1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-00940 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gatha Manns, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Leon J. Schachter, Esq.  
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: 
 
On September 12, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement 
of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign 
influence.1 Applicant responded to the SOR on October 25, 2016, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another 
administrative judge on March 13, 2017, and reassigned to me on June 7, 2017. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on July 12, 2017. On August 8, 2017, I proposed to the 
parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant is a native-born U.S. citizen who has spent much of the last ten-plus 
years living and working overseas for defense contractors. He met his wife, a citizen of 
Thailand, while on vacation in Thailand. They married in 2014. They have a child who is 
a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s wife lives on her family’s farm in Thailand with her parents. 
                                                          
1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines, 
which became effective on June 8, 2017. 
 
2 
 
Other extended family members live in close proximity to the farm. None of Applicant’s 
in-laws have any direct connection to the Thailand government. Applicant sends his wife 
support, part of which she used to buy livestock for the farm. Those animals have since 
been sold or eaten. Applicant delayed filing a visa application for his wife while she was 
pregnant and his child was very young. His job requires extensive travel throughout the 
world, and she cannot be with him on his travels. It was better to leave her in Thailand 
with her support system. His wife’s visa and alien registration application was submitted 
in June 2017. She will immigrate to the United States with their child as soon as her visa 
is approved. 
 
I considered the totality of Applicant’s ties to Thailand. I also considered the 
nature of the Thailand government, its human rights record, its relationships with China 
and the United States, and the risk of terrorism. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) have been raised 
by the evidence. However, Applicant’s ties to Thailand are outweighed by his deep and 
longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States. I find that it is unlikely 
Applicant will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of the 
United States and the interests of Thailand. There is no conflict of interest, because 
Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United 
States. AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b) are applicable.  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s foreign connections 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. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided 
for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Edward W. Loughran 
Administrative Judge