DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 15-06482 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
On December 22, 2014, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National 
Security Positions (SF-86). On April 15, 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 
Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline C (foreign preference). Applicant timely 
answered the SOR and requested a hearing. 
                                                          
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 
 
 
On December 23, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On January 18, 2017, 
the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, 
evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed the parties indicating 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.  
 
The SOR allegations stem from Applicant having an Iraqi passport and 
immediate family relatives in Iraq. Applicant has surrendered his Iraqi passport to the 
appropriate authorities and demonstrated that his ties to the United States are more 
substantial than his ties to Iraq. He has served as an interpreter with the U.S. armed 
forces at considerable personal risk since 2006 and been the victim of three separate 
IEDs. Applicant 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 foreign influence and foreign preference security 
concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the respective and appropriate 
mitigating conditions.  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign influence and foreign 
preference 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.  
 
 
 
Robert J. Tuider 
Administrative Judge