1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-00817 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Eric Eisner, Esq. 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
NOEL, Nichole, Administrative Judge: 
 
On August 5, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the foreign influence guideline.1 DOD 
adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to 
continue Applicant’s security clearance and recommended that the case be submitted to 
an administrative judge for a determination whether to revoke her security clearance. 
Applicant timely responded to the SOR and requested a hearing. 
 
                                                          
1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended; as well as DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as 
amended (Directive). This case was adjudicated under  Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 
2006. While the case was pending decision, the Security Executive Agent Directive 4 was issued 
establishing the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) applicable to all covered individuals who 
require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive 
position. The 2017 AG superseded those implemented in September 2006, and they are effective for any 
adjudication made on after June 8, 2017. 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
The hearing was held on June 8, 2017. After the close of the record, I proposed 
to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s 
favor. Neither party objected.  
 
The SOR alleged that Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen, has four relatives who 
are residents and citizens of India: his brother and sister and his parents-in-law. The 
Government presented sufficient evidence to establish its prima facie case that these 
relationships create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, 
pressure, or coercion under AG ¶ 7(a). However, Applicant presented sufficient 
evidence to mitigate the concerns.  
 
The positions and activities of Applicant's relatives makes it unlikely that he will 
be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of his foreign family 
members and those of the United States. Applicant's brother and sister reside in 
Applicant's hometown, a farming community in Southern India. His brother is a farmer. 
Applicant's sister, a widow, does not work and is supported by Applicant's brother. 
Applicant's father-in-law retired from a position at a utility company. His mother-in-law 
has not work outside the home. Applicant does not provide any financial assistance to 
his Indian relatives.   
 
Also, Applicant presented evidence of such deep and long-standing ties to the 
United States that he can be expected to resolve any conflicts in favor of U.S interests. 
Applicant’s wife and daughter are also naturalized U.S. citizens. The couple has 
prioritized remaining close to their daughter, who has no intention of returning to India to 
live. Applicant’s financial interests are overwhelmingly held in U.S.-based assets. 
Comparatively, Applicant's lone India-based asset is only 6% of his overall financial 
portfolio. It is unlikely that the asset could be used to influence, manipulate, or pressure 
Applicant. Mitigating Conditions 8(a), 8(b), 8(f) apply. 
 
Applicant’s foreign relationships 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 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.  
 
 
 Nichole L. Noel 
Administrative Judge