DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 16-00524 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Lee Schachter, Esq. Applicant’s Counsel 
January 12, 2017 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 
Format) on April 22, 2015. On June 17, 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.  
Guidelines B and C for foreign influence and foreign preference. Applicant timely 
answered the SOR and requested a hearing. 
 
The case was assigned to me on October 12, 2016.  The hearing was held as 
scheduled on November 10, 2016.  At the close of the evidence and after closing 
arguments, 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 on December 14, 2016 that 
Department Counsel did not object. 
 
Applicant has signed a written declaration affirming that he “will not exercise any 
rights, benefits, privileges, or obligations as a citizen of a foreign country while holding a 
security clearance . . . .”  His foreign passport was “personally destroyed” by a Facility 
Security Officer.  Furthermore, Applicant rarely speaks to his retired mother-in-law, and 
has sold his foreign property interest.  Applicant has held a clearance for more than five 
years without incident, and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.  Based on 
the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented 
sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guidelines B and C.  
I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel.  In 
particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following 
mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8(a), and 11(e). 
 
The concerns over Applicant’s alleged foreign preference and foreign influence 
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 or vice versa.  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 him eligibility for access to 
classified information.  This case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
Richard A. Cefola 
Administrative Judge