1 
 
                                                              
         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Name redacted]  ) ISCR Case No. 15-05847 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 
Format) on December 23, 2014. On March 5, 2016, after reviewing the application and 
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland,  sent Applicant a Statement 
of Reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR 
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as 
                                                          
1  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, 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). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006 
and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.     
 
2 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence; and Guideline C, Foreign Preference. Applicant timely 
answered the SOR and requested a hearing.  
 
On December 5, 2016, the hearing convened. Department Counsel offered two 
exhibits which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov) 1 and 2. 
The Government also offered an administrative notice document which was marked as 
Administrative Notice Document I. Applicant testified and offered no exhibits. The record 
was held open to allow Applicant time to submit additional documents. On December 13, 
2016. he timely submitted additional matters which were admitted without objection as 
Applicant Exhibits (AE) A (1 page), B (29 pages) and C (15 pages). At the close of the 
evidence and after reviewing all of the matters, on December 22, 2016, I proposed to the 
parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and 
provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object on December 22, 2016.  
 
Applicant mitigated concerns raised under Guideline C, foreign preference when 
he surrendered his valid Tunisian passport to his employer’s security department. AG ¶ 
19(a)(1) applied as a disqualifying condition. AG ¶ 11(e) mitigated the issue under 
Guideline C.  
 
Applicant mitigated security concerns raised under Guideline B, foreign influence 
related to his mother, six siblings and in-laws being citizens of and residing in Tunisia. He 
also owned a condominium valued at $120,000.  Disqualifying conditions AG ¶¶ 7(a), 
7(b), and 7(e) apply. Foreign influence security concerns were mitigated because of 
Applicant’s long-standing ties within the United States. His wife and children are citizens 
of and reside in the United States. His children were born here. Applicant immigrated to 
Canada in 1989. In 1997, he moved to the United States on an H-1B visa. Applicant has 
lived in the United States for 20 years and became a U.S. citizen in 2004. He has worked 
for his current employer since 1997 and is held in high regard. The value of his U.S. 
financial interests is greater than the value of the condominium he owns in Tunisia. He 
cannot be influenced because of this property. Foreign Influence mitigating conditions AG 
¶¶ 8(b) and 8(f) apply.  
 
Applicant’s relationship with his mother, siblings and in-laws in Tunisia 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. Applicant has a lengthy 
favorable employment history with his employer. He has resided in the United States for 
20 years. His wife and children are citizens and reside in the United States. Accordingly, 
I conclude that Applicant met 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. This case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
3 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
Erin C. Hogan 
Administrative Judge