1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
[Name redacted]  )  ISCR Case No. 15-06593 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Charles Hale, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
On March 19, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the 
security concern under Guideline B, Foreign Influence. The action was taken under 
Executive Order (EO) 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) implemented within the 
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. On June 8, 2017, the AGs were updated 
and cancelled the AGs effective September 2006.  This decision will be decided based 
on the new AGs. If I were to consider this case under the AGs effective September 1, 
2006, it would result in the same outcome.  
  
On March 29, 2016, Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on May 19, 
2016. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on February 15, 2017. 
The case was transferred to me on May 22, 2017. On June 22, 2017, a Notice of 
Hearing was issued, scheduling the hearing for July 19, 2017. The hearing was held as 
scheduled. During the hearing, the Government offered two exhibits which were 
admitted without objection as Government (Gov) Exhibits 1 - 2.  Applicant testified and 
offered one exhibit, which was admitted as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A, without objection. 
2 
 
The Government requested administrative notice be taken of certain facts regarding the 
country of India. The administrative notice document was marked as Hearing Exhibit 
(HE) I.  After the hearing, Applicant submitted an additional document.  It was marked 
and admitted as AE B. Department Counsel had no objection to AE B. The transcript 
was received on July 26, 2017. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and 
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
 
Administrative Notice – India     
 
  The facts administratively noticed are limited to matters of general knowledge 
and matters not subject to reasonable dispute.  
 
  India is a multiparty, federal, parliamentary democracy, with a bicameral 
parliament and a population of approximately 1.1 billion. India has diplomatic relations 
with the United States. India and the United States pledged that both countries 
promised greater cooperation in countering terrorist networks and information sharing. 
India continues to experience terrorist and insurgent activities which may affect U.S.  
citizens directly or indirectly. Anti-Western terrorist groups, some on the U.S. 
government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, are active in India. Past attacks have 
targeted public places, including some frequented by Westerners, such as luxury and 
other hotels, trains, train stations, markets, cinemas, mosques, and restaurants in large 
urban areas.   
 
  India’s size, population, and strategic location give it a prominent voice in 
international affairs. India has always been an active member of the United Nations. 
The United States and India have differences over India’s nuclear weapons programs, 
the pace of India’s economic reforms, and India’s bilateral strategic partnership with 
Iran. The United States recognizes India is important to the United States strategic 
interests. The strategic partnership between the United States and India is based on 
shared values such as democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law.  
 
  The United States is India’s largest foreign investment partner. Since December 
2006, direct civilian nuclear commerce with India has been permitted. The two countries 
have a common interest in fighting terrorism, creating a strategically stable Asia, and 
the free flow of commerce and resources, including through the vital sea lanes of the 
Indian Ocean.  
 
  In the past, India had long-standing military supply relationships with the Soviet 
Union, and Russia remains India’s largest supplier of military systems and spare parts. 
India is one of many countries engaged in economic intelligence collection and 
industrial espionage directed at the United States. The United States has economic 
issues with India regarding protection of intellectual property rights and trade in dual-use 
technology. There have been numerous incidents of international businesses illegally 
exporting, or attempting to export restricted, dual-use technology from the United States 
to India.  
 
  The Indian government generally respects the rights of its citizens, but continues 
to have serious human rights problems including police and security force abuses,  
3 
 
extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, rape, and widespread corruption that 
contributed to ineffective responses to crimes.  Other human rights problems include 
disappearances, hazardous prison conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, and 
lengthy pretrial detention. Rape, domestic violence, dowry-related deaths, honor killings, 
sexual harassment, and discrimination against women remain serious problems. A lack 
of accountability for misconduct at all levels of government persists. Investigations and 
prosecutions of individuals take place, but lax enforcement, a shortage of trained police 
officers, and an overburdened and under-resourced court system contribute to 
infrequent convictions. (Admin Not 1)  
  
     Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a Department of Defense contractor who 
is applying for a security clearance for the first time. She has worked for her employer 
since June 2000. She is married and has no children.  (Note: The facts in this decision 
do not specifically describe employment, names of witnesses, or locations in order to 
protect Applicant’s and her family’s privacy. The cited sources contain more specific 
information.) (Gov 1) 
 
Applicant was born and raised in India. She was educated in India. She was 
awarded a college degree from a university in India.  In 1999, she moved to the United 
States on a permanent basis. She became a U.S. citizen in 2008. Her husband is also a 
United States citizen and resides in the United States. (Tr. 47-48; Gov 1) 
 
Applicant’s father, father-in-law, and sister are citizens of and reside in India.  Her 
mother-in-law passed away in 2015. Her father was an engineer for the Indian Nuclear 
Fuel Complex, but retired 15 years ago. Her mother is a housewife.  Her sister is a 
teacher. Her father-in-law was employed by the Indian State Department of Revenue, 
but retired 36 years ago. (Tr. 16, 37-41)  
 
Applicant has traveled to India to visit her family on several occasions. In October 
2003, she traveled to visit her family for more than 30 days. It was the first time she 
traveled to India since moving to the U.S. in 1999 and after becoming a U.S. permanent 
resident.  In 2005, she traveled to India to attend her sister’s funeral. In 2006, she 
travelled to India to attend the wedding of her husband’s niece and to visit with family.  
In 2007, she traveled to visit her father-in-law who received a cancer diagnosis. In 2010, 
she traveled to visit her mother who had health issues. In 2014, Applicant traveled to 
India to attend her mother’s funeral. In February 2015, she traveled to India to attend 
her mother-in-law’s funeral. She and her husband have not traveled to India since this 
trip. She will travel to visit her father in the future, but currently there are no trips 
planned. (Tr. 18 – 26; Gov 1, section 20C)  
 
Applicant and her husband have several bank accounts in India. Applicant has a 
bank account solely in her name with a balance of $3,500. In January 2014, she was 
listed as a co-owner of a joint account with her husband that has a balance of $33,000.  
They also share a joint bank account with a $1,500 balance. Applicant does not use 
these accounts on a regular basis. They access the accounts when they visit India. 
They do not rely on the accounts for income. (Tr. 27-30; Gov 1 at 30 – 31) 
4 
 
 
Applicant and her husband own several properties in India.  In March 2007, they 
purchased an apartment for $28,000. Applicant’s father has a power of attorney and 
manages the apartment property. They also own two parcels of land. One parcel was 
purchased in April 2008 for $8,000. The other parcel in 2006 for about $2,000.  Both 
parcels are undeveloped and were purchased for investment purposes. (Tr. 30-36;  Gov 
1 at 30-34) They have no additional foreign properties or accounts. 
 
Applicant testified that presently the total cash value of the bank accounts in 
India was between $25,000 and $30,000.  The total cash value of the apartment and 
properties in India is around $17,000.  (Tr. 45-46)  She earns an annual salary in the 
U.S. of approximately $150,000. Applicant’s total assets in the U.S. are valued at 
around $1 million. (Tr. 48-49; AE B at 2) 
 
After becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant traveled to India with her U.S. passport 
and her Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. When Applicant became a U.S. citizen, 
she renounced her Indian citizenship. Applicant’s OCI card is essentially a multiple entry 
visa and facilitates her travel to India. It does not grant any privileges of Indian 
citizenship, except for unlimited travel to and from India. (Tr. 18 42-44; AE A at 4-5) 
 
The chairman and CEO of Applicant’s company provided a letter on her behalf. 
He states Applicant is a highly professional and trustworthy employee. She has been an 
employee for 17 years. He describes Applicant as sincere, hardworking, and reliable. 
She respects privacy rules, laws, and regulations. The company trusts her and has no 
reason to doubt or question her ethics and worth. In June 2016, she was Employee of 
the Month. He recommends Applicant for a security clearance. (AE A at 3) 
 
Applicant testified that she considers the national security of the U.S. as a prime 
responsibility. She would never do anything to compromise U.S. national security. (Tr. 
17)  
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating 
conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified 
information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 
the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the 
“whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a 
decision. 
 
5 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access for national 
security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship 
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government 
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to 
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified 
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation 
as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
  
Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national 
interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access 
to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
AG ¶ 6 explains the Government’s concern under Foreign Influence:   
 
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. 
 
AG ¶ 7 lists conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following apply to Applicant’s case: 
 
(a) contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business 
or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or 
6 
 
resident in a foreign  country if that contact creates a heightened risk of 
foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to 
protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the 
individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing 
that information or technology; 
 
 (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 
exploitation or personal conflict of interest;  
 
  Several foreign and indigenous terrorist groups within India create a heightened 
risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. AG ¶ 7(a) 
raises a security concern regarding Applicant’s immediate family members including her 
father-in-law, who are citizens of and reside in India.  
 
  AG ¶ 7(b) is applicable because Applicant’s connections with her extended family 
members in India create a potential conflict of interest between Applicant’s obligation to 
protect sensitive information or technology and her desire to help her extended family 
members by providing that information.   
 
  AG & 7(f) applies because Applicant has several bank accounts and several 
properties in India, to include an apartment and two small parcels of land.  
   
AG ¶ 8 lists conditions that could mitigate foreign influence security concerns. Of 
these conditions, four potentially apply to Applicant’s case: 
 
 (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; 
 
(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; 
  
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and 
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign 
influence or exploitation; and 
 
7 
 
(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. 
 
AG ¶ 8(a) applies because Applicant’s family members in India are not in 
positions that may result in her having to choose the interests of the foreign government 
over the interests of the United States.  Applicant’s father has been retired for over 15 
years. Her father-in-law has been retired for over 35 years. Her sister is a teacher. Her 
family members in India are not in positions that may make Applicant vulnerable to 
compromise.  
 
I find AG & 8(b) applies. While Applicant has familial obligations to her relatives 
and in-laws who are citizens of and reside in India, her husband resides with her in the 
United States. He is a U.S. citizen.  Applicant has longstanding ties to the United States, 
having lived in the United States since 1999. She has worked for the same company in 
the United States for 17 years.  Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict in 
favor of U.S. interests.   
 
AG ¶ 8 (c) does not apply because Applicant’s relationship with her family 
members in India cannot be described as casual and infrequent.  
 
AG & 8(f) applies. Applicant’s assets in the United States are over $1 million.  
While she and her husband have some bank accounts and own some real estate in 
India, the value of Applicant’s U.S. assets far outweigh the value of her assets in India. 
This makes it unlikely that a conflict would arise regarding Applicant’s assets in India 
that would place her in a compromising position. Security concerns raised under 
Foreign Influence are mitigated.  
   
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
(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 
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.  
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
8 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant moved to the 
United States in 1999. She and her husband are U.S. citizens. She has worked for the 
same company since 2000 and is a highly regarded employee. While Applicant is close 
to her immediate family members and in-laws who reside in India, she has established 
herself in the United States. She has a successful career. Her assets in the United 
States outweigh her assets in India.  Applicant mitigated the concerns raised under 
Foreign Influence.  
 
Formal Findings 
  
Formal findings for or against Applicant 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 B:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.f:    For Applicant 
   
      Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is  
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
                                                
_________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
Administrative Judge