Item 2.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-10011
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s wife and stepdaughter are Ukrainian citizens, but have resided
permanently in the United States since shortly after he applied to renew his clearance.
His widowed mother-in-law, a retired municipal worker, still lives in Ukraine that is
remote from areas of recent conflict. He fully mitigated resulting security concerns.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on February 13,
2012.  On July 27, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of1
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign
Influence).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding2
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Item 1.3
The Government submitted four Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Department Counsel submitted five documents in support of her request for administrative notice, comprising5
the relevant portions of official U.S. Government publications that she cited as authority for the noticed facts.
W ebsite addresses for complete copies of those documents were also provided.
Item 2 Item 3. 6
Item 1.7
2
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information effective within the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 14, 2015, and requested that
his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.3
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on December 9, 2015. A
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and4
he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant received
his copy of the FORM on December 16, 2015. He did not object to consideration of the
Items in the FORM or to Department Counsel’s administrative notice request, and did
not submit additional evidence within the time allotted. I received the case assignment
on March 29, 2016. Items 1 through 3 in the FORM are admitted into evidence. Item 4 is
Department Counsel’s request for administrative notice of facts concerning Ukraine.
That request is granted, and the facts stated on pages 3 through 5 of Item 4 are
incorporated into the following findings of fact by reference.5
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old project manager for a defense contractor, where he
has worked in support of various overseas DoD operations since 2001. He served
honorably on active duty in the Air Force from 1986 to 1991, and in the Air Force
Reserve from 1991 to 1996. He held a security clearance while in the Air Force, and
during his current employment. He is married, and has a 14-year-old stepdaughter. His
wife, stepdaughter, and mother-in-law are citizens of Ukraine.  Applicant denied the6
factual allegations set forth in the SOR, with explanations.7
Applicant worked in support of U.S. forces in Iraq from September 2004 to March
2006. His assigned body guard during that period was a citizen of the United Kingdom,
who was married to Applicant’s future wife’s sister. In early 2006, Applicant’s body
guard introduced him to his future wife, who was formerly a fashion model and lived in
her mother’s home in Ukraine while raising her daughter, who was born out of wedlock.
In September 2007 Applicant and his wife were married in Ukraine, where she
continued to reside so their daughter could pursue her education in the private school
Item 2; Item 3.8
Item 1; Item 2; Item 3.9
Id.10
Item 4 at pages 3 to 5. Applicant did not object to the Administrative Notice request or dispute any facts set11
forth therein. 
Item 2; Item 4.12
3
she attended. Applicant remained in daily contact via telephone or internet-based
communications with his wife and step-daughter when they were apart, and they
exchanged visits in Ukraine or the U.S. whenever possible. He also provided financial
support for them.  8
Applicant’s wife was issued a U.S. permanent resident alien “green card” after
their marriage, and before he submitted his SF-86 in February 2012. Applicant admitted
that, as of the time of his April 2012 interview with an agent from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), the SOR allegations were accurate. However, during 2013
Applicant’s wife and stepdaughter moved from Ukraine to the U.S., and they have since
resided permanently with him in their home in a southwestern state.  9
Applicant’s mother-in-law is a Ukrainian citizen and continues to reside there.
Applicant said, in his answer to the SOR, that he planned to sponsor her for an
immigration visa so that she could move to reside in the United States. He provided no
evidence of any progress toward accomplishing that plan, however. His mother-in-law is
retired from her former city government human resources job, in which her duties
involved hiring and training municipal employees. She speaks little English, so
Applicant’s communication with her is minimal outside the exchange of pleasantries
during Skype communications involving his wife, who is in regular contact with her
mother. Applicant never met his wife’s father, who is deceased.10
I took administrative notice of the facts set forth in Department Counsel’s request
concerning Ukraine, which are incorporated herein by reference as noted above.  Of11
particular significance are Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia over Crimea and
territory in some eastern Ukraine regions, and the absence of any indication that
Ukraine engages in espionage, intelligence operations, or human rights abuses toward
U.S. citizens or interests. I also note that Applicant’s mother-in-law lives in central
Ukraine, at a significant distance from the regions experiencing conflicts with pro-
Russian interests that are subject to U.S. State Department travel warnings.  12
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
4
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding foreign influence:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or
Neither the SOR nor Department Counsel asserted security concerns under AG ¶ 7(d), since Applicant’s wife13
and stepdaughter lived in Ukraine, not with him, when he submitted his SF-86 and underwent his OPM
interview in 2012. W hile he was not technically put on notice of such concerns by the SOR or FORM, the
relationships involved in this case generate identical and overlapping concerns under AG ¶¶ 7(a), (b), and (d),
so separate listing of that DC, or amendment of the SOR, would be superfluous and mitigation is the same.
5
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a
risk of terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Department Counsel argued that substantial evidence in this case
established two of them:  13
(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 the individual’s desire to
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information. 
Applicant’s wife and stepdaughter remain citizens of Ukraine, although they now
permanently reside with him in the United States. There is no evidence suggesting that
they intend to return to Ukraine, other than possibly for short visits to her mother while
she still lives there. The evidence does not demonstrate a heightened risk of foreign
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion with respect to either of
them. Nor do his wife’s or stepdaughter’s circumstances create a potential conflict of
interest that might tempt Applicant to help them in some way by improperly providing
sensitive information to any foreign entity. Applicant’s widowed mother-in-law continues
to reside in Ukraine, in retirement from her municipal human resources employment and
at a distance from the eastern regions where instability and conflict with pro-Russian
forces are of concern. These facts arguably meet the Government’s burden of
production by raising security concerns under the aforementioned disqualifying
conditions.
6
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Those with
potential application in mitigating security concerns in this case are:
(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
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
so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships
and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any
conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest; and
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign
influence or exploitation.  
Applicant does not have a close personal relationship with his mother-in-law, but
clearly has close and important relationships with his wife and stepdaughter who, in
turn, have loving and dedicated relationships with his wife’s mother. Accordingly, his
relationships with all three of them are neither casual nor infrequent, and mitigating
condition 8(c) does not apply. 
Mitigation under AG ¶ 8(a) was established with respect to Applicant’s wife and
stepdaughter, since they now permanently reside in the United States and have no
connection to any Ukrainian government entity. His mother-in-law’s position as a retired
municipal human resources employee, residing in a region of Ukraine that is remote
from the areas where conflict and anti-western agitation occurs, establishes mitigation
of his relationship with her under that provision as well. Applicant’s minimal sense of
obligation to his mother-in-law, contrasted with his dedication and loyalty to the United
States, as evidenced by his lifetime of service and overseas support for DoD
operations, establish significant mitigation under AG ¶ 8(b) as well. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
7
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s conduct is not in
question here. He is a mature, talented, and experienced individual, who has served
U.S. national security interests for most of his adult life. The potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress deriving from Applicant’s marriage into a Ukrainian
family is minimal. His wife and stepdaughter now permanently reside in the United
States, and his mother-in-law’s circumstances as a retired widow, who lives outside the
areas of Ukraine where anti-western forces are present and has no connection to the
Ukrainian government, generate little risk. 
Overall, the record evidence creates no doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. He met his burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising from foreign influence considerations.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge