Applicant. (GE 1 at 27-28; Tr. 58-61)
Applicant has traveled to India eight times since 1999. The purpose of the first trip
was his engagement to his wife, followed by a trip to marry her in December 2004. The
remaining trips were for visitation purposes, or for marriages, or for death anniversaries.
His last visit was in 2015. During his most recent two trips, Applicant lodged at his
mother-in-law’s home, but he does not always lodge at the same location. Applicant’s
parents visited him in the United States once in 2012. They are planning a visit in the
next six months and Applicant will help with the plane fare. (Tr. 43-44, 64, 72)
Applicant’s assets in the United States include his home that he purchased in
2005. The home currently has about $100,000 in equity. Both Applicant and his wife
have a combined total of $90,000 in their respective checking accounts. He has about
$215,000 in his retirement account and his wife has about $7,000 in her retirement
account. Applicant estimated his aggregate net worth was at least about $350,000.
Except for the bank account and apartment, he has no other financial interest or assets
outside of the United States. Although he has never been contacted about his work by
anyone from India, should someone attempt contact, Applicant will contact his facility
security officer (FSO). (GE 1 at 27-30; Tr. 30-33, 61) 
Before his children were born, Applicant performed volunteer work for county
festivals. He helped in the registration of events or constructing stands and displays.
When he is not attending his home owner’s association (HOA) meetings, he spends
most of his spare time transporting his children to art, swimming, soccer, and music
activities. Since becoming an American citizen, Applicant has voted in two elections.
Applicant’s wife believes that he is a good father. (Tr. 32, 35-37, 82-83)
Character Evidence
Applicant’s supervisor has been working for Applicant’s employer for 15 years.
The supervisor met Applicant in 2004 when the latter performed some subcontract work.
When Applicant was hired full time in 2007, the supervisor began supervising him. For
the last five years Applicant has been supervising two other employees. Based on
Applicant’s sound judgment, his team player attitude and leadership qualities, coupled
with his ability to solve problems, his supervisor recommends him for security clearance
access. (Tr. 98-110)
On November 6, 2015, the senior vice president of Applicant’s employer provided
a one-page character reference. In the 12 years that he and Applicant have worked
together, he considered Applicant to be a top performer. He received several
5
performance bonuses. Applicant is a team player who complies with the employer’s
policies and procedures. Applicant’s problem solving abilities substantiate the senior vice
president’s recommendation that Applicant be granted a security clearance. (AE A)
Administrative Notice
Republic of India (India) 
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 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 global
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. 
While India and the United States have a longtime partnership in fighting global
terrorism, the country continues to have problems with domestic 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. Incidents in 2012 and
2013 demonstrate that terrorism continues to be a serious problem in 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. 
6
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.
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
7
country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation,
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that
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;  
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign
influence and exploitation; 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 or foreign influence or exploitation.
Applicant has ties of affection to his parents, brother, and mother-in-law, who are
citizens and residents of India. His contact with these foreign family members varies from
weekly to monthly contact with his parents, to between once every two to six months with
his brother. For approximately ten years, Applicant has been living with his wife, still a
citizen of India. She communicates with her mother (Applicant’s mother-in-law) on a
weekly basis. He has visited India eight times since 1999. His parents visited him once in
2012. In sum, Applicant’s family ties in India, weighed against the ongoing threat of
terrorism in India creates a heightened risk of foreign influence within the scope of AG ¶¶
7(a) and 7(d), and a potential conflict of interest under 7(b). Applicant has an Indian bank
account totaling about $475. He owns an apartment worth about $45,000. The financial
interests could subject Applicant to a heightened risk influence as defined by AG ¶ 7(e).
AG ¶ 7(a) does not apply to Applicant’s sister, brother-in-law, and cousins because he
has no communication or contact with them. 
The potential mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 of the foreign influence guideline
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; 
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; 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 to effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.
The mere possession of close family ties to persons in a foreign country is not
disqualifying under the guideline for foreign influence. But if an applicant has frequent
contact with only one relative living in a foreign country, that contact alone may be
sufficient to create a heightened risk of foreign influence that could possibly result in the
compromise of classified information. 
Applicant has contacts with his parents, brother, and mother-in-law in India. His
mother has always been a housewife. His father is an accountant in a paddy mill who
has never worked for the government or served in the military. Applicant’s brother, who
works as a software developer for an American company, has never been employed by
the Indian government. Applicant’s mother-in-law has always been a homemaker. None
of Applicant’s family members, including his sister, brother-in-law, and cousins (those
individuals that he has had no communication with) have ever served in the Indian
military. India is a democracy that has developed a strong bond with the U.S. in the
areas of trade, investment, as well as in fighting global terrorism. It is highly unlikely that
the country would jeopardize that relationship by exploiting Applicant or a foreign family
member through their relationship with him. On balance, it is improbable that Applicant
would be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of his family in
India and the interests of the United States. AG ¶ 8(a) applies. 
Applicant’s ties to his family members in India pale in comparison to his stronger
ties to the United States. He has been living and working in the United States since
1999. He purchased his home in December 2005. He began working for his current
employer in 2007. Since receiving his American citizenship in 2013, he has voted in two
U.S. elections. Though his wife is not a citizen yet, she has been working for American
employers since 2007. She is on a path toward becoming a U.S. citizen in 2016, having
received her resident visa in 2014. AG ¶ 8(b) applies.
AG ¶ 8(c) is not applicable because Applicant’s contacts with his parents, brother,
and mother-in-law are neither casual nor infrequent. Conversely, the mitigating condition
applies to his infrequent and casual contacts with his sister, brother-in-law, and cousins,
because of the small likelihood of a risk for foreign influence or exploitation.
Applicant’s Indian bank account contains about $450, and his $45,000 apartment
in India bring his total Indian assets to about $45,450. His documentation reflects that he
cannot close the bank account unless he appears personally. If he decides to return to
India, he will close the account. He is trying to sell the apartment with the help of his
parents. Applicant has significantly more assets in the United States. He has about
9
$100,000 of equity in his American home that he purchased in 2005. Applicant and his
wife have a combined total of $90,000 in their respective checking accounts. They have
about $222,000 in their retirement accounts, and a net worth of at least $350,000,
probably more. It is unlikely that Applicant’s assets in India, which represent less than
14% of his U.S. assets, could be used as a basis for influence or coercion. AG ¶ 8(f)
applies.
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
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.
In weighing the record as a whole, I have carefully considered the factor of
domestic terrorism that still exists in India. However, the chances of it occurring against
foreign family members of persons that are employed in a position requiring a security
clearance, are higher in countries that support terrorism, or have an authoritarian form of
government, or are hostile to the United States. India, a country with a democratic
governmental system, is a friend of the United States, and is committed to a
longstanding partnership with this country in fighting terrorism, both domestically and
internationally. Although Applicant has ties with his family members in India, he has
stronger relationships and ties in the United States. Applicant received his U.S.
citizenship in 2013. His two daughters were born in the United States. His wife intends to
apply for citizenship as soon as she is eligible in 2016. 
Applicant’s supervisor and the senior vice president have observed Applicant
deliver a quality job performance since he performed subcontract work in 2004.
Applicant’s praiseworthy involvement in the yearly county festivals, his HOA, and his
children’s activities cannot be undervalued. Based on his strong ties to the United States
that have developed since 1999, his participation in his community events and
responsible involvement in his children’s activities, Applicant has mitigated the security
concerns arising from the guideline for foreign influence. 
10
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.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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge