ZXlP j-q4u`:뵆(@H2%4N [GӖϚt30
I ʞU<`xR:s 0GHe)B/INF)1 h Ƒ V qN/_8t(Z@9ic5Ď0F]e1/Azur$`68h),lpYYv
ʳfb̥QMpٶ"ZpSd[cgOĚl|L{>w=p5/+3ʍ*TAM TLkU]B_m۪&b-0G4jtSmMUmJn8y ZQ
!us$W*B{*B˪,'8ö2 vB4_ P!uX QG1u=m/[P'm W2&;[D<\/kFQ|Aijq(p$EL i2N%O @)e,el"D씃rR.My(/i(ME*Db@)ӝtg}Kw+Zѩ1Q0*I4TBO=FAEh"E$LSSJ3\P/+ZQzޫ>Â]c͆ӱe9gLpV9sr.y8/%Mn_q7M\ȝ隸 ܅\pQ..rs @`.!\Kqiw]
.e +Ujw
\+qeUW\kqmu $pcnM7ܒ[f 6ܖq{ w.5Mw^ܛp_y o; ăMI2fI1 xa>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[481.0 633.0 497.0 644.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[444.0 616.0 460.0 627.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
56 0 obj
[58 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R]
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98-0507.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:07 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(contrary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(to law: \(a\) the Judge erred by focusing on the legal status of Applica\
nt's dual citizenship instead of focusing on)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security significance of Applicant's voluntary procurement of FC citizen\
ship; \(b\) the record evidence does not)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(support the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's conclusion that Applicant has demonstrated his preference for th\
e United States; \(c\) the Judge's)Tj
T*
(rationale for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearing Applicant with respect to Criterion B is implausible, reflects \
a clear error of judgment, and fails to)Tj
T*
(consider an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(important aspect of the case; and \(d\) the totality of the Judge's erro\
rs warrants reversal, or in the alternative,)Tj
T*
(remand.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(a\) )Tj
(Legal status of Applicant's dual citizenship)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 661.5 cm
0 0 m
206.443 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 238.7617 662.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel's argument on this point has mixed merit. )Tj
25.787 0 Td
(A close)Tj
-44.351 -1.125 Td
(reading of the Administrative Judge's decision shows she did not do quit\
e what Department Counsel claims she did. )Tj
46.589 0 Td
(The)Tj
-46.589 -1.125 Td
(Judge stated --- in connection with Applicant's use of an FC passport --\
- that "[c]onduct potentially indicative of foreign)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(preference may still be of security concern despite its legality if it i\
ncreases the risk of an individual making decisions)Tj
T*
(influenced by needs, desires, or aims of a foreign nation." )Tj
23.318 0 Td
(Later in the same paragraph, the Judge referred to statements)Tj
-23.318 -1.375 Td
(Applicant claims were made to him by United States embassy personnel)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 363.25 596.25 Tm
(\(12\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 363.25 595.5 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 379.4937 591.75 Tm
( and FC government officials. )Tj
12.22 0 Td
(However, the)Tj
-42.511 -1.125 Td
(Judge did so in connection with the Judge's consideration of Applicant's\
state of mind when he decided to become an FC)Tj
T*
(citizen, not the legality of Applicant's decision. )Tj
19.092 0 Td
(Accordingly, Department Counsel's argument lacks merit to the extent it)Tj
-19.092 -1.125 Td
(is based on the contention that the Administrative Judge relied on the l\
egality of Applicant's conduct to reach favorable)Tj
T*
(conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel's argument has merit to the extent it contends the Ad\
ministrative Judge failed to give due)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consideration to the security significance of Applicant's voluntary proc\
urement of FC citizenship. )Tj
39.253 0 Td
(The exercise of dual)Tj
-39.253 -1.125 Td
(citizenship places a person in a position of being subject to duties or \
obligations owed to two different countries, which)Tj
T*
(could subject the person to competing or conflicting claims. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
24.216 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 98-0419 \(April 30, 1999\) at p. 8. )Tj
(A)Tj
-24.216 -1.125 Td
(person who voluntarily obtains the citizenship of a foreign country as a\
n adult is taking an action that is fraught with)Tj
T*
(serious implications for the person's allegiance, duties, and obligation\
s. )Tj
28.729 0 Td
(Those implications, in turn, raise serious)Tj
-28.729 -1.125 Td
(questions about the person's security eligibility. )Tj
19.261 0 Td
(An applicant faced with competing claims from two different countries)Tj
-19.261 -1.125 Td
(based on citizenship in those countries )Tj
15.663 0 Td
(may confront the dilemma of how to reconcile those competing claims and \
still)Tj
-15.663 -1.125 Td
(faithfully fulfill the fiduciary obligations associated with being grant\
ed a security clearance. )Tj
37.015 0 Td
(Accordingly, an applicant)Tj
-37.015 -1.125 Td
(who, as an adult, voluntarily assumes the responsibilities of foreign ci\
tizenship has a heavier burden to overcome than)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(does someone who has foreign citizenship by birth.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 262.6152 378.75 Tm
(\(13\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 262.6152 378 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 348.75 Tm
(\(b\) )Tj
(Applicant's preference for United States)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 348 cm
0 0 m
192.088 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 225.0801 348.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel contends the record evidence runs contrary to the)Tj
-17.423 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant has demonstrated a prefere\
nce for the United States. )Tj
39.613 0 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
-39.613 -1.125 Td
(argues the record evidence shows Applicant has expressed only a conditio\
nal intention of renouncing his FC citizenship)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(and giving up his FC passport, and that Applicant's conditional intentio\
n is more indicative of his preference to keep his)Tj
T*
(job with a defense contractor than a preference for the United States ov\
er FC.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the Administrative Judge erred by\
concluding that Applicant "clearly states" his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(intention to renounce FC citizenship and give up his FC passport. )Tj
26.441 0 Td
(Because that erroneous conclusion was pivotal to the)Tj
-26.441 -1.125 Td
(Judge's analysis under Criterion C, the Board cannot sustain the Judge's\
favorable formal findings under Criterion C.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(c\) )Tj
(Administrative Judge's rationale concerning foreign influence)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 216 cm
0 0 m
296.396 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 328.7148 216.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge concluded Applicant's)Tj
-26.06 -1.125 Td
(family ties in FC did not warrant adverse formal findings under Criterio\
n B because: \(1\) his family members who are)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizens could not exercise foreign influence on Applicant because they \
have no official ties with the FC)Tj
T*
(government; and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(2\) Applicant's financial interests in FC do not make him vulnerable t\
o coercion or undue influence.)Tj
T*
(Department Counsel)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contends the Judge's reasoning is arbitrary and capricious because it ig\
nores the possibility that)Tj
T*
(foreign influence could be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(exercised by a foreign government over an applicant through pressure on \
the applicant's)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(family members located in the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(foreign country.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 242.2598 137.25 Tm
(\(14\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 242.2598 136.5 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 107.25 Tm
(The mere possession of family ties with persons in a foreign country is \
not, as a matter of law, disqualifying under)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Criterion B. )Tj
5.027 0 Td
(The language of Criterion B \(Foreign Influence\) in the Adjudicative Gu\
idelines makes clear that the)Tj
-5.027 -1.125 Td
(possession of such family ties )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.193 0 Td
(may)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( pose a security risk. )Tj
10.108 0 Td
(Whether an applicant's family ties in a foreign country pose a)Tj
-22.302 -1.125 Td
(security risk depends on a common sense evaluation of the overall facts \
and circumstances of those family ties. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
44.736 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-44.736 -1.125 Td
(ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 98-0419 \(April 30, 1999\) at p. 5.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[363.0 594.0 379.0 605.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[262.0 376.0 278.0 387.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[242.0 135.0 258.0 146.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>>
endobj
61 0 obj
[63 0 R 64 0 R 65 0 R]
endobj
62 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98-0507.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:07 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(an applicant's choices or the situations and circumstances that applican\
ts find themselves in as a result of their)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(choices. )Tj
3.499 0 Td
(Even if an applicant chooses to engage in conduct or place himself or he\
rself in a situation that is legally)Tj
-3.499 -1.125 Td
(available, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(government is not precluded from deciding whether the applicant's choice\
has security significance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
45.747 0 Td
(See,)Tj
-45.747 -1.125 Td
(e.g., Gayer v.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Schlesinger)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
10.302 0 Td
(, 490 F.2d 740, 752-54 \(D.C. Cir. 1973\)\(government entitled to deny s\
ecurity clearance to)Tj
-10.302 -1.125 Td
(applicant )Tj
3.915 0 Td
(who)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(refused to provide information based on claim of privacy\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.659 0 Td
(Clifford v. Shoultz)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.306 0 Td
(, 413 F.2d 868 \(9th Cir.)Tj
-36.88 -1.125 Td
(1969\) \(government)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(could suspend applicant's security clearance based on his refusal to ans\
wer questions based on claim)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(of constitutional)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(privilege\), )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.164 0 Td
(cert. denied)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.72 0 Td
(, 396 U.S. 962 \(1969\); ISCR Case No. 98-0349 \(February 3, 1999\) at p\
. 3)Tj
-15.884 -1.125 Td
(\(neither filing for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(bankruptcy nor discharge of debts in bankruptcy precludes consideration \
of security significance of)Tj
T*
(applicant's financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(problems\). )Tj
12.787 0 Td
(Therefore, the fact that Applicant has the right to decide whether to re\
linquish his FC)Tj
-12.787 -1.125 Td
(citizenship and his FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(passport \(and if so when\) does not preclude the government from consid\
ering the security)Tj
T*
(significance of his decision.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(c\) )Tj
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 591 cm
0 0 m
199.307 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 231.625 591.75 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 234.625 596.25 Tm
(\(9\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 234.625 595.5 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 245.9937 591.75 Tm
( )Tj
(Department Counsel argues: \(a\) the Administrative Judge erred by)Tj
-19.166 -1.125 Td
(applying Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3 because it cannot be a\
pplied in a case where the applicant's foreign)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(contacts are family members; and \(b\) the )Tj
16.632 0 Td
(Judge's decision not to apply Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 556.041 566.25 Tm
(\(10\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 556.041 565.5 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 572.2847 561.75 Tm
( was)Tj
-46.357 -1.125 Td
(outcome determinative.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Nothing in the plain language of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition \
3 precludes its application when the foreign)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(citizens in question are immediate family members, a cohabitant, or asso\
ciates of an applicant. )Tj
38.07 0 Td
(Department Counsel's)Tj
-38.07 -1.125 Td
(argument to the contrary is not persuasive. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.273 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 98-0592 \(May 4, 1999\) at p. 7.)Tj
-17.273 -2.125 Td
(It is untenable for Department Counsel to contend that the Administrativ\
e Judge's decision not to apply Foreign)Tj
T*
(Influence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(itigating Condition 1 would require, as a matter of law, an adverse deci\
sion in this case. )Tj
39.322 0 Td
(As discussed earlier)Tj
-39.322 -1.125 Td
(in this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision, the mere presence or absence of an Adjudicative Guideline for \
or against clearance is not solely)Tj
T*
(dispositive of a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(case.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(d\) )Tj
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 400.5 cm
0 0 m
199.307 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 232.2988 401.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 235.2988 405.75 Tm
(\(11\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 235.2988 405 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 251.5425 401.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Department Counsel contends it was arbitrary and capricious for the)Tj
-19.629 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge to apply Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5 b\
ecause: \(1\) the government's case against)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant was not based on his having financial interests in FC; and \(2\
\) the Judge's reasoning was based on a non)Tj
T*
(sequitur. )Tj
(This contention has mixed merit.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The SOR did not allege, and Department Counsel did not seek to prove, th\
at Applicant had financial interests in FC.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(However, there was record evidence that Applicant had some personal belo\
ngings stored in FC. )Tj
38.544 0 Td
(Given that record)Tj
-38.544 -1.125 Td
(evidence, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the A\
dministrative Judge to consider whether Foreign)Tj
T*
(Influence Mitigating Condition 5 should be applied. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.052 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Section F.3. )Tj
10.914 0 Td
(Indeed, Department Counsel essentially)Tj
-31.966 -1.125 Td
(concedes the point in a footnote that states "Department Counsel is not \
arguing that the amount of an applicant's foreign)Tj
T*
(financial interests is not relevant information under the Directive's 'w\
hole person' concept.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(However, nothing in the record evidence of this case provides a rational\
basis for the Administrative Judge to conclude)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(there was any factual or logical connection between the nature and stren\
gth of Applicant's family ties with FC citizens)Tj
T*
(and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the value of his personal belongings in storage in FC. )Tj
23.274 0 Td
(Accordingly, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Judge to)Tj
-23.274 -1.125 Td
(reason)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that the security concerns raised by Applicant's family ties with FC cit\
izens "are mitigated by the fact that)Tj
T*
(Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(foreign financial interests are minimal and not sufficient to affect [hi\
s] security responsibilities as they are)Tj
T*
(confined to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(items in a storage locker.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(e\) )Tj
(Deviations from Adjudicative Guidelines)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 148.5 cm
0 0 m
198.287 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 230.6055 149.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(As discussed earlier in this decision, Department Counsel has failed to)Tj
-17.884 -1.125 Td
(demonstrate the Judge erred in her application of Foreign Influence Miti\
gating Condition 3, but has demonstrated the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Judge erred in her application of Foreign Preference Mitigating Conditio\
n 4 )Tj
30.575 0 Td
(and Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition)Tj
-30.575 -1.125 Td
(5. )Tj
(However, the errors of the Judge demonstrated by Department Counsel do n\
ot involve any attempted deviations from)Tj
T*
(the language of the pertinent Adjudicative Guidelines. )Tj
21.937 0 Td
(Accordingly, this argument adds nothing to support the merits of)Tj
-21.937 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel's appeal.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or\
contrary to law)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 55.5 cm
0 0 m
417.035 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 445.0352 56.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel makes)Tj
-35.753 -1.125 Td
(several arguments in support of its contention that the Administrative J\
udge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
63 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[234.0 594.0 245.0 605.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[556.0 564.0 572.0 575.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[235.0 403.0 251.0 414.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
66 0 obj
[68 0 R]
endobj
67 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98-0507.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:07 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(Guidelines because: \(a\) the Administrative Judge did not properly eval\
uate the likelihood Applicant would continue to)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(engage in his conduct; \(b\) the record evidence does not support the Ju\
dge's application of Foreign Preference Mitigating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Condition 4; \(c\) the Judge improperly applied Foreign Influence Mitiga\
ting Condition 3; \(d\) the Judge improperly)Tj
T*
(applied)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5; and \(e\) the Judge did not pr\
ovide an explanation for her deviations)Tj
T*
(from the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Adjudicative Guidelines.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(An Administrative Judge must apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicat\
ive Guidelines. )Tj
35.994 0 Td
(Directive, Section F.3. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.276 0 Td
(See,)Tj
-45.27 -1.125 Td
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0380 \(March 8, 1999\) at p. 3. )Tj
(Although a Judge has the discretion to deviate from the literal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(language of pertinent Adjudicative Guidelines, the Judge must articulate\
a rational basis for doing so. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
40.794 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR)Tj
-40.794 -1.125 Td
(Case No. 97-0825 \(January 7, 1999\) at p. 3; ISCR Case No. 97-0803 \(Ju\
ne 19, 1998\) at p. 2. )Tj
37.217 0 Td
(Furthermore, the mere)Tj
-37.217 -1.125 Td
(presence or absence of Adjudicative Guidelines for or against clearance \
is not solely dispositive of a case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
42.596 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(,)Tj
-42.596 -1.125 Td
(ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 97-0765 \(December 1, 1998\) at p. 6; ISCR Case No. 98-0111 \(N\
ovember 13, 1998\) at p. 4. )Tj
43.077 0 Td
(The Board)Tj
-43.077 -1.125 Td
(will)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(consider Department Counsel's appeal arguments in light of these legal p\
rinciples.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(a\) )Tj
(Likelihood of recurrence)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 568.5 cm
0 0 m
119.273 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 151.5918 569.25 Tm
(. Department Counsel contends the Administrative Judge failed to properl\
y evaluate the)Tj
-11.299 -1.125 Td
(likelihood Applicant would continue to engage in the exercise of dual ci\
tizenship because the Judge ignored the record)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence that Applicant might use his FC passport in the future. )Tj
25.773 0 Td
(This contention overlaps Department Counsel's)Tj
-25.773 -1.125 Td
(argument)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(concerning Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 4 and will be conside\
red along with that argument.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(b\) )Tj
(Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 4)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 499.5 cm
0 0 m
205.295 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 238.2871 500.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 241.2871 504.75 Tm
(\(8\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 241.2871 504 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 252.6558 500.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Department Counsel contends the record evidence does not support)Tj
-19.721 -1.125 Td
(the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge's application of Foreign Preference Mitigating Cond\
ition 4. )Tj
34.257 0 Td
(This contention has merit.)Tj
-34.257 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel correctly notes that there is conflicting record evid\
ence on whether Applicant is willing to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(renounce)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(his FC citizenship and give up his FC passport. )Tj
23.025 0 Td
(The presence of such conflicting record evidence does not)Tj
-23.025 -1.125 Td
(reduce the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge's responsibility as trier of fact to weigh the evid\
ence and make factual findings. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
45.166 0 Td
(See,)Tj
-45.166 -1.125 Td
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 97-0630 \(May 28, 1998\) at p. 2. )Tj
(Indeed, the Judge often must weigh conflicting record evidence)Tj
T*
(and decide)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(which evidence is more credible or persuasive in light of the record evi\
dence as a whole. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
40.29 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR)Tj
-43.621 -1.125 Td
(Case No. 95-0576 \(May 7, 1996\) at p. 3. )Tj
(However, the presence of such conflicting evidence requires the Judge to\
)Tj
T*
(carefully consider)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the record evidence as a whole and weigh it in a reasonable manner. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.929 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional)Tj
-34.929 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(32.a. \("The Appeal Board shall . . . determine whether or not: a. The A\
dministrative Judge's)Tj
T*
(findings of fact are supported)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(by such relevant evidence)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.38 0 Td
( as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a)Tj
-22.38 -1.125 Td
(conclusion in light of all the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contrary evidence in the same record)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
26.411 0 Td
(."\)\(emphasis added\).)Tj
-26.411 -2.125 Td
(An applicant's stated intentions concerning retention or renunciation of\
foreign citizenship constitute relevant and)Tj
T*
(material)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence. )Tj
7.579 0 Td
(However, such stated intentions are not dispositive. )Tj
20.857 0 Td
(Such statements of intent must be evaluated in)Tj
-28.436 -1.125 Td
(light of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(record evidence as a whole to determine whether they are consistent with\
an applicant's conduct. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
43.526 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
-43.526 -1.125 Td
(Vance v.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Terrazas)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 444 U.S. 252, 260 \(1980\)\(noting intent can be expressed in words or\
"found as a fair inference from)Tj
T*
(proved)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conduct"\);)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.211 0 Td
( Sadat v. Mertes)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
6.499 0 Td
(, 615 F.2d 1176, 1181 \(7th Cir. 1980\)\(noting person's statements abou\
t his domicile)Tj
-13.71 -1.125 Td
(had to be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evaluated in light of evidence of person's conduct\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
24.561 0 Td
(Cf.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 90-0239 \(February 23, 1994\) at p. 6)Tj
-24.561 -1.125 Td
(\(applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(denial of intent to conceal material facts is relevant evidence, but not\
conclusive, and must be considered in)Tj
T*
(light of all the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(record evidence\). )Tj
13.078 0 Td
(Furthermore, any recent statements by an applicant about his or her inte\
ntions)Tj
-13.078 -1.125 Td
(concerning retention or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(renunciation of foreign citizenship must be considered in light of any e\
arlier statements by an)Tj
T*
(applicant, especially prior)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(inconsistent ones. )Tj
17.967 0 Td
(Given the conflicting record evidence about Applicant's intentions, it w\
as)Tj
-17.967 -1.125 Td
(arbitrary and capricious for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Administrative Judge to conclude that Applicant "clearly states" his\
intention to)Tj
T*
(renounce FC citizenship and give up)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(his FC passport. )Tj
21.608 0 Td
(The overall evidence on Applicant's willingness to renounce his)Tj
-21.608 -1.125 Td
(FC citizenship and give up his FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(passport is neither clear nor unequivocal. )Tj
30.55 0 Td
(Furthermore, the Judge's conclusion is)Tj
-30.55 -1.125 Td
(arbitrary and capricious because it)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conflicts with the Judge's finding that Applicant would need to use his \
FC passport to)Tj
T*
(reenter FC.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant argues that the Adjudicative Guidelines do not require applica\
nts to relinquish dual citizenship or surrender)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(foreign passports prior to a hearing. )Tj
14.524 0 Td
(Applicant is correct, but his argument is misplaced. )Tj
20.828 0 Td
(The purpose of the Directive is)Tj
-35.352 -1.125 Td
(to provide procedural and substantive guidance on the adjudication of se\
curity clearance cases, including informing)Tj
T*
(applicants and security adjudicators as to the kinds of conduct or circu\
mstances that may have security significance. )Tj
46.651 0 Td
(The)Tj
-46.651 -1.125 Td
(right of applicants to make choices in life does not preclude the govern\
ment from considering the security significance)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[241.0 502.0 252.0 513.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
69 0 obj
[71 0 R 72 0 R 73 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R]
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98-0507.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:07 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(\(April 8, 1999\) at p. 3 \(general principles do not supersede a provis\
ion of law that specifically covers an issue in a case\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(A reading of Criterion B in the Directive \(Enclosure 2 at page 2-6 and \
2-7\) clearly indicates that the government's)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(concerns under that Criterion are based on considerations of an applican\
t's possible vulnerability to coercion or)Tj
T*
(undue)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(influence because of contacts or ties with foreign countries. )Tj
26.741 0 Td
(In a case involving Criterion B, Department Counsel)Tj
-26.741 -1.125 Td
(need not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(present direct or objective evidence that affirmatively proves the appli\
cant is vulnerable to coercion or undue)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(influence,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 63.6426 689.25 Tm
(\(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 63.6426 688.5 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
/Span<>> BDC
12 0 0 12 75.0112 684.75 Tm
( )Tj
EMC
(but it does need to present evidence that demonstrates the applicant has\
engaged in conduct or is in a)Tj
-4.918 -1.125 Td
(situation that, as a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(matter of common sense \(Directive, Section F.3.\) raises the kinds of s\
ecurity concerns covered by)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Criterion B.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel correctly notes that, in general, the government need\
not wait until an applicant mishandles or fails)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(properly safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke a\
ccess to classified information. )Tj
42.374 0 Td
(However,)Tj
-42.374 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel's argument cites that general proposition out of cont\
ext, ignoring important language the Board has)Tj
T*
(used in connection with it:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("All that is necessary is proof of fact and circumstances that indicate \
that an applicant is at risk for mishandling)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(classified)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree o\
f judgment, reliability, or)Tj
T*
(trustworthiness required)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of persons handling classified information." )Tj
27.736 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 98-0448 \(April 19, 1999\) at p. 3.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-27.736 -1.125 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(97-0440 \(November 23, 1998\) at p. 5; ISCR Case 96-0641 \(December 31, \
1997\) at p. 4-5.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("All that it required is evidence that would allow an Administrative Jud\
ge to draw a reasonable inference that an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applicant's conduct or circumstances pose a security risk." )Tj
23.498 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 97-0752 \(December 4, 1998\) at p. 4. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.218 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-44.716 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 96-0825 \(November 18, 1997\) at pp. 2-3.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel's argument on this point would be plausible )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
26.148 0 Td
(if)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( the Administrative Judge had based her favorable)Tj
-26.148 -1.125 Td
(decision on the absence of any evidence that Applicant had committed a s\
ecurity violation. )Tj
36.627 0 Td
(However, the Judge did not)Tj
-36.627 -1.125 Td
(state, indicate or suggest any such rationale for her favorable decision\
. )Tj
28.406 0 Td
(Accordingly, Department Counsel's argument is)Tj
-28.406 -1.125 Td
(groundless in this case.)Tj
T*
(2. )Tj
(Whether one of the Administrative Judge's factual findings is not suppor\
ted by the record evidence)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 381 cm
0 0 m
474.691 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 502.6914 381.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(The)Tj
-40.558 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge found that Applicant became a citizen of FC after h\
e learned that there was a United States court)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(decision that it was unconstitutional to require United States citizens \
to give up their United States citizenship if they)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(became foreign nationals.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 139.6152 342.75 Tm
(\(4\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 139.6152 342 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 150.9839 338.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Department Counsel contends that finding is not supported by the record \
evidence. )Tj
33.658 0 Td
(In)Tj
-44.907 -1.125 Td
(support of that contention, Department Counsel argues: \(a\) Applicant d\
id not cite any federal court decision or ask the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Judge to take administrative notice of any U.S. court decision; and \(b\)\
Applicant's statement on the point is based on his)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(recollection of an uncorroborated third-party statement, which is insuff\
icient to support the Judge's finding.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 531.0273 299.25 Tm
(\(5\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 531.0273 298.5 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 542.396 294.75 Tm
( )Tj
(For the)Tj
-43.866 -1.125 Td
(reasons that follow, the Board concludes Department Counsel has failed t\
o demonstrate the Judge's finding constitutes)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(error.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(First, an applicant need not cite any federal court decision or ask the \
Administrative Judge to take administrative notice)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(any federal court decision. )Tj
11.939 0 Td
(It is untenable for Department Counsel to argue that an Administrative J\
udge cannot take)Tj
-11.939 -1.125 Td
(notice of any pertinent federal court decision. )Tj
18.437 0 Td
(Neither an Administrative Judge nor this Board is precluded from)Tj
-18.437 -1.125 Td
(considering a pertinent federal court decision merely because neither pa\
rty cites to it nor asks that administrative notice)Tj
T*
(be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(taken of it. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.748 0 Td
(But see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
2.916 0 Td
( ISCR Case No. 98-0419 \(April 30, 1999\) at pp. 6-7 \(explaining except\
ion to general rule in cases)Tj
-8.664 -1.125 Td
(where government alleges applicant engaged in criminal conduct in absenc\
e of a criminal conviction\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Second, Applicant's statement goes to his state of mind, not to the lega\
l correctness of his beliefs. )Tj
39.171 0 Td
(Whether Applicant's)Tj
-39.171 -1.375 Td
(statement is legally correct)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 144.9473 137.25 Tm
(\(6\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 144.9473 136.5 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 156.3159 132.75 Tm
( is immaterial to its relevance to assessing his state of mind when he d\
ecided to become an)Tj
-11.693 -1.375 Td
(FC citizen.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 68.6582 120.75 Tm
(\(7\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 68.6582 120 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 80.0269 116.25 Tm
( )Tj
(As Applicant notes in his reply brief, there is no legal requirement tha\
t an applicant cite case law in order)Tj
-5.336 -1.125 Td
(to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(testify about his motivations or state of mind. )Tj
19.442 0 Td
(Accordingly, harmful error is not demonstrated even if Applicant's)Tj
-19.442 -1.125 Td
(statement was based on his reliance on an uncorroborated third party sta\
tement about a legal matter.)Tj
T*
(3. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge failed to properly apply pertinent prov\
isions of the Adjudicative Guidelines)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 63 cm
0 0 m
530.197 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 558.1973 63.75 Tm
(.)Tj
-45.183 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel contends the Administrative Judge failed to properly \
apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[63.0 687.0 74.0 698.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[139.0 340.0 150.0 351.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[531.0 297.0 542.0 308.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
74 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[144.0 135.0 155.0 146.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
75 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[69.0 118.0 80.0 129.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
76 0 obj
[78 0 R 79 0 R]
endobj
77 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98-0507.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:07 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 754.5 Tm
(Until 1993, Applicant lived in FC with a permanent resident visa. )Tj
26.468 0 Td
(In January 1993, Applicant became a citizen of FC,)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(after he was informed by FC officials that his residency visa would not \
be renewed and that he could become a citizen)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(FC. )Tj
(Applicant believed that there was a United States court decision that he\
ld it was unconstitutional to require)Tj
T*
(United)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(States citizens to give up their United States citizenship if they becam\
e foreign nationals. )Tj
38.823 0 Td
(Applicant became an)Tj
-38.823 -1.125 Td
(FC citizen)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for convenience because he traveled frequently because his family had bu\
siness in both FC and the United)Tj
T*
(States. )Tj
(Applicant did not think that there would be any repercussions to being a\
n FC citizen. )Tj
37.104 0 Td
(Applicant is now willing to)Tj
-37.104 -1.125 Td
(renounce his FC citizenship and surrender his FC passport in order to ke\
ep his defense contractor job.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant has an FC and a United States passport. )Tj
20.274 0 Td
(Applicant uses his United States passport when he travels to other)Tj
-20.274 -1.125 Td
(countries. )Tj
4.166 0 Td
(He used his FC passport in March 1993 to reenter FC. )Tj
21.886 0 Td
(He would need to use his FC passport to reenter FC in)Tj
-26.052 -1.125 Td
(the future because he does not have a permanent residency visa in his Un\
ited States passport.)Tj
T*
(Applicant's wife, whom he married in 1988, is an FC citizen. )Tj
24.62 0 Td
(His wife's parents are FC citizens and live in that country.)Tj
-24.62 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's parents and two brothers also exercise dual citizenship, and\
one brother lives in FC. )Tj
38.476 0 Td
(None of his family or)Tj
-38.476 -1.125 Td
(his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(wife's family has any affiliation with the United States government or a\
ny foreign government. )Tj
39.67 0 Td
(Applicant has casual,)Tj
-39.67 -1.125 Td
(infrequent contacts with his brother who lives in FC. )Tj
21.33 0 Td
(Applicant's only financial interest in FC is some personal)Tj
-21.33 -1.125 Td
(belongings he stored there because he could not afford to ship them to t\
he United States.)Tj
T*
(Any security concerns arising from Applicant's dual citizenship are over\
come by his clear statement that he will)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(renounce)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(his FC citizenship and will no longer exercise any rights or privileges \
of FC citizenship. )Tj
39.353 0 Td
(Applicant's wife and)Tj
-39.353 -1.125 Td
(her parents)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(could not exercise foreign influence over him because they have no offic\
ial ties with the FC government.)Tj
T*
(There is little)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(likelihood that Applicant's parents and brother, who returned to the Uni\
ted States, would exercise foreign)Tj
T*
(influence over)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(him. )Tj
8.053 0 Td
(Applicant's contacts with his brother who lives in FC are casual and inf\
requent. )Tj
32.006 0 Td
(There is no)Tj
-40.059 -1.125 Td
(evidence that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's ties might subject him to duress or create a situation that \
could result in the compromise of)Tj
T*
(classified)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.375 TD
(Appeal Issues)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 86.3535 411 Tm
(\(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 86.3535 410.25 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 381 Tm
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge improperly placed the burden of proof o\
n Department Counsel with respect to one)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 380.25 cm
0 0 m
562.506 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 367.5 Tm
(issue in the case)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 366.75 cm
0 0 m
77.643 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 93.6426 367.5 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel contends the Administrative Judge improperly placed t\
he burden of proof on)Tj
-6.47 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel to produce evidence showing that Applicant was vulner\
able to duress or undue influence. )Tj
44.487 0 Td
(In)Tj
-44.487 -1.125 Td
(support)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of this contention, Department Counsel argues: \(a\) Department Counsel'\
s burden of proof was satisfied because)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(admitted the SOR allegations; \(b\) nothing in the Directive requires De\
partment Counsel to present evidence)Tj
T*
(that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's foreign ties made him vulnerable to duress or undue influenc\
e; and \(c\) the Judge's reasoning was)Tj
T*
(inconsistent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(with the principles that direct or objective evidence of nexus is not re\
quired, and that the government need)Tj
T*
(not wait until)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(an applicant mishandles or fails to properly safeguard classified inform\
ation before it can deny or revoke)Tj
T*
(access to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(classified information. )Tj
13.079 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes Department Counsel's ar\
guments fail)Tj
-13.079 -1.375 Td
(to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(demonstrate the Judge erred.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 166.2812 261 Tm
(\(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 166.2812 260.25 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 231 Tm
(A corollary of Department Counsel's obligation to prove controverted SOR\
allegations \(Directive, Additional)Tj
T*
(Procedural)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Guidance, Item 14\) is the proposition that Department Counsel is not ob\
ligated to prove uncontroverted)Tj
T*
(allegations. )Tj
4.832 0 Td
(However, the mere fact that an applicant admits an SOR allegation does n\
ot preclude an Administrative)Tj
-4.832 -1.125 Td
(Judge from)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(considering whether the uncontroverted fact has security significance. )Tj
33.016 0 Td
(For example, drawing an adverse)Tj
-33.016 -1.125 Td
(security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(inference is not appropriate merely because an applicant admits he used \
a foreign passport before he became a)Tj
T*
(naturalized)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(United States citizen. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
13.467 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 97-0356 \(April 21, 1998\) at p. 4 \(explaining use of f\
oreign)Tj
-16.799 -1.125 Td
(passport and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(voting in foreign elections before applicant became a naturalized United\
States citizen was not an exercise)Tj
T*
(of dual)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizenship\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel correctly notes that there is no general obligation t\
hat the government prove that an applicant is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(vulnerable to coercion or undue influence before it can deny or revoke a\
security clearance for that applicant. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
43.896 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-47.228 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 96-0371 \(June 3, 1997\) at p. 3 \("Moreover, an adverse s\
ecurity clearance decision can be based on an)Tj
T*
(applicant's conduct or present circumstances that have security signific\
ance independent of any coercion or blackmail)Tj
T*
(possibilities."\). )Tj
6.27 0 Td
(However, Department Counsel's argument fails to the extent it seeks to a\
pply that general proposition to)Tj
-6.27 -1.125 Td
(Criterion B \(Foreign Influence\) without consideration of the language \
of that Criterion. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
35.129 0 Td
(Cf.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 98-0320)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[86.0 408.0 97.0 419.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
79 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[166.0 258.0 177.0 269.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
80 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
98 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/98-0507.a1.html)
endobj
97 0 obj
<>
endobj
99 0 obj
<>
endobj
81 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 584.0 null]
endobj
82 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 545.0 null]
endobj
83 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 519.0 null]
endobj
84 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 413.0 null]
endobj
85 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 374.0 null]
endobj
86 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 308.0 null]
endobj
87 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 228.0 null]
endobj
88 0 obj
[20 0 R/XYZ 0 311.0 null]
endobj
89 0 obj
[20 0 R/XYZ 0 232.0 null]
endobj
90 0 obj
[20 0 R/XYZ 0 125.0 null]
endobj
91 0 obj
[20 0 R/XYZ 0 86.0 null]
endobj
92 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 765.0 null]
endobj
93 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 699.0 null]
endobj
94 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 660.0 null]
endobj
95 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 635.0 null]
endobj
96 0 obj
[21 0 R/XYZ 0 609.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 100
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003657 00000 n
0000198595 00000 n
0000003535 00000 n
0000003590 00000 n
0000003765 00000 n
0000003792 00000 n
0000196948 00000 n
0000197447 00000 n
0000197489 00000 n
0000196760 00000 n
0000004933 00000 n
0000187249 00000 n
0000177089 00000 n
0000167123 00000 n
0000157425 00000 n
0000147888 00000 n
0000139789 00000 n
0000133759 00000 n
0000097676 00000 n
0000003895 00000 n
0000003941 00000 n
0000003990 00000 n
0000004386 00000 n
0000004098 00000 n
0000004130 00000 n
0000004162 00000 n
0000004194 00000 n
0000004226 00000 n
0000004258 00000 n
0000004290 00000 n
0000004322 00000 n
0000004354 00000 n
0000005133 00000 n
0000009430 00000 n
0000009479 00000 n
0000009515 00000 n
0000010021 00000 n
0000045171 00000 n
0000045438 00000 n
0000010470 00000 n
0000010743 00000 n
0000011229 00000 n
0000046046 00000 n
0000097876 00000 n
0000102887 00000 n
0000103332 00000 n
0000103608 00000 n
0000104082 00000 n
0000133970 00000 n
0000140014 00000 n
0000140046 00000 n
0000147236 00000 n
0000147562 00000 n
0000148102 00000 n
0000148141 00000 n
0000156447 00000 n
0000156773 00000 n
0000157099 00000 n
0000157639 00000 n
0000157678 00000 n
0000166147 00000 n
0000166471 00000 n
0000166797 00000 n
0000167337 00000 n
0000167362 00000 n
0000176765 00000 n
0000177303 00000 n
0000177356 00000 n
0000185633 00000 n
0000185955 00000 n
0000186279 00000 n
0000186603 00000 n
0000186927 00000 n
0000187474 00000 n
0000187506 00000 n
0000196114 00000 n
0000196436 00000 n
0000196845 00000 n
0000197924 00000 n
0000197966 00000 n
0000198008 00000 n
0000198050 00000 n
0000198092 00000 n
0000198134 00000 n
0000198176 00000 n
0000198218 00000 n
0000198260 00000 n
0000198302 00000 n
0000198344 00000 n
0000198385 00000 n
0000198427 00000 n
0000198469 00000 n
0000198511 00000 n
0000198553 00000 n
0000197696 00000 n
0000197531 00000 n
0000197871 00000 n
trailer
<