1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-05082 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 6, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline C, foreign 
preference. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 (AG) implemented by 
the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded (Answer) to the SOR on February 29, 2016, and requested 
an administrative determination in lieu of a hearing. I was assigned the case on 
December 12, 2016. On December 13, 2016, after reviewing the SOR, the Answer, the 
Government’s File of Relevant material (FORM), and Applicant’s response to the FORM 
(marked as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A), I proposed that this case was appropriate for a 
summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
The Government’s concern under Guideline C is that Applicant possessed a 
current Irish passport. Applicant presented documentary evidence showing that he 
turned the passport over to his employer’s facility security officer (FSO) in May 2016. 
 
2 
 
Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concern is 
mitigated under mitigating condition AG ¶ 11(d).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s surrendered foreign passport do not create 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. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he 
met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge