1 
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-07069 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GARCIA, Candace Le’i, Administrative Judge: 
On May 6, 2016, 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 May 18, 2016, and requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 14, 2017. The hearing 
was held as scheduled on September 18, 2017. On October 5, 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 65-year-old, native-born U.S. citizen who has worked as a 
consultant for a defense contractor since 2014. He served honorably in the U.S. military 
from 1970 until he retired in 2007. He was first granted a DOD security clearance in 
1992. Applicant has been married and divorced three times. His most recent marriage 
ended in August 2017.  
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. 
10/23/2017
 
2 
 
At the time of the SOR, Applicant’s third wife and her son, both native-born 
citizens of Ukraine, were residing with Applicant in the United States. In addition, her 
parents, both Ukrainian citizens, resided in Ukraine. Applicant divorced in August 2017. 
Since the divorce, Applicant has not had any contact with his ex-wife, her son, and her 
parents.  
  
 Applicant does not have any remaining ties to Ukraine. AG ¶¶ 7(a) through 7(i) 
have not been raised by the evidence. There is no 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 him 
eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Candace Le’i Garcia 
Administrative Judge