1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
)
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-07665 
) 
In the matter of: 
 Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns for 
financial considerations under Guideline F, foreign influence under Guideline B, and 
personal conduct under Guideline E. Applicant presented sufficient information to 
mitigate foreign preference security concerns under Guideline C. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On September 26, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for 
employment with a defense contractor. (Item 3) A security investigator from the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) interviewed Applicant on September 3, 2015. (Item 4, 
Personal Subject Interview (PSI)) After reviewing the background investigation, the 
Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the affirmative findings required to issue 
a security clearance. On June 5, 2016, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 
Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F, for 
foreign influence under Guideline B, for foreign preference under Guideline C, and for 
personal conduct under Guideline E. (Item 1) The action was taken under Executive 
 
2 
 
 
Order 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) effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006.  
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence 
issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AGS), which he made applicable to all covered individuals 
who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility 
to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the September 1, 2006 AGs, and 
are effective on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security 
clearance eligibility under the new AGs. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on July 6, 2016. He denied the seven allegations 
under Guideline F, the five allegations under Guideline B, the two allegations under 
Guideline C, and the one allegation under Guideline E. He provided detailed information 
in support of his denials. He requested that the matter be decided on the written record. 
(Item 2) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on August 24, 
2015. (Item 9) Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on 
September 8, 2016, and he was provided the opportunity to file objections and to submit 
material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant did not 
file a response to the FORM. I was assigned the case on October 1, 2017. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the PSI (Item 4) was not 
authenticated and could not be considered over his objection. He was further advised 
that he could make any corrections, additions, or deletions to the summary to make it 
clear and accurate. He was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the 
summary, the administrative judge could determine that he waived any objection to the 
admissibility of the PSI summary. Applicant did not respond to the FORM, so he did not 
raise any objection to consideration of the PSI. Since there is no objection by Applicant, 
I considered information in the PSI in my decision. 
 
 Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of relevant facts 
concerning Nigeria. The request and supporting documents are attached to the FORM 
as Item 8. Applicant did not object to the request or the facts. I took administrative 
notice as requested. The facts concerning Nigeria are set out below in my decision.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After thoroughly reviewing the case file, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 48 years old. He was born in Nigeria in February 1970. He received most of 
his schooling in Nigeria. He received a bachelor’s degree from a Nigeria university in 
July 1995. He also received an associate’s degree from a United States university in 
 
3 
 
 
May 2011. He immigrated to the United States in August 1999. He worked as an 
automotive technician for various companies until September 2012, when he started 
work as a materials specialist for his present employer, a federal contractor. His e-QIP 
states that he is employed by the DOD contractor to work in Afghanistan at a United 
States-controlled air base. This is Applicant’s first application to be granted eligibility for 
access to classified information.  
 
 Applicant married a United States citizen in April 2000 and they divorced in 
October 2010. They did not have any children. Based on his first wife’s United States 
citizenship, Applicant became a United States citizen in November 2010. Applicant 
married his present wife, who was born in Nigeria, in June 2011. His present wife is a 
citizen of Nigeria but a resident of the United Kingdom. They have one child who also 
resides with applicant’s wife in the United Kingdom. (Item 3, e-QIP, dated September 
26, 2012; Item 4, PSI, dated September 3, 2015) 
 
 Under foreign preference, the SOR alleges that Applicant obtained a Nigerian 
passport in June 2011 after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. That passport does not 
expire until June 2016 (SOR 1.a).1 The SOR also alleges that Applicant used his 
Nigerian passport in lieu of a U.S. passport to travel to Nigeria in 2011 and 2015, and to 
the United Kingdom in 2011. (SOR 1.b) Under foreign influence, the SOR alleges that 
his mother is a citizen of Nigeria (SOR 2.a), his three brothers are citizens and residents 
of Nigeria (SOR 2.b), his sister is a citizen of Nigeria (SOR 2.c), and his mother and 
father-in-law are both citizens of Nigeria. (SOR 2.d and 2.e) Under the financial 
considerations security concerns, the SOR lists and credit reports (Item 5, dated 
October 6, 2012, Item 6, dated August 18, 2015, Item 7, dated April 8, 2016) confirm the 
following delinquent debts: a credit card account in collection for $6,095 for bank A 
(SOR 3.a); another account to a school in collection for $4,693 (SOR 3.b); a credit card 
account in collection for $4,646 for bank A (SOR 3.c); a telephone service account in 
collection for $89 (SOR 3.d); a debt for a broken apartment lease in collection for $224 
(SOR 1.e); two telephone service accounts to different companies in collection for $309 
(SOR 1.f), and $200 (SOR 1.g). The total amount of the alleged delinquent debt is 
$16,256. Under the personal conduct security concern, the SOR alleges that Applicant 
failed to list his delinquent debts on his security clearance application. (SOR 4.a) 
Applicant denied all of the allegations with a detailed explanation. (Item 2, Response to 
SOR, dated July 6, 2016)  
 
 Applicant did not disclose that he possessed a foreign passport on his e-QIP. He 
noted that he was a dual citizen of the United States and Nigeria, and that he has not 
taken any action to renounce his Nigerian citizenship. He disclosed his possession of a 
foreign passport during the PSI. Applicant retained and subsequently renewed his 
Nigerian passport after becoming a United States citizen to facilitate his entry into 
Nigeria when he visits his family. He admits that he used his Nigerian passport in lieu of 
his United States passport when entering Nigerian as late as June 2016. He stated that 
he used his U.S. passport to enter the United Kingdom to visit his family. He did not 
                                                          
1 The date for the SOR is June 5, 2016. In his response to the SOR, Applicant indicates that the Nigerian 
passport has been renewed.  
 
4 
 
 
indicate a willingness to relinquish his Nigerian passport, but does state that he intends 
to continue to renew his Nigerian passport. He said he does not remember signing an 
agreement when he became a United States citizen to forget he was born in Nigeria 
and abandon his Nigerian citizenship. He notes that it is not worth the emotional and 
financial toll and stress to get a Nigerian visa with his United States passport when he 
travels to Nigeria. With his Nigerian passport, he can return to Nigeria without obtaining 
a Nigerian visa. (Item 3, e-QIP, dated September 26, 2012; Item 4, PSI, dated 
September 3, 2015) 
 
 In his security clearance application, Applicant notes that his mother was a 
citizen of Nigeria residing in the United States, and that his father was a citizen and 
resident of Nigeria. He does not mention his three brothers. He reports that his sister is 
a citizen and resident of Nigeria, and notes that his in-laws are citizens of Nigeria 
residing in the United Kingdom. (Item 3, dated September 26, 2012) 
 
 In the PSI, Applicant states that he has three brothers who are citizens and 
residents of Nigeria. Applicant reported that the brothers are a postal service worker, a 
truck driver, and a newspaper editor. In his response to the SOR, Applicant notes that 
his father passed away in 2014 and his mother is now a citizen and resident of the 
United States. He also reports that his brothers all own their own businesses and travel 
often to the United States. In his security clearance application and in his response to 
the SOR, Applicant notes that his sister is a citizen of Nigeria residing with her husband, 
a German citizen, in Germany. He also notes that his in-laws and his wife are citizens of 
Nigeria, but reside in the United Kingdom. Applicant talks to his brothers by phone 
approximately weekly to twice a month. He visited Nigeria in 2011, and did have contact 
with his brothers. (Item 4, PSI, dated September 3, 2015) 
 
 Two of Applicant’s delinquent debts (SOR 3.a and 3.c) are credit card accounts 
owed to the same bank. Applicant notes he only has one account with the bank. All of 
the credit reports presented by the Government list two accounts with the bank. After 
making monthly payments, Applicant stopped receiving notices from the bank. When he 
called the bank, he was informed the debts had gone to collection. He never received 
any notices from the collection agency. He may not have received notices because his 
address had changed. As to the debt at SOR 3.b, Applicant explained that the debt was 
from a school he attended to become a real estate agent. When he was informed that 
additional courses were required, he requested a refund and planned to hire an 
attorney. In his response to the SOR, Applicant states he knows nothing about the debt, 
and someone must have stolen his personal information. If the creditor can prove he 
owes the debt, the creditor can contact him. He denies the debt at SOR 3.e concerning 
damage to an apartment, stating that the apartment management company is a cheat 
and rip-off and he would not pay them. He denies the telephone service debts at SOR 
3.e, 3.f, and 3.g. He stated he makes enough in a year that he can pay the debts 
without any problem. Applicant did not present documents to verify that any debts had 
been paid or resolved. He states he did not list his debts on his security clearance 
application because he was not aware of the debts.  
 
 
5 
 
 
 Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, largest producer of oil and its second 
largest economy. The people are roughly divided between Christian and Muslim. U.S. 
diplomatic relations with Nigeria have improved since the country made the transition 
from military to civilian rule in 1999. Nigeria is a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and 
an influential country in African politics.  
 
 Nigeria is a country of significant promise, but it also faces serious social, 
economic, and security challenges that have the potential to threaten the stability of 
both the state and the region. The country has faced intermittent political turmoil and 
economic crises since its independence. Political life has been scarred by conflict along 
ethnic, geographic, and religious lines. Corruption and misrule have undermined the 
authority and legitimacy of the state. Nigeria’s human development indicators are 
among the world’s lowest. A majority of the population suffers from extreme poverty, 
and there is social unrest, criminality, and corruption. Corruption is massive, 
widespread, and pervasive. Nigeria’s political system rewards rather than punishes 
corruption. 
 
 The most serious human rights problems are committed by the military sect 
known, Boko Haram. They have conducted numerous attacks on government and 
civilian targets throughout the country, resulting in thousands of deaths, injuries, 
widespread destruction, forced internal displacement, and the flight of refugees to 
neighboring countries. In response to Boko Haram, the security forces perpetuate extra-
judicial killings, and engage in torture, rape, arbitrary detention, mistreatment of 
detainees and destruction of property. The country also suffers from widespread 
societal violence, including ethic, regional, religious violence, vigilante killings, and 
official corruption. Nigerian security forces, particularly the police, have been accused of 
serious human rights abuses.  
 
 Boko Haram, a violent Nigerian Islamist movement, has grown increasingly 
active and deadly in its attacks against government and civilian targets. In April 2014, 
Boko Haram kidnapped over 300 school girls. There have also been periodic attacks 
against foreign targets and growing ties to Al Qaeda. Boko Haram was designated a 
foreign terrorist organization in November 2013. The U.S. State Department warns U.S. 
citizens of the risks of travel to Nigeria and recommend that U.S. citizens avoid travel to 
parts of the country because of the security situation. Boko Haram will remain a threat 
to Nigeria and will continue its terror campaign. 
 
 In the coming years, the Nigerian government will confront a wide range of 
challenges, many of which are deeply rooted and have no “quick fix.” The tasks include 
reviving a struggling economy, reining in corruption, and developing power, agriculture, 
and transportation systems. Kidnapping will remain a security concern, particularly from 
criminal elements orchestrating kidnappings for ransom. 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 
6 
 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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 overarching 
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. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of 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 for 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 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 
 
7 
 
 
regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. An individual 
who is financially irresponsible, may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in 
his obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in 
one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects 
of life. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in 
illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. (AG ¶ 18).  
 
 A person’s relationship with his or her creditors is a private matter until evidence 
is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to meet financial obligations. 
Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk inconsistent 
with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is required to manage his or her 
finances in such a way as to meet financial obligations.  
 
Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Credit reports confirm the delinquent debts 
listed in the SOR. This information is sufficient to raise security concerns under 
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19: 
 
 (a) inability to satisfy debts,  
 
 (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and   
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.  
 
 Once the Government has established the adverse financial issue, the Applicant 
has the responsibility to refute or mitigate the issue. Based on the information provided 
by Applicant, I considered the following Financial Consideration Mitigating Conditions 
under AG ¶ 20: 
 
(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; 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g. loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or 
separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity 
theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from 
a legitimate and credible sources, such as a non-profit credit counselling 
service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved 
or is under control; and 
 
8 
 
 
(d) the individual has initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 The mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant’s debts are numerous and are 
not resolved, so they are recent. Applicant did not provide information concerning 
financial counseling or participation in debt consolidation programs. Good faith means 
acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty 
and obligation. Applicant is not required to be debt-free nor must his plan require paying 
off all debts immediately or simultaneously. All that is required is that Applicant act 
responsibly given his circumstances. Applicant must establish that he has a reasonable 
plan to resolve financial problems, and that he has taken significant action to implement 
that plan. Applicant’s plan must show a systematic method of handling debts, and 
Applicant must establish a meaningful track record of debt payment. A promise to pay 
delinquent debts is not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner 
and acting in a financially responsible manner.  
 
Applicant did not provide information to establish that he resolved the debts 
alleged in the SOR, or that he had a plan of how he will pay or resolve the debts. 
Applicant has been gainfully employed since September 2012, and he seems to have 
sufficient income to resolve his delinquent debts. Applicant did not establish that he 
acted reasonably under the circumstances. Applicant presented no evidence of debt 
payments or resolution of any debts. He did not develop or present plans to pay his 
delinquent debts. He did not provide documentation to show proof of payments, 
correspondence to or from the creditors to establish maintenance of contact, copies of 
debt disputes, evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, or other evidence of 
progress or resolution. There is no clear evidence that his debt problems have been 
resolved, so his finances are not under control. There is insufficient evidence to 
establish why Applicant was unable to make greater progress resolving his debts.  
 
 Applicant’s ability to resolve his financial problems are within his means and 
control. Since he did not present a plan to resolve his financial problems or make an 
effort to pay or resolve his delinquent debts, he has not established a good-faith effort to 
pay his debts. His lack of reasonable and responsible actions towards his finances is a 
strong indication that he will not protect and safeguard classified or sensitive 
information. Applicant did not present sufficient information to mitigate financial security 
concerns. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 Personal conduct is a security concern because conduct involving questionable 
judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and 
ability to protect classified and sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative 
processes. (AG ¶ 15). Personal conduct is always a security concern because it 
indicates whether the person’s past conduct justifies confidence that the person can be 
 
9 
 
 
trusted to properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. Authorization for a 
security clearance depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information. 
If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process 
cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified or sensitive 
information is in the best interest of the United States Government.  
 While there is a security concern for a deliberate omission, concealment, or 
falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the 
Government when applying for a security clearance, not every omission, concealment, 
or inaccurate statement is a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate and material. 
It is deliberate if done knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive. 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant did not provide full, complete, and accurate 
information concerning the status of his finances. Applicant’s failure to list his delinquent 
debts on his e-QIP raises a security concern under Personal Conduct Disqualifying 
Condition AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts 
from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form 
used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or 
status, determine eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities). 
 
 Applicant denied that he intentionally withheld full, complete, and accurate 
information on his security clearance application. He did not list any delinquent debts on 
his e-QIP. Applicant had to know that he had credit card debt when he completed his e-
QIP. The debts are large and not easy to forget and ignore. He may not have known all 
of the details of his financial situation, but he knew he had delinquent debt. Applicant’s 
failure to list any delinquent debt on the e-QIP was deliberate with an intent to hide a 
true picture of his financial situation. His failure to provide the correct information 
obscured the full extent of his financial situation from adjudicators. I find Applicant 
deliberately failed to provide correct and accurate information concerning his debts on 
his e-QIP.  
 
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 
interests 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 ¶ 6)  
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant’s mother, three brothers, sister, and in-laws, are 
citizens and residents of Nigeria. Applicant has presented sufficient evidence that his 
 
10 
 
 
mother is now a U.S. citizen residing in the United States; that his sister is still a 
Nigerian citizen, but now resides in Germany with her husband; and his in-laws are still 
Nigerian citizens, but reside with Applicant’s wife in the United Kingdom. These family 
members are no longer a security concern because of their change in status. 
Applicant’s three brothers, as citizens and resident of Nigeria, remain a security 
concerns. Applicant talks by phone with each of his brothers approximately weekly to 
twice a month, and saw them on his last reported visit to Nigeria in 2011.  
 
 The threat of terrorist attacks in Nigeria is ongoing, and the U.S. Government 
warns that American interests could be the focus of such attacks. Because of terrorist 
threats, corruption, violence, and human rights violations, the security concerns in 
Nigeria are substantial. Nigeria has and continues to have dangerous and destabilizing 
terrorists’ activities and has seen an increase in violence against civilians. There is a 
sense of violence creating unsafe and unstable conditions. These factors place a 
heightened risk of exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion on 
Applicant because of the presence of his brothers in Nigeria.  
 
 In spite of his limited contact with his brothers, Applicant’s brothers in Nigeria are 
a security concern because of violence and instability raising the following Foreign 
Influence Disqualifying Conditions under 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; and 
 
(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. 
 
 The mere existence of foreign relationships and contacts is not sufficient to raise 
the above disqualifying conditions. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) requires substantial evidence of 
a “heightened risk.” The “heightened risk” required to raise one of these disqualifying 
conditions is a relatively low standard. “Heightened risk” denotes a risk greater than the 
normal risk inherent in having a family member living under a foreign government. The 
nature of Applicant’s contacts and relationships must be examined to determine 
whether it creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, 
pressure, or coercion. One factor that may heighten the risk in Applicant's case is the 
increased violence, human rights violations, and active terrorist activities in Nigeria. An 
applicant with foreign family ties to a country that presents a heightened risk has a 
heavy burden of persuasion to show that neither he nor the family members are subject 
to influence by that country. The totality of an applicant’s family ties to a foreign country 
as well as each individual family tie must be considered. There is a risk presented 
because Applicant’s brothers are citizens and residents of Nigeria, and Nigeria suffers 
 
11 
 
 
widespread societal violence, including ethnic, regional, and religious violence, as well 
as human rights violations including vigilante killings and official corruption. 
 
 I considered Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 8: 
 
(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; and  
 
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual or 
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign 
influence or exploitation.  
 
 There is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for or 
obligation to immediate family members. Applicant has contacts with his brothers in 
Nigeria by phone calls and infrequent visits. These facts show a close and continuing 
contact between Applicant and his brothers in Nigeria, and indicates that Applicant’s 
sense of loyalty to the brothers is high rather than minimal.  
 
 Applicant’s ties and sense of loyalty to the United States are not extensive. He 
has lived in the United States for 18 years, and has been a United States citizen for only 
eight years. His first wife was a United States citizen who sponsored him for his United 
States citizenship. His second wife and his child do not live in the United States, but in 
the United Kingdom. After receiving his U.S. citizenship, he renewed his Nigerian 
passport, and used that passport to enter and leave Nigeria. Applicant did not present 
sufficient evidence to establish that he lives an American way of life and calls the United 
States his home.   
 
 Applicant’s brothers in Nigeria can place him in a position to have to choose 
between the interest of the brothers and the interests of the United States. Even if his 
family members are only ordinary citizens, the situation in Nigeria is such that through 
them Applicant can be vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or inducement to provide 
protected information. His connection and loyalty to the United States is not so deep 
and longstanding that he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of 
United States interests. Accordingly, Applicant has not met his heavy burden to show 
that his relationships with his brothers in Nigeria is not a security concern. I conclude 
Appellant has not mitigated security concerns for foreign influence.  
 
12 
 
 
Foreign Preference 
 
 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 judgement, 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 
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.  
 
 Applicant renewed his Nigerian passport after he became a United States citizen 
and receiving a United States passport. He used his Nigerian passport to enter and 
leave Nigeria, but used his United States passport for all other travel. He did not 
disclose his possession of the Nigerian passport on his e-QIP, but he did disclose it 
during the PSI.  
 
 This information raises the following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 10: 
 
(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; and 
 
(c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S. 
 
 Applicant has a current Nigerian passport that he uses to enter and exit Nigeria. 
Applicant received a Nigerian passport because he was born in that country giving him 
a reasonable and legitimate reason for maintaining possession of a Nigerian passport. 
He renewed the Nigerian passport because under Nigerian law as a dual citizen, he can 
ease his enter and exit of Nigeria by use of a Nigerian passport. Available evidence 
shows that he uses the Nigerian passport only to enter and exit Nigeria. On all other 
foreign travel, he uses his United States passport. Applicant’s possession of a foreign 
passport under these circumstances does not indicate a conflict with U.S. national 
interests. He disclosed his possession of the Nigerian passport and he does not attempt 
to conceal that fact. While Applicant has not denounced his Nigerian citizenship, his 
mere possession of a Nigeria passport under the circumstances does not demonstrate 
any preference for Nigerian over the United States. His possession and use of the 
Nigerian passport under these circumstances is not in conflict with national security and 
does not pose a national security threat. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
 
13 
 
 
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 
access to classified information must be an overall common-sense judgment based 
upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. In requesting an administrative 
determination, Applicant chose to rely on the written record. In so doing, he must 
sufficiently supplemented the record with relevant and material facts regarding his 
financial circumstances, foreign preference and influence, and personal conduct, and 
adequately articulate his positions, and provide facts to mitigate the security concerns. 
In short, the file as a whole does not contain sufficient information to mitigate foreign 
influence or personal conduct security concerns, as well as sufficient evidence to 
establish that he made adequate efforts to pay, settle, compromise, or otherwise 
resolve his delinquent accounts. He presented sufficient information to mitigate security 
concern over his possession and use of a Nigerian passport.  
 
 Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts concerning 
Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Applicant did not establish his 
suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations, personal conduct, and foreign 
influence security concerns. He mitigated foreign preference security concerns. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
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 C:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b: For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline B:   AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
 
14 
 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 2.b:   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.c – 2.e:  For Applicant 
  
 Paragraph 3, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a – 3.g:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 4, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 4.a:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to 
classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge