Exhibit 1 (this document is commonly known as a security clearance application). 1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 14-05154
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to revoke his eligibility for
access to classified information. His connection to Russia based primarily on his
marriage to a dual-citizen of the United States and Russia does not present an
unacceptable risk of foreign influence. But he did not present sufficient evidence to
show that he has made a reasonable effort to pay, settle, dispute, or otherwise resolve
a child-support arrearage of approximately $145,000, which is a security concern.
Accordingly, this case is decided against Applicant.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (SF 86 Format) on April 17, 2013.  Thereafter, on December 4, 2014, after1
reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation,
 The SOR was issued by the DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland. It is a separate2
and distinct organization from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, which is part of the Defense Legal
Services Agency, with headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. 
  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,3
signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program , dated January 2, 1992,
as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The
AG  were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).     
 Tr. 26–29; Exhibit 5. 4
2
the Department of Defense (DOD)  sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR),2
explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to
grant him eligibility for access to classified information.  The SOR is similar to a3
complaint. It detailed the reasons for the action under the security guideline known as
Guideline F for financial considerations and Guideline B for foreign influence. He
answered the SOR on December 24, 2014, and requested a hearing.         
The case was assigned to me on December 1, 2015. The hearing was held as
scheduled on January 11, 2016. The transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on
January 19, 2016.
The record was kept open to allow Applicant to submit additional documentation.
He made a timely post-hearing submission, and those three matters are admitted
without objections as Exhibits F, G, and H.  
Ruling on Procedure
Without objections, I granted Department Counsel’s written request to take
administrative notice of certain facts about the country of Russia.  Although the request4
is extensive, I take particular notice of the following facts: (1) Russia is one of the
leading state intelligence threats to U.S. interests based on their capabilities, intent, and
broad operational scope; (2) Russia has extensive and sophisticated intelligence
operations, which they use to target U.S. and allied personnel with access to sensitive
computer-network information; (3) Russia has a poor record of human rights; and (4)
the United States along with other members of the international community do not
recognize the purported annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine and consider
Russia’s action to be illegal. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old senior Linux administrator. His education includes a
high school diploma. He married for the first time in 1990 and divorced in 2001. He
married for the second time a few months later in 2001. He has two children from his
first marriage, ages 24 and 16. He has a five-year-old child from his current marriage. 
 Exhibit 1. 5
 Tr. 74–75. 6
 Exhibits E.   7
 Tr. 40–43; Exhibit D at page 10. 8
 Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4.9
 Tr. 75–76. 10
 Exhibit 2. 11
3
Applicant has worked for his current employer since 2013.  Before that, he5
worked for a number of companies in various information technology (IT) jobs and he
also had self-employment as an IT consultant. His employment history also includes
active duty military service during 1989 to 2002 and reserve duty during 2002–2005.  6
Applicant presented substantial evidence of a good employment record as well
as his good character and suitability for a security clearance.  The 11 letters of7
recommendation attest to Applicant’s work ethic, professionalism, and trustworthiness.  
Under Guideline B for foreign influence, the SOR alleges that Applicant has
family ties to Russia based on his spouse who is a citizen of Russia and her mother-
and father-in-law who are citizens of and residents in Russia. Under Guideline F for
financial considerations, the SOR alleges that Applicant has the following delinquent
financial accounts: (1) a $144,879 collection account stemming from a child-support
arrearage; and (2) an $85 collection account with a communications company, which
was paid and will not be discussed further herein.  Applicant disclosed his family ties to8
Russia and the child-support arrearage in his 2013 security clearance application; he
provided additional information about both matters during his background investigation;
and the child-support arrearage is established by credit reports from 2013 and 2014.  9
Applicant met and married his current wife in 2001, when he was on active duty
military service in State #1. His military duties at the time required him to have a high-
level security clearance, and he was required to report to military officials before and
after any travel to Russia.  His wife was born and raised in Russia. She has a degree in10
music from a Russian university, and she has a degree in economics from a U.S.
university in State #1. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. She is a dual
citizen of the United States and Russia.  Although married in Russia, Applicant and his11
wife have lived and worked in United States throughout their marriage. 
In addition, Applicant has in-laws who are citizens of and residents in Russia. His
mother-in-law is a nurse in a hospital. Due to a language barrier, Applicant has had
limited communication with his mother-in-law, although his wife speaks to her mother
via Skype or telephone on a regular basis. His wife’s natural father, the person
Applicant listed in his security clearance application, has not been involved with the
 Tr. 57–59. 12
 Tr. 57–59. At the hearing, Applicant stated that his mother-in-law remarried. But during the background13
investigation, Applicant stated that his mother-in-law had not remarried. Exhibit 2 at 3. 
 Tr. 58–59. 14
 Tr. 50–52. 15
 Tr. 43. 16
 Exhibit H. 17
4
family for years. Applicant stated that his mother-in-law divorced her daughter’s father
because he was an alcoholic.  His mother-in-law may have remarried.  Applicant has12 13
met that person, although his mother-in-law no longer lives with him because he was
abusive. In any event, Applicant’s wife has not had a close relationship with her father
or stepfather.   14
Although Applicant traveled to Russia in 2001 (for his marriage), 2003, and 2004,
he has no desire or intention to go there anymore.  He refuses to go there because he15
is strongly opposed to Russia’s leadership and its government. He also expressed
disappointment in the Russian people who continue to support Russia’s leadership. He
further denied any close ties to the country of Russia. 
Applicant’s child-support arrearage, which he described as a “complicated
matter,” stems from his 2001 divorce from his first wife.  The divorce occurred in State16
#1. Applicant and his then wife agreed that he would pay $600 monthly for his then two
minor children. About a year or so later in 2002, his ex-wife, now living in State #2,
brought an action to modify and increase the child-support payment to $1,500 or $1,690
monthly, although ultimately the state court in State #2 ordered that the child-support
payment be modified to $1,000 monthly. 
That order remained in place until 2008 when his ex-wife sought to modify and
increase the child-support payment with the same state court in State #2. Applicant was
now living in State #3, which is his state of current residence. He did not retain an
attorney to represent him, but he did respond in writing to a request for information in
January 2008. According to Applicant, he heard nothing further about the matter until
sometime in June 2008, when he received a postcard from the state court notifying him
that a judgment had been entered in the case. The judgment increased the child-
support payment to more than $2,500 monthly and established an arrearage of about
$7,000. 
A few months later in October 2008, Applicant sent a letter addressed to the clerk
of court for the state court.  He complained about the unfairness of both the actions of17
his ex-wife and the state court, and he described the state court’s actions as punitive
and likely to bring financial ruin to his family. The central basis for his complaint was that
 Tr. 45; Exhibit A. 18
 Exhibit A. 19
 Exhibit G. 20
 Tr. 46. 21
 Exhibit H. 22
 Id.23
 Exhibit B. 24
 Tr. 48. 25
 Exhibit 3. 26
 Exhibit 4. 27
5
the state court did not give him an opportunity to be heard. He did not receive a
response to the letter or any of several letters sent to the state court.  He also sent18
letters to the child-support enforcement agencies in State #2 and State #3, and visited
the child-support enforcement agency in State #3.  He sought a modification of the19
support order by submitting a uniform-support petition in 2011.  He stated that his 201120
petition was one of four or five attempts to obtain a modification of the support
payment.  He was in contact with the child-support enforcement agency in State #3 in21
June 2014 to enlist their assistance in working with officials in State #2.  Those efforts22
were unsuccessful, but he was nonetheless advised to try to send additional payments
due to the high balance.23
After the last modification in 2008, Applicant was never able to make the support
payment in full, although he continued to pay $1,000 to $1,500 monthly. He also pointed
out that he paid for college expenses for his oldest child,  and the support payment has24
remained the same despite that his oldest child is now 24 years old and married. He
conceded that “over the last couple of years, [he’s] given up” attempting to resolve the
matter and does not foresee the indebtedness going away until there’s a new judge for
the state court in State #2.25
The April 2013 credit report described the child-support arrearage as a collection
account with State #3 with a monthly payment of $2,652, a balance of $117,559, and a
past-due amount of $65,000.  The June 2014 credit report described the account as26
child support with a monthly payment of $2,652, a balance of $147,531, and a past-due
amount of $144,879.  In addition, Applicant submitted a January 2016 credit report that27
shows the following: (1) the $85 collection account was paid; (2) several accounts were
30 days past due but are now paid or current; (3) the remaining numerous accounts are
in good standing; and (5) a credit score of 811, which is considered very good or
 Exhibits C and D. 28
 Tr. 69–70, 53. 29
 Tr. 76–81. 30
 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to31
a security clearance”); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10  Cir. 2002) (no right to ath
security clearance).
 484 U.S. at 531.32
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 33
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 34
 ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 2004).35
6
excellent.  The collection account for the child-support arrearage is not listed in the28
2016 credit report.
Applicant stated that his gross income for 2015 was $125,000, and his wife is
employed by a local university.  Those circumstances suggest he has sufficient income29
to retain an attorney in the child-support case. He gave two reasons for acting on his
own without the assistance of legal counsel.  First, he explained at some length that he30
has declined to do so because he received advice during the 2001 divorce to resolve
differences with his ex-wife without the expense of attorney’s fees, and he has
continued to follow that advice as a matter of principle. Second, he stated he was wary
of the legal process.
Law and Policies
It is well-established law that no one has a right to a security clearance.  As31
noted by the Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent
standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the
side of denials.”  Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive, any doubt32
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of protecting national security.  
A favorable clearance decision establishes eligibility of an applicant to be granted
a security clearance for access to confidential, secret, or top-secret information.  An33
unfavorable decision (1) denies any application, (2) revokes any existing security
clearance, and (3) prevents access to classified information at any level.  34
There is no presumption in favor of granting, renewing, or continuing eligibility for
access to classified information.  The Government has the burden of presenting35
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.36
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.37
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.38
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 39
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002) (citations omitted).40
 Executive Order 10865, § 7.41
 AG ¶¶ 6, 7, and 8 (setting forth the concern and the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 42
7
evidence to establish facts alleged in the SOR that have been controverted.  An36
applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate
facts that have been admitted or proven.  In addition, an applicant has the ultimate37
burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  38
In Egan, the Supreme Court stated that the burden of proof is less than a
preponderance of the evidence.  The DOHA Appeal Board has followed the Court’s39
reasoning, and a judge’s findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial-evidence
standard.40
The AG set forth the relevant standards to consider when evaluating a person’s
security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a commonsense
decision based upon consideration of the relevant and material information, the
pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. 
The Government must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in
those persons to whom it grants access to classified information. The decision to deny a
person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it41
is a determination that an applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has
established for granting eligibility for access.
Discussion
The gravamen of the SOR under Guideline B is whether Applicant’s family ties,
by his marriage, to Russia disqualify him from eligibility for access to classified
information. Under Guideline B for foreign influence,  the suitability of an applicant may42
be questioned or put into doubt due to foreign connections and interests. The overall
concern is:
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
 AG ¶ 6. 43
8
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.43
In addition, based on U.S. concerns about Russia as set forth in Department Counsel’s
request for administrative notice, Russia meets the heightened-risk standard as that
term is used in Guideline B. 
In analyzing the evidence of Applicant’s family ties to Russia, I have considered
the following disqualifying and mitigating conditions: 
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;
AG ¶ 7(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 the
individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing
that information; 
AG ¶ 8(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country
in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the
United States; and 
AG ¶ 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 family ties to Russia, a country that presents real-world risks to U.S.
interests, are sufficient to raise a security concern. Applicant is a native-born U.S.
citizen who is married to a dual citizen of the United States and Russia. His marriage is
longstanding and includes a native-born U.S. citizen child. Applicant has minimal
contact with his Russian mother-in-law and essentially no contact with his Russian
father-in-law or his wife’s stepfather. Otherwise, all of Applicant’s ties are exclusively to
 AG ¶¶ 18, 19, and 20 (setting forth the concern and the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 44
 ISCR Case No. 95-0611 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (It is well settled that “the security suitability of an applicant45
is placed into question when that applicant is shown to have a history of excessive indebtedness or recurring
financial difficulties.”) (citation omitted); and see ISCR Case No. 07-09966 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2008) (In
security clearance cases, “the federal government is entitled to consider the facts and circumstances
surrounding an applicant’s conduct in incurring and failing to satisfy the debt in a timely manner.”) (citation
omitted). 
 AG ¶ 18.  46
 AG ¶¶ 19(a) and (c).47
9
the United States. Those ties include his own family, his honorable service in the U.S.
military for a number of years, his employment history, and his financial interests. 
The security-clearance process is not a zero-risk program, because nearly every
person presents some risk or concern. Many cases come down to balancing that risk or
concern. Here, Applicant has family ties, by his marriage, to Russia. Those
circumstances should not be dismissed or overlooked as fanciful or unrealistic,
especially considering the matters the United States views of concern with Russia.
Nonetheless, on balance, I am satisfied that his ties to the United States outweigh and
overcome his ties to Russia, a country for which he has expressed disdain. This is
clearly not a case of “divided loyalties” with an applicant who has one foot in each
country. Viewing the record evidence as a whole, I am confident that Applicant can be
expected to resolve any potential concern or potential conflict of interest in favor of the
U.S. interest. 
Under Guideline F for financial considerations,  the suitability of an applicant44
may be questioned or put into doubt when that applicant has a history of excessive
indebtedness or financial problems or difficulties.  The overall concern is: 45
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to
protect classified information.  46
The concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly
compromise classified information to obtain money or something else of value. It
encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other important
qualities. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible,
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information.    
The evidence supports a conclusion that Applicant has a history of financial
problems or difficulties as well as inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.  That47
conclusion is supported by the $145,000 collection account with State #3 stemming
 AG ¶ 20(a)–(f).48
10
from the child-support arrearage. That’s a large sum of money. Further, I consider child
support a high-priority debt given the nature of the obligation. At bottom, the unresolved
$145,000 collection account raises a serious security concern under Guideline F.    
 In mitigation, I have considered the six mitigating conditions under Guideline F,48
and none, individually or taken together, are sufficient to explain and mitigate the
security concern. First, Applicant’s financial problem is not safely in the past and
unlikely to recur, because the collection account is an ongoing problem.  
Second, the collection account is not a circumstance largely beyond Applicant’s
control and he has not acted responsibly under the circumstances. While I understand
he was not living in State #2 and lived some distance away, he could have traveled to
State #2 in an effort to modify the support payment and reduce the arrearage, or he
could have hired an attorney in State #2 to represent him in the case. Granted, he did
not completely ignore the problem; he wrote letters of complaint that were unlikely to
find a sympathetic ear. But he did not take commonsense steps to address the problem
through the judicial system in State #2. 
Third, there are not clear indications that the child-support arrearage is being
resolved or is under control. The evidence suggests just the opposite. 
Fourth, considering that the support order was last modified about eight years
ago in 2008, he has not made a reasonable effort to pay, settle, dispute, or otherwise
resolve the child-support arrearage. Likewise, he has not made the full monthly support
payment for the last several years. He elected not to obtain the services of an attorney,
which of course can be costly. Instead, he continued to follow advice he received during
his 2001 divorce—despite the change in circumstances years later—to his detriment. 
Fifth, he might have a reasonable basis to dispute the amount of the arrearage,
but he has not done enough to help himself. He asserts he was the victim of a default
judgment in 2008 when the support order was last modified. If that is the case, he has
not taken the necessary steps to challenge the state court’s judgment, modify the
support order, or reduce the amount of the arrearage. Moreover, he concedes that he
essentially gave up trying to fix the problem during the last few years. He presented no
documentation of child-support payments he states he has made over the years. He
presented no court records from the state court in State #2. Given these circumstances,
the amounts listed for the child-support arrearage in the 2013 and 2014 credit reports
are presumed to be valid and are accepted as true for the purpose of this proceeding.   
Applicant’s ongoing and unresolved child-support arrearage of about $145,000
creates doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to
protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a
whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or
 AG ¶ 2(a)(1)–(9).49
11
vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.  Accordingly, I49
conclude that he did not meet his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified
information. 
Formal Findings
The formal findings on the SOR allegations are as follows:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline B: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.a–2.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information.  
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge