1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) [NAME REDACTED] ) ISCR Case No. 16-00101 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________ Decision ______________ MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge: Available information is sufficient to mitigate the security concerns about Applicant’s Pakistani passport, as well as his ties to Pakistani family members and interests in Pakistan. Applicant also mitigated the security concerns about his financial problems that resulted from an extended period of underemployment and unemployment. His request for a security clearance is granted. Statement of the Case On November 11, 2014, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his employment with a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to have a security clearance.1 1 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended. 2 On July 3, 2016, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative guidelines2 for foreign influence (Guideline B), foreign preference (Guideline C), and financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. I received this case on November 7, 2016, and convened the requested hearing on January 26, 2017. The parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A – H. I admitted all exhibits without objection. The Government also asked that I take administrative notice of facts about Pakistan that may be pertinent to my decision. I granted that request and have considered the information presented in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 6, 2017. Findings of Fact Under Guideline C, the Government alleged that Applicant, after becoming a United States citizen in 2000, obtained a Pakistani passport in 2015 and that it is valid until 2015 (SOR 1.a). In response, Applicant admitted this allegation, and explained that actually he received the foreign passport in April 2016, and that he needs it to enter Pakistan. (Answer) Under Guideline B, the Government alleged that Applicant’s wife and children are dual citizens of the United States and Pakistan (SOR 2.a); that he has four sisters who are citizens of and reside in Pakistan, one of whom is a Pakistani government employee, and that he provides them financial support (SOR 2.b); that he has two other sisters who are dual citizens of Pakistan and the United States (SOR 2.c); that his brother is a Pakistani citizen living in the United Arab Emirates (SOR 2.d); that his mother-in-law is a Pakistani citizen residing in the United States (SOR 2.e); that he maintains contact with a Pakistani national whom he pays to teach his children the Quran (SOR 2.f); and that he and his wife each own real estate in Pakistan (SOR 2.g). Applicant admitted, with explanations, each of the Guideline B allegations. One of the sisters referenced in SOR 2.c, and the brother referenced in SOR 2.d, are now deceased. The other sister referenced in SOR 2.c is an employee of the U.S. government, and she has renounced her Pakistani citizenship. SOR 2.c and 2.d are resolved for Applicant. (Answer; Ax. B; Tr. 28, 40) Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant owes $334,085 for five delinquent debts (SOR 3.a – 3.e). Applicant admitted, with explanations each of these 2 The SOR was based on adjudicative guidelines (AG) the Department of Defense implemented on September 1, 2006. On December 10, 2016, the AG were modified by the Director of National Intelligence, to be effective for all adjudications on or after June 8, 2017. In this decision, I have considered and applied the new AG. 3 allegations. In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions in response to the SOR, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 53 years old. He was born, raised, and educated in Pakistan, where he received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He and his wife, also born and raised in Pakistan, have been married since May 1991. They have three children, ages 24, 22, and 17. The older two children were born in Pakistan. The youngest child was born in the United States. Applicant, his wife, and their two older children, immigrated to the United States in 1995 and became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2000. Along with Applicant and his wife, the two older children retain their Pakistani citizenship by operation of Pakistani law despite their naturalization as U.S. citizens. The youngest child is a native-born U.S. citizen, but also is eligible to receive Pakistani citizenship because he was born to Pakistani citizens. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 58 - 60) At the time of the SOR, Applicant had seven older sisters and one younger brother. As noted above, one sister and his brother are now deceased. Five of Applicant’s remaining sisters still live in Pakistan and are citizens of that country. Contrary to the allegation in SOR 2.b, none has any connection with the Pakistani government, although the oldest sister is now retired from a professorship at a provincial university. Two other sisters are homemakers. The youngest sister has polio and lives with Applicant’s oldest sister in the house that Applicant and his siblings inherited when their mother died in 2007. Applicant’s oldest sister cared for their mother until 2007, and still cares for their youngest sister. To that end, Applicant provided about $300 each month until 2007 for medical and other support as needed. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 40 – 41, 66 – 67) Applicant has monthly contact, sometimes via Skype but usually by email or phone, with his sisters in Pakistan and the United States. He has travelled to Pakistan three times since immigrating to the United State in 1995, most recently in April 2016. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 62 – 64, 71) Applicant currently is entitled to a one-seventh share in the house he and his siblings inherited from their parents. He estimates the value of his share to be $15,000. To either take possession of the house or sell his interest in it, he must have Pakistani citizenship. Although he is willing to renounce his Pakistani citizenship, he has not done so solely for this reason. Applicant and all of his siblings (or their heirs) with an interest in the house must also be Pakistani citizens in order to sell or take possession of the house. Applicant’s sister who is a United States citizen is not currently a Pakistani citizen, having renounced her foreign citizenship3 when she applied for her security clearance. Applicant is waiting until that sister retires from U.S. federal service. At that unspecified time, he believes she will reclaim her Pakistani citizenship, and all of the living siblings will be able to sell either the house or their shares in it. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 67 – 68) Applicant’s wife has a similar interest in the home inherited from her late father. Applicant estimates that share to be worth $5,000. It is unclear from the record what his 3 There is no legal requirement that any applicant, who is a U.S. citizen, actually relinquish or renounce their foreign citizenship to be eligible for access to classified information. 4 wife’s family intends to do with the house. Her mother is still alive and is a permanent resident alien of the United States. Regardless of the foregoing, I find as fact that all available information probative of Applicant’s and his wife’s interests in their families’ inheritances to be future interests not yet in their possession. Until she dies, Applicant’s mother-in-law, not his wife, owns the house left to her. Until all of Applicant’s sisters are again Pakistani citizens, he cannot possess or convey the house inherited from his parents. Both Applicant and his wife could just as easily predecease the event that would allow them to own the property in question. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 76 – 77) Applicant has had a Pakistani passport before and since becoming a U.S. citizen in 2000. He retained his Pakistani passport and renewed it, for ten years in 2005, solely for purposes related to the future property interest, described above. Since his naturalization in 2000, Applicant has used only his U.S. passport for travel, including to Pakistan. Applicant traveled to Pakistan in April 2016. Before he left, Pakistani authorities made him renew his Pakistani passport. He now has a valid Pakistani passport that expires in 2026. On January 19, 2017, Applicant surrendered both his expired and current Pakistani passports to his employer’s facility security officer (FSO). (Answer; Ax. A; Tr. 41, 62 - 63) As alleged in SOR 2.f, Applicant had regular contact with a Pakistani citizen. He hired that person as a tutor to teach his sons the Quran. Through internet video connection, the tutor provided remote instruction for Applicant’s sons and Applicant paid him $70 each month for his services. The course of instruction was completed in late 2015, and Applicant has had no further contact with that person. (Answer; Tr. 44 – 46) In response to Department Counsel’s request that I take administrative notice of the information regarding Pakistan, and having reviewed the information4 contained in Hx. 1, I find the following: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a federal republic made up of an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch, whose powers and limitations are contained in a national constitution. The legislature is comprised of representatives in a bicameral parliament chosen through open elections from a multi-party system. A president and prime minister, and appointed cabinet members make up the head of the executive branch. Supreme court justices are appointed by the executive to oversee a common law legal system influenced by Islamic Sharia law. Most of Pakistan’s western border abuts Afghanistan. To the southwest, Pakistan shares a border with Iran. Extensive terror networks operate along the border with Afghanistan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the central Afghanistan border, in the Khyber Pass region in northwest Pakistan, and in Balochistan Province in southwest Pakistan. Chief among these terror networks are the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and al-Qaeda. They operate in many cases without meaningful interference from the Pakistani government, and their activities consist of anti-U.S. and 4 In addition to the information in Hx. 2. I also referred sua sponte to the CIA World Factbook page regarding Pakistan at www.cia.gov. 5 anti-coalition military operations across the border into Afghanistan. The FATA, and other areas mentioned above, provide safe havens from which terrorists have been able to plan and launch attacks on U.S. and coalition troops and interests in Afghanistan. Bombings and other acts of terror also have been reported throughout Pakistan, but the main focus of terrorist activity in Pakistan consists of attacks in urban areas, such as the capital city of Islamabad. Because of this information, the U.S. Department of State has issued numerous travel advisories and warnings to U.S. citizens considering traveling to Pakistan. The United States and Pakistan have had diplomatic relations since Pakistan obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1947. The countries’ interests have been in general agreement for much of that time. Starting in 2001, Pakistan helped the U.S. in its global war on terrorism and has helped capture hundreds of Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel. However, efforts to deny areas adjacent to Afghanistan as safe havens for terrorist organization have not been as effective as the U.S. would like. Another issue related to terrorist activity in Pakistan is the fact that Pakistani government and military entities have committed numerous human rights violations in the name of counter-terror operations and investigations. Extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests without access to due process, and other human rights problems are commonplace. After immigrating to the United States, Applicant pursued certifications and employment in the information technology (IT) sector. He has worked for his current defense contractor employer since May 2012, and his performance evaluations reflect excellent work. Until September 2010, Applicant earned on average about $150,000 annually. Between June 2007 and March 2012, Applicant was unemployed for a total of 19 months. The longest stretch occurred between September 2010 and October 2011. While unemployed, he averaged about $20,000 in income based on unemployment benefits and part-time work unrelated to IT. His current income, with variable performance bonuses, is about $120,000. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. H; Tr. 42 – 43, 46 – 49, 54, 69 - 70) Applicant and his wife bought the house in which they live in October 2002. When Applicant lost income between 2007 and 2012, he struggled to pay his bills, including his mortgage. His annual income fell to about $20,000, consisting mainly of unemployment benefits. The debt at SOR 3.a is for a past-due amount on the first mortgage for his house. To resolve his mortgage problems, Applicant used the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). In 2016, Applicant negotiated a mortgage modification with the lender, and he is again in good standing. The lender subsequently dismissed a pending civil suit for foreclosure. (Answer; Gx. 1 – 4; Ax. D; Ax. E; Tr. 46 – 49, 73) The debts at SOR 3.b and 3.c represent past-due amounts for a second mortgage and a home equity line of credit obtained, respectively. Applicant obtained those loans from a single lender when he refinanced his home in 2005. At hearing, Applicant testified about his understanding that, because the value of his house has still not caught up with the total of his mortgages, his participation in HARP limited the time in which the SOR 3.b and 3.c lenders could make claims on Applicant for those loans. He believes that the 6 loans were resolved in about April 2015 and does not know why the debts might still be reported against him. Applicant intends to hire a lawyer to resolve both obligations. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 4; Ax. D; Ax. E; Tr. 33 – 36, 43, 50 – 52, 72 - 73) The debts at SOR 3.d and 3.e are for delinquent credit card accounts. Applicant used both cards to purchase outright small parcels of land at depressed prices as investments. When he lost his job in 2010, he was unable to make other than minimum payments. Applicant still owns those properties, which have increased significantly in value. Both credit card creditors sued for the debts, but Applicant has negotiated settlements to pay down each debt, with remainders forgiven and reported as income on his tax returns. (Answer; Gx. 2 – 4; Ax. F; Ax. G; Tr. 36 – 38, 58) Applicant now makes about 80 percent of his pre-unemployment income. Some of his income is dependent on performance bonuses each year. His wife now works part- time as a retail salesperson and earned about $28,000 in 2016. In addition to the debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant has resolved several other personal debts incurred between before 2012. A recent credit report showed his credit to be excellent and reflects positive payment information for most of his accounts. (Answer; Ax. C; Tr. 42, 54 - 55) Applicant is an excellent employee. His performance evaluations are part of a long record of superior performance, professionalism, and technical expertise. While this is his first application for a security clearance, he worked as an IT consultant for a state law enforcement agency in 2007 and 2008. In that job, he helped develop an automated information storage and search tool that was critical to a large aspect of his state’s law enforcement functions. To perform his work in that capacity, he was cleared for access to sensitive information and personally identifiable information (PII). (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. H; Tr. 41 - 42) Applicant is also active in his community. He is a member of local Pakistani civic organizations and in his local mosque. Applicant works to promote understanding and cooperation between immigrant groups and those governmental organizations. (Answer; Gx. 2; Ax. H; Tr. 21 - 22) Policies Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5 and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are: (1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 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 5 See Directive. 6.3. 7 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. The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, administrative judges should follow specific applicable guidelines whenever it possible to measure a case against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. The principal purpose of a security clearance decision is to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest6 for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.7 A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.8 Analysis Foreign Preference Available information showed Applicant possessed and renewed his foreign passport after becoming a U.S. citizen in 2000. This information was sufficient to raise a security about foreign preference, articulated at AG ¶ 9: When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. Foreign involvement raises concerns about an individual's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness when it is in conflict with U.S. national interests or when the individual acts to conceal it. By itself; the fact that a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country is not disqualifying 6 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 7 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531. 8 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b). 8 without an objective showing of such conflict or attempt at concealment. The same is true for a U.S. citizen's exercise of any right or privilege of foreign citizenship and any action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship. Mere possession of a foreign passport was potentially disqualifying under the previous version of this adjudicative guideline.9 However, the current version of the AG ¶ 10 disqualifying conditions are as follows: (a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country; (b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, to an appropriate security official, the possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the United States; (c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.; (d) participation in foreign activities, including but not limited to: (1) assuming or attempting to assume any type of employment, position, or political office in a foreign government or military organization; and (2) otherwise acting to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in any way that conflicts with U.S. national security interests; (e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law; and (f) an act of expatriation from the United States such as declaration of intent to renounce U.S. citizenship, whether through words or actions. None of these AGs apply to the facts alleged at SOR 1.a. Applicant disclosed his then-active Pakistani passport in his e-QIP. He did not use that passport or his current foreign passport in preference to his U.S. passport. He has since relinquished possession of his expired and current Pakistani passports to his FSO. The issue of his interest in the family home was not alleged, but assuming arguendo that it was, Applicant has not violated any U.S. law by preserving his option to participate in its ownership whenever all of his remaining siblings are again eligible to join him. The security concern under this guideline is resolved for Applicant. 9 See, AG ¶ 10(a)(1) (exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to: possession of a current foreign passport) from AG effective September 1, 2006 to June 7, 2017. 9 Foreign Influence Available information also shows Applicant’s wife and two of his children retain their Pakistani citizenship, by operation of Pakistani law, despite also being naturalized U.S. citizens. Applicant also has six remaining siblings who are citizens of and reside in Pakistan. His wife’s mother, also a Pakistani citizen, has permanent resident alien status in the United States based on Applicant’s and his wife’s sponsorship. Further, Applicant and his wife are entitled to shares of their respective parents’ estates in Pakistan. They, and anyone else with such shared interests, must retain their Pakistani citizenship to convey the property there. Finally, Applicant retained the services of a Pakistani national to tutor his children in the Quran. All of the foregoing reasonably raised the following security concern expressed at AG ¶ 6: Foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism. As to Applicant’s ties to his sisters in Pakistan, the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 7(a) (contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion) applies. As to Applicant’s wife, his two older children, and mother-in-law, both AG ¶ 7(a) and the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 7 (e) (shared living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion) apply. The contact with a Pakistani national hired as a religious tutor for Applicant’s children concluded well before the SOR was issued. Applicant provided a credible explanation for that contact, and he has no ongoing connection to that person. None of the AG ¶ 7 disqualifying conditions apply to SOR 2.f. As to Applicant’s and his wife’s property interests in Pakistan (SOR 2.g), I have considered the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 7(f) (substantial business, financial, or property interests in a foreign country, or in any foreign owned or foreign-operated business that could subject the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or 10 exploitation or personal conflict of interest). I conclude this factor does not apply here. The property interests presented here are not “substantial” when compared to Applicant’s and his wife’s financial position in the United States. Additionally, these are future interests, which Applicant and his wife may or may not ever possess. In the alternative, the mitigating condition at 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 the individual) would apply to these facts and circumstances. The presence of Applicant’s family members in Pakistan presents a heightened risk that Applicant could be pressured or coerced to act contrary to U.S. interests. Balanced against this is the applicability of the following AG ¶ 8 mitigating conditions: (a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the United States; and (b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. Applicant’s sisters have no connection to the Pakistani government. One of them has polio and relies on their eldest sister, a retired professor, for care. His other sisters are homemakers. Applicant talks to some or all of them on average once a month. Since immigrating to the United States in 1995, Applicant has returned to Pakistan only three times. While he provided financial help to his polio-stricken sister and their late mother, that support ended in 2007 when their mother died. By contrast, Applicant and his wife are long-term homeowners who are firmly ensconced in their community in the United States. Applicant’s youngest child was born in the United States, and his two other children arrived here when they were less than five years old. Applicant is active in civic affairs as a liaison between his immigrant community and local government entities. Professionally, financially, and personally, Applicant’s ties to the United States make it unlikely he would act contrary to U.S. interests were pressure to be brought against his relatives. While this is Applicant’s first application for a security clearance, it is not the first time he has been entrusted with sensitive information. He understands the importance of that trust. All of the foregoing supports application of the above-named mitigating conditions. I conclude it is also sufficient to mitigate the security concerns under this guideline. 11 Financial Considerations The Government presented sufficient information to support the SOR 3.a – 3.e allegations that Applicant incurred significant delinquent or past-due debt. The facts established herein reasonably raise the security concern expressed at AG ¶ 18: Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage. After experiencing a loss of employment and an overall reduction in income, Applicant struggled to meet his mortgage obligations and incurred the debts at SOR 3.a – 3.c. He also was unable to stay current on the two credit card account debts alleged at SOR 3.d and 3.e. This information supports application of the disqualifying conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability to satisfy debts) and 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). In response to the Government’s case, Applicant established that the SOR 3.a debt for the primary mortgage on his home of more than 14 years has been resolved through a mortgage modification agreement with his lender. Applicant’s participation in the HARP program facilitated resolution of SOR 3.a, and Applicant provided a plausible explanation of why he thought the two secondary mortgage interests alleged at SOR 3.b and 3.c were no longer attributable to him. They remain unresolved, but Applicant’s assertion that he intends to seek legal counsel to address those debts is credible in light of information showing his actions to resolve the other SOR debts. Applicant also established that the delinquent credit card debts alleged at SOR 3.d and 3.e, once the subject of civil suits against him by those creditors, have been resolved. The creditors cancelled both debts and withdrew their lawsuits. Applicant paid part of what he owed and the remaining amounts owed were declared as income for Applicant’s tax filings. Applicant has been able to restore about 80 percent of his previous annual income. He and his wife are able to meet all of their current financial obligations. In addition to AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), the foregoing also supports application of the following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions: 12 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant’s financial problems arose from circumstances beyond his control. He exhibited sound judgment in his efforts to resolve his debts. The ongoing presence of two other unresolved mortgage debts, in light of the record evidence as a whole regarding his efforts to resolve his debts, is not disqualifying. His current finances are sound and none of his financial problems arose from misconduct or other irresponsible behavior. Available information is sufficient to mitigate the security concerns under this guideline. I also evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(d). Since arriving in the United States 22 years ago, Applicant has established a successful life through academic and professional accomplishments. He and his family have lived in the same house for almost 15 years, and he has been active in his community. Applicant continues to try to resolve his financial problems that arose through no fault of his own. His family ties in Pakistan are close, but the great weight of his interests lie in the United States and are sufficient to counter any concern that he would not act in the best interests of the United States. A fair and commonsense assessment of this record resolves any remaining doubts about Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance. Formal Findings Formal findings 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 C: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.g: For Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 3.a – 3.e: For Applicant 13 Conclusion In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted. _____________________ MATTHEW E. MALONE Administrative Judge