DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 16-00600 
) 
Applicant for a Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
June 16, 2017  
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
Goldstein, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on August 25, 2015. On June 16, 2016, after reviewing the application and 
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) relating to France. 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) effective within the Department 
of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 11, 2016, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 5, 
2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 12, 2017. The Government offered 
Government Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified 
on his own behalf. 
On December 10, 2016, the Security Executive Agent issued Directive 4 (SEAD-
4), establishing a “single, common adjudicative criteria for all covered individuals who 
require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold 
a sensitive position.”1 The National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (hereinafter 
“adjudicative guidelines” or “AG”), which are found at Appendix A to SEAD-4, are to be 
used in security clearance determinations made on or after June 8, 2017.2 In light of this 
explicit direction and absent lawful authority to the contrary, I have applied the 
adjudicative guidelines. ISCR Case No. 02-00305 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2003) (security 
clearance decisions must be based on current DoD policy and standards).3 
 
After reviewing the record, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate 
for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor based on the current applicable AG.4 
Applicant did not object. Department Counsel provided written notice on June 13, 2017, 
that Department Counsel did not object. (Hearing Exhibit I.) 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 Guideline C.  
 
Under Guideline C, Applicant was alleged to have renewed and used his French 
passport after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen in July 2012. The security concerns 
are mitigated under AG ¶¶ 9, 11(a), 11(b), 11(e), and 11(f). 
 
 The concerns over Applicant’s possession and use of a 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 whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable 
evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.  
 
 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 a security 
clearance. This case is decided for Applicant. National security eligibility is granted. 
 
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge 
                                                          
1 SEAD-4, ¶ B, PURPOSE.  
 
2 SEAD-4, ¶¶ C APPLICABILITY; E (at 1 and 8), POLICY; and F, EFFECTIVE DATE. 
 
3 See also ISCR Case No. 07-00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007) (when the guidelines were last revised, 
the Board stated the following, “Quasi-judicial adjudications must be made within the bounds of applicable 
law and agency policy, not without regard to them.”) 
 
4 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision 
of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from 
the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.