1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-06351
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns raised by relatives
who are Indian citizens and residents and her property interests in India. Clearance is
granted.
Statement of the Case
On March 28, 2016, the Department of Defense issued a  Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).
Applicant answered the SOR on April 26, 2016, admitting all of the allegations,
and requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on August 11, 2016. On
August 24, 2016, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for October 5,
2
2016. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. I admitted two Government exhibits
marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, and considered Applicant’s testimony.
Also, I took administrative notice, at Department Counsel’s request, of facts regarding
the security profile of India vis-a-vis the United States, encapsulated within 13
documents, identified as Hearing Exhibits (HE) I through HE XIII.  At the end of the
hearing, I left the record open, at Applicant’s request, to allow her to submit additional
exhibits. Within the time allotted, she submitted nine additional exhibits that I marked
and received as AE A through I. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on October 12,
2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 49-year-old married woman with one child, age 15. She was born,
raised, and educated in India, earning a bachelor’s decree in law and a master’s degree
in accounting. Applicant helps her husband, a defense subcontractor, manage his
software development company. She handles the accounting. (Tr. 18) She has officially
been working in this capacity since 2013. (Tr. 19) Before then, she was primarily a
homemaker, spending time with their son and volunteering at his school. Between 2004
and 2006, Applicant and her husband owned and managed a fast-food franchise. (Tr.
19) 
Applicant’s spouse is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born and raised in India.
(GE 1 at 17) Applicant and her husband have been living in the United States since
1994. She became a naturalized citizen in 2001. (GE 1 at 7)
Applicant’s parents and two of her sisters (S1 and S2) are citizens and residents
of India. Her father is retired. He worked for the Indian government as an airport
customs agent. (Tr. 24) He receives a pension of approximately $10,000 rupees ($200
USD) per month. Applicant’s mother is a homemaker. Applicant talks to her parents
approximately once per week. (Tr. 21)
S1 is a yoga and fitness instructor. S2 is a homemaker. Applicant communicates
with them via text messages every other day. (GE 2 at 2)
Both of Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. Her father-
in-law is a retired surgeon. (GE 2 at 3) He receives a pension of approximately $10,000
rupees per month. (Tr. 28) He was in private practice. Her mother-in-law is a
homemaker. Applicant speaks with them every other month. (Tr. 28) Applicant and her
husband occasionally help them pay their medical bills. (Tr. 38) 
Applicant has several extended family members who are citizens and residents
of India. (Tr. 45) Other than her niece and nephew, the two adult children of S1,
Applicant is not close to any of them. Applicant traveled to India to visit her family
members approximately once per year between 2007 and 2015. (Tr. 30)
3
Applicant and her husband have approximately $350,000 invested in Indian real
estate. They decided to invest in Indian real estate because of its tremendous growth
potential. (Tr. 22) The first investment is a condominium that they purchased in 2007 for
$110,000. Its current value is $350,000. The second investment is a parcel of
undeveloped land, purchased in May 2010 for $125,000. Its current value is $190,000.
The third real estate investment is a condominium purchased in May 2011 for $115,000.
Its current value is $140,000. (Tr. 33) Applicant has approximately $40,000 invested in
an Indian mutual fund. Its current value is $30,000. (AE A) In sum, Applicant’s Indian
investments total $390,000, and the approximate current value of her Indian
investments totals $680,000.
In 2015, Applicant and her husband made a $50,000 down payment towards the
purchase an Indian beach property. (Tr. 33) The sale was not consummated and the
seller refunded their down payment. (Tr. 34) Applicant has three bank accounts in India.
She uses them to manage the investment properties. She has between $12,000 and
$20,000 deposited in each of two accounts, and a nominal amount invested in the third
bank account. (Tr. 34-35) Applicant is willing to liquidate her Indian financial investments
if they generate any security risks. (Tr. 47)
The fair market value of Applicant’s home is $1.3 million. She has approximately
$400,000 of equity in the home. Their stock portfolio includes two joint accounts with
investments worth $615,470 and $368,080, respectively; a retirement account with
approximately $1 million; an individual investment account worth $25,516; and two
prepaid college savings accounts with a combined balance of approximately $41,000.
(AE C, AE I) Also, Applicant has $35,852 deposited in a checking account, an account
used to manage their company that has a balance of $483,370; and approximately
$15,000 of miscellaneous assets, including gold and jewelry. In sum, the net percentage
of her investments in India total approximately 19.6 percent of her entire investment
portfolio.
In 2015, the gross revenue of Applicant and her husband’s company was $2.5
million. (Tr. 41) Currently, their company has four to five employees. (Tr. 41) This is her
first application for a security clearance. (GE 1 at 52) Her husband holds a security
clearance. (Tr. 39)
India is a multi-party, federal, parliamentary democracy. (HE IX at 1) India is an
ally of the United States with substantial common interests. (HE III) U.S. stakeholders
are eager to increase investments in India’s information technology sector because of its
tremendous investment potential. (HE III at 4) The United States’ commercial
relationship with India is not without friction. India’s legal system lacks effective
safeguards to counter online piracy or government corruption. (HE IX at 1) In June 2013,
six defendants, including an Indian national with permanent residence status in the
United States, and a member of the Indian parliament were indicted for allegedly
conspiring to bribe government officials to obtain licenses to mine titanium minerals in
India. (HE VI at 1-2)
4
India is one of the most terror-afflicted countries in the world. (HE VIII at 2) Many
of the terrorist groups are virulently anti-Western. (HE VII at 2)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c),
the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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 national security.” 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by department counsel. . . .” The applicant
has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
The security concern under this guideline is set forth, as follows:
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
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 ¶ 6)
5
Many of the administrative notice facts such as India’s insufficient intellectual
property safeguards and copyright protection laws indicate areas of friction between the
United States and India, but are innocuous with respect to the heightened risk analysis.
Conversely, the risk of terrorism, the sometimes inadequate due process, and the culture
of government corruption are troubling enough to generate “a heightened risk of foreign
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion” vis-a-vis Applicant’s family
members who are Indian citizens and relatives. (AG ¶ 7(a)) Also, Applicant’s significant
financial interests in India trigger the application of “AG ¶ 7(e), “a substantial business,
financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-
operated business, which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign
influence or exploitation.”
Applicant’s relationship with her extended family is casual and infrequent. AG ¶
8(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,”
applies. I resolve SOR subparagraph 1.d in Applicant’s favor.
Applicant has been living in the United States for more than 20 years, and she
has been a naturalized U.S. citizen for 16 years. Since then, she has thoroughly
immersed herself into the cultural and commercial fabric of the United States, raising her
child, volunteering at his school, operating a fast-food franchise, and helping her
husband manage their information technology business, a successful company that
employs four to five people and generates approximately $2.5 million of gross revenue
annually. Under these circumstances, I conclude there is no conflict of interest with
respect to her relationship with her remaining Indian relatives “either because [her] 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 in favor of the U.S.
interest.” (AG ¶ 8(b))
Applicant’s financial interests in India are significant. However, they are minimal in
comparison to her U.S. property interests. Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 8(f), “the
value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property interests is such that
they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used effectively to influence,
manipulate, or pressure an individual,” applies. In reaching this conclusion, I considered
Applicant’s longstanding ties to the United States as discussed in the previous
paragraph.
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 the 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
6
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
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.
Applicant’s longstanding personal, professional, and financial contacts in the
United States compel me to conclude that she would resolve in the U.S. interest any
conflict of interest posed by her family and property connections to India.  
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.g: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge