DATE: October 19, 2001
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Kathryn Antigone Trowbridge, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Peter J. Muse, Esq.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended by Executive Orders 10909, 11328 and 12829) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992 (as amended by Change 4), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on April 25, 2001, to the Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked. The SOR was based on foreign preference concerns (guideline C) related to: 1) efforts to apply for foreign citizenship; 2) a stated intent to apply for a foreign passport if granted foreign citizenship in the future; 3) representing a foreign country as a delegate to a sports federation; and 4) serving as a coach of a foreign girls softball team and as an umpire representing a foreign county in international softball tournaments. Foreign influence (guideline B) concerns were alleged as well due to the foreign residency and citizenship of: 1) a paternal uncle and five cousins; 2) two non related friends/acquaintances with whom he maintains regular contact; and 3) a girlfriend.
On May 23, 2001, Applicant, acting pro se, responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR and requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to me on June 25, 2001. By letter dated July 26, 2001, Counsel for Applicant entered his appearance. Pursuant to formal notice dated August 2, 2001, a hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2001. At the hearing, which was held as scheduled, the Government submitted three documentary exhibits, which were admitted into the record without objection. The Applicant's case consisted of five documentary exhibits as well as the testimony of the Applicant and four character witnesses. With the receipt on September 24, 2001, of the transcript of the hearing, the case is ripe for a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After a thorough review of the evidence, and on due consideration of the same, I render the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 49-year-old lead software engineer who has worked for his current employer since June 1980. Applicant held an Interim Secret clearance from July 1999 until it was withdrawn in about May 2001. Applicant seeks a Secret security clearance for his present duties, which include training military staff in the use and maintenance of computer network security equipment.
Applicant's mother was born in 1928 in European country #1, which with other nearby states, became part of a federal republic (European country #2) circa 1945. In the early 1990's, European country #1 became an independent state following ethnic conflict. In 1942, Applicant's mother moved with her parents to a nearby European country in an effort to escape Communist influence. While living in a displaced person's camp after World War II, Applicant's mother met and married Applicant's father, who had been born in European country #2 in 1907. Applicant's father had a brother whom he lost touch with during the war. Since Applicant's father had been a prisoner of war from 1941 to 1945, they were allowed to emigrate to any nation of their choice. Adamantly opposed to communism, Applicant's parents emigrated to the United States in 1951. Applicant's father found work as a machinist, and they began a family with the birth of the Applicant in March 1952. Five other children followed between 1953 and 1971. In November 1957, Applicant's parents became naturalized citizens of the United States, taking an oath to renounce all foreign allegiances, to support and defend the United States Constitution and its laws, and to bear arms or noncombatant service or civilian service on behalf of the United States if required.
With their parents' knowledge of the English language limited, Applicant and siblings were raised in their parents' foreign tongue. As their schooling and involvement in the local community progressed, the children taught their parents English. English began to be spoken in the home when Applicant was about thirteen years of age. The family was not involved in any cultural or social activities or organizations related to European country #1 or #2 while Applicant was growing up. No foreign language newspapers or publications were read regularly in the home.
As a youth, Applicant began a lifelong interest in sports, initially as a participant and later also as an official. He played on the high school baseball and basketball teams. After graduating from high school, Applicant continued his education at a leading United States university in September 1970. Applicant did not return to the college after his freshman year as he needed to provide financially for a spouse, who he married in October 1971, and their son born in February 1972. For about seven years, Applicant worked for an automatic data processing company. In 1976, he returned to the university and attended classes until January 1978 while working full-time. (1)
Circa 1979, Applicant went through a one-year training program as a computer programmer. On completion of that federally administered program, Applicant went to work for the office of information technology at the university where he had been a student. After about six months there, Applicant went to work in June 1980 as a computer programmer for his current employer.
Applicant's off-duty activities included participating in pick-up softball games with coworkers. Applicant got the team organized and registered with the city recreational department, and he became the coach of the men's team. In 1981, Applicant became involved in umpiring, initially in city recreational games and then high school games. Based on his talent as an umpire, Applicant was recommended for membership in a collegiate umpires association. In addition to umpiring softball at the collegiate level, he refereed for basketball and soccer at the high school level while also doing some play-by-play announcing for football games, although he remained primarily active as an umpire for girls softball, volunteering thousands of hours over the years to advance the sport through promotion and developing umpires. For seven years, Applicant served as secretary of the collegiate umpires association, during which time he organized and directed an annual invitational collegiate tournament held in his hometown.
Women's softball was elevated to the Olympic level for the 1996 Summer Olympics. At or near his peak as an umpire in the sport, Applicant in 1996 began to explore avenues whereby he might become eligible to officiate at that level. Applicant learned he had to become certified by the International Softball Federation (ISF). Although a member of the United States Amateur Softball Association, Applicant had not had the opportunity to become certified at the international level through the US association, as it required experience umpiring at least three American national tournaments, two of which had to be at the highest level, with flawless evaluations. (2) In researching opportunities on the Internet, Applicant located only four or five links, which included European country #1's softball association. Since Applicant's mother had been born in that nation and he had some knowledge of the language, he signed the guest register on the website in about June 1996. During the last week of June 1996, Applicant received a response from the then secretary general of the foreign country's softball association ("developing commission" for softball). The secretary general expressed pleasure at Applicant's "offer to cooperate in [European country #1] softball," and asked Applicant if he could possibly organize a teaching course for umpires, coaches and score keepers in European country #1. Food and lodging but not travel or other compensation would be provided. The secretary general indicated need for a coach who would lead a European country #1 softball club to a European cup event to be held that year. Applicant indicated to the then secretary general he would be "very interested" in exploring the possibilities of serving as a coach/official for the country's softball federation and of training coaches/umpires, and that he would be satisfied with coverage of lodging and meals only.
Using his vacation time, Applicant traveled to European country #1 at his expense in August 1996 to coach the foreign country's girls softball team in the European cup tournament. Applicant arrived three weeks prior to the tournament to work with the team. He met with the president (Mr. A) as well as with the new secretary general of European country #1's softball association (Ms. B). During his three-week stay in European country #1, Applicant was hosted by Mr. A. Applicant rode in the team bus with the team to the tournament held in another European nation. During the one-week tournament, Applicant stayed together with his players for meals and sightseeing. At the end of the week, Applicant returned to the United States via a commercial carrier at his expense.
During that August 1996 trip, Applicant learned European country #1's softball association had to pay a fine of $800 to $900 (US) to the European Softball Federation (ESF)in order to compete in the tournament since European country #1 had no qualified umpires to officiate at the tournament. The fine was to pay the expenses of a certified umpire who would have to fill in as an alternate. Applicant inquired whether it would be possible for him to be certified as an umpire for European country #1 so that the country's softball association could devote its limited funds to more needed areas. At the tournament, Applicant and Mr. A met with the president of the ESF about becoming an umpire and he filed a request for certification. After the trip, European country #1 team officials kept Applicant apprised of the status of his application. For his part, Applicant enlisted the help of several collegiate coaches in the United States in collecting softball equipment which he sent over to the foreign country. Applicant was certified as an umpire through the ESF with the ISF.
In July 1997, Applicant went to European country #1 via commercial carrier at his expense to work with the foreign country's girls softball team before the European championships. On conclusion of the tournament, Applicant traveled as a tourist in European country #1 for two weeks, During that period, he enrolled in a two-week course to improve his knowledge of that country's language. Prior to leaving the country via commercial carrier, Applicant met with Mr. A regarding softball matters.
In August 1997, Applicant returned to European country #1 in a coaching capacity for the foreign nation's girls softball team. For a week or two prior to the tournament, Applicant stayed with Mr. A while working with the team. Applicant traveled with the team on the team bus and all stayed in a youth hostel during the tournament. Applicant stopped coaching after this tournament as the ESF instituted a policy prohibiting active players and coaches from being active umpires in the same year. Although the European country #1 softball coaches were largely inexperienced, it would have been a bigger hardship financially on the foreign country's softball association not to have an umpire for tournaments. (3)
In February 1998, Applicant traveled to European country #1at his expense where he stayed with Mr. A for a few days before leaving with Mr. A and Ms. B for a congress meeting of the ESF. At this and subsequent congress meetings, Applicant acted as a non-voting advisor to the European country #1 delegation. Sometime that month, Applicant received at his residence in the United States a letter written in his late father's native language from someone with his surname claiming to be a paternal cousin and representing that her father, Applicant's uncle, wanted to see Applicant and his siblings before he died. The letter was sent from an area of European country #2 then in the midst of ethnic strife. Applicant's mother had no knowledge of any family members resident in that foreign land. After his mother determined that it was indeed her late husband's brother who was attempting to reach them, Applicant contacted his cousin and made arrangements to meet with them during his travels to European country #1on behalf of the foreign girls softball team.
During the summer of 1998, four members of European country #1's girls softball team (including Mr. A's two daughters) stayed with Applicant at his residence in the United States. Applicant had arranged for local players camps put on by college coaches to take on the girls tuition free. All four girls were in their late teens/early 20's and citizens of European country #1.
In August 1998, Applicant served as an umpire at the junior European softball championships. Prior to the tournament, he stayed with Mr. A in his home for three days. They traveled together via bus to the tournament location. Once at the tournament, Applicant stayed at a local hotel and had daily contact with the other umpires in attendance.
In September 1998, Applicant officiated at a European cup championship in European country #3. Before the tournament, Applicant stayed with Mr. A in the latter's home in European country #1. From there he traveled to the capital of European country #2 where he visited with his uncle and four cousins who had come to that city to meet him, as Applicant did not feel comfortable traveling to their area because of the political situation there. After becoming acquainted with his paternal relations over the course of a weekend at a hotel, Applicant traveled to European country #3 where the softball tournament was held. During the week long tournament, Applicant stayed with a group of traveling umpires.
In February 1999, Applicant flew at his expense to European country #3 to attend an ESF congress meeting. After the meeting, Applicant drove to European country #1 with Mr. A and Ms. B, where he stayed with Mr. A for four days. Applicant was then met by one of his sisters who had traveled over to European country #1 to rendevous with him. They traveled together by train to the capital city of European country #2 to meet with their paternal relatives resident in the area of ethnic conflict. En route, Applicant's and his sister's United States passports were taken from them for about fifteen minutes by train personnel. Applicant is unaware of what transpired with regard to their passports during that time. Applicant and his sister stayed in the same hotel with their paternal relatives, with their foreign relations paying for the accommodations. During their brief (less than forty-eight hour visit), Applicant and his sister attempted to persuade their paternal relatives to move from their home because of the ongoing strife in their area. After this visit, Applicant remained in contact with a cousin telephonically, initially several times per week. As of June 2000, the relatives had been displaced from their home but had managed to move to another town in the same region of European country #2. As of June 2000, Applicant had monthly contact with one of his foreign national cousins, who by that time had expressed an interest in emigrating to the United States. Applicant looked into the process of obtaining "green cards" for his relatives, but has otherwise not made any effort to facilitate their emigration.
Required to obtain a Secret security clearance in conjunction with his defense contractor employment, Applicant in May 1999 executed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). Applicant listed thereon extensive foreign travel on his United States passport, including pleasure trips to European country #1in August 1996, July 1997, August 1997, February 1998, September 1998, and February 1999. Applicant was granted an Interim Secret security clearance in late July 1999.
Applicant was chosen to umpire at the Olympic qualifying tournament (European and African Zone qualifier) held for ten days in European country #3 in July 1999. From the twelve umpires officiating at the tournament, two would be selected to represent Europe at the 2000 Summer Olympic Games. In July 1999, Applicant traveled to European country #3 to officiate as a representative of European country #1 at the Olympic qualifier. During the ten-day tournament, Applicant stayed in a hotel with the other umpiring officials. At the conclusion of the tournament, Applicant was one of three selected for further consideration. He was informed he would need a European country #1 passport in order to be selected to umpire at the upcoming Olympics as he would be there as a European representative for that foreign country. Applicant went on to European country #1 where he and Mr. A then met with an government official regarding Applicant procuring that nation's citizenship. Since Applicant's mother had been born in what was now European country #1, Applicant was eligible for European country #1citizenship provided he could submit the required documentation (his mother's birth certificate, his birth certificate and his United States passport). Applicant umpired at the European Championship tournament held in another European nation before he returned home.
Shortly after he returned from these umpiring duties, Applicant in early August 1999 notified his defense employer he had been one of three umpires deemed qualified by the ESF to officiate at the 2000 Summer Olympics and he planned to attend the ISF congress meeting in late August 1999 at which the selections would be made. Applicant informed his employer that if selected, he might require dual citizenship in order to umpire in the 2000 Summer Olympic Games and that he would be applying for citizenship from European country #1. The corporate facility security officer filed an adverse information report with the Defense Security Service (DSS), requesting advice as to the effect this possible acquisition of dual citizenship would have on Applicant's current Interim clearance and future investigations required toward final grant of a Secret clearance. For his own part, Applicant made efforts to locate the required documentation for European country #1 citizenship. He could not find his mother's birth certificate, so he never filed the application for European country #1 citizenship.
Circa late August 1999/early September 1999, Applicant traveled via commercial airline to the ISF congress meeting, which was held in the Far East. Applicant paid for all his expenses in connection with that trip, including his hotel. To his great disappointment, Applicant was not selected as one of the two European umpires to officiate at the 2000 Summer Olympics.
During the Olympic qualifying tournament in July 1999, Applicant was introduced to Ms. C, a citizen of a land which had been part of European country #2 until recent political instability. Conversant in the language of European country #1, Ms. C was a permanent resident of European country #5. Applicant and Ms. C began a long-distance relationship with weekly telephone contact. In September 1999, Applicant stayed with Ms. C at her residence in European country #5 for four days before traveling to European country #1. After spending several days with Mr. A in the latter's home, Applicant traveled with the European country #1 team to the European cup tournament. As an official at the tournament, Applicant stayed at the hotel with other umpires. While his hotel costs were paid for by the ESF, his flight was covered by European country #1's softball federation.
Applicant visited with Ms. C in European country #5 for five days in November 1999. In February 2000, Applicant stayed with Mr. A for a couple of days at the latter's residence in European country #1 before attending with Mr. A and Ms. B an ISF congress meeting held in the Middle East. Following the meeting, Applicant went to European country #5 where he visited Ms. C for two to three days. Applicant returned to see her in May 2000, spending a week on that visit.
In June 2000, Applicant was interviewed by a Special Agent of the DSS regarding his extensive foreign travel and foreign connections. Applicant discussed his activities as a coach and umpire for European country #1's softball team, including his certification as an umpire with the ESF and ISF through his ties to European country #1's softball association, and his efforts to officiate at the upcoming Summer Olympics. Applicant explained he had conducted clinics in European country #1 to train others as umpires, so there were six others beside himself qualified to represent European country #1 as officials in international tournament play. Admitting disappointment over not being selected by the ISF to umpire at the upcoming Olympic Games, Applicant indicated he had asked the president of the ESF whether he should continue pursuing European country #1 citizenship for future events, such as the 2004 Olympics. Applicant was given no reason why he should believe he would not be eligible for future consideration. Applicant expressed his intent to continue searching for proof of his mother's birth, stating with regard to his intent to pursue dual citizenship the following:
I consider myself to be a loyal U.S. citizen and would never act against the best interests of the U.S.; however, I feel this an opportunity of a lifetime that I could be selected to officiate at the Olympics, and for that reason only, I intend to pursue obtaining dual citizenship (US/European country #1) within the next several years, prior to the 2004 Olympic games. I am unaware of any rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations to [European country #1] as a result of my possible acquisition of [European country #1] citizenship. I am not pursuing [European country #1] citizenship due to any financial interests. I have no intent to seek or hold a political office in [European country #1] or to vote in their elections.
Applicant asserted all foreign travel had been on his United States passport, but he expressed an intent to obtain a European country #1 passport in the future if he obtained that nation's citizenship. Applicant indicated he would only use that foreign passport to travel for the purpose of officiating games in the Olympic tournaments. Concerning his foreign connections, Applicant described "frequent contact" with many foreign nationals during European softball tournaments and congress meetings. Regarding his affiliation with the European country #1 softball league, Applicant related his present contact was limited to "occasional coaching guidance" to a girls club team and the national team. His priority was officiating on an international level as a "[European country #1] representative." He disclosed active fund-raising activities on his own initiative on behalf of the foreign softball team, including selling bagels and cream cheese to his colleagues at work.
In late July 2000, Applicant umpired in a European junior softball championship held in European country #6. In February 2001, Applicant attended the ESF's congress meeting in European country #5. In July 2001, Applicant umpired at the European championship softball tournament as a representative of European country #1 so that the foreign softball federation would not have to pay the $800 to $900 fine for a substitute at-large umpire. Applicant is scheduled to conduct in October 2001 an advanced umpire clinic in European country #7, with his expenses to be paid by the European country #7 softball association. An umpire active in Applicant's local community in the United States plans to accompany Applicant on that trip.
Following the death of his paternal uncle in May 2001, Applicant lost contact with those paternal relatives in European country #2.
As of August 2001, Applicant was no longer involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. C. In his capacity as director of international relations for the ISF, Applicant has contact with many foreign nationals involved in the sport of softball. Applicant sees European country #1softball association officials Mr. A and Ms. B on his trips to Europe to officiate or coach softball. Applicant considers Mr. A a good friend, and he maintains regular telephone and electronic mail contact with Mr. A regarding softball. Mr. A works as a middle manager for a petroleum company which used to be government owned. Applicant has contact with Ms. B outside of softball season once per month and during the softball season once per week. Ms. B is a student at a university in European country #1.
Dedicated to his defense-related employment, Applicant was commended in June 2001 for his superb contributions to the training of military personnel on a computer security system. Applicant has no intent to seek foreign citizenship, including European country #1 citizenship, in the future as he does not want to jeopardize a job which he finds technically challenging and rewarding. In the event he no longer required a security clearance for his position, he would investigate obtaining European country #1 citizenship if that would give him a chance of umpiring at an Olympic softball event. Applicant does not desire to exercise the voting franchise or fulfill the obligations of foreign citizenship.
An active volunteer in his local community in the United States, Applicant instructed in a school computer lab for about twelve years. His involvement ended when his office relocated. Having volunteered thousands of hours to the sport of softball in his community, Applicant was the prime force in the development of a city girl's softball league for ages nine to fourteen in addition to founding the collegiate fall tournament for women. Applicant is well respected among his peers for his umpiring ability and dedication to the sport of softball. Those who know of Applicant's involvement with the European country #1 softball association attribute it to Applicant's passion for the sport of softball rather than to any affiliation for European country #1.
POLICIES
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a person is an acceptable security risk. Enclosure 2 to the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be carefully considered according to the pertinent criterion in making the overall common sense determination required. Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the motivation of the individual applicant and extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences involved; the absence or presence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the potential for coercion, exploitation and duress; and the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. See Directive 5220.6, Section 6.3 and Enclosure 2, Section E2.2. Because each security case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility or emotionally unstable behavior. See Directive 5220.6, Enclosure 2, Section E2.2.4.
Considering the evidence as a whole, this Administrative Judge finds the following adjudicative guidelines to be most pertinent to this case:
Foreign Preference
E2.A3.1.1. The Concern: 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 be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.
E2.A3.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
None apply.
E2.A5.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
None apply.
Foreign Influence
E2.A2.1.1. The Concern: A security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. These situations could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information. Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries are also relevant to security determinations if they make an individual potentially vulnerable to coercion, exploitation or pressure.
E2.A2.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
E2.A2.1.2.1. An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country.
E2.A2.1.2.6. Conduct which may make the individual vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure by a foreign government
E2.A2.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
E2.A2.1.3.1. A determination that the immediate family member(s), (spouse, father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters), cohabitant, or associate(s) in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States.
Under the provisions of Executive Order 10865 as amended and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an applicant's clearance may be made only upon an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest. In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense determination required, the Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences and conclusions which have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. In addition, as the trier of fact, the Administrative Judge must make critical judgments as to the credibility of witnesses. Decisions under the Directive include consideration of the potential as well as the actual risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to properly safeguard classified information.
Initially, the Government has the burden of proving any controverted fact(s) alleged in the Statement of Reasons. If the Government meets its burden and establishes conduct cognizable as a security concern under the Directive, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to present evidence in refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of criterion conduct, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where the facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security. See Enclosure 2 to the Directive, Section E2.2.2.
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and factors, and having assessed the credibility of those who testified, I conclude the following with respect to guidelines C and B:
Active in coaching and umpiring softball throughout his adult life, Applicant strived to umpire at the pinnacle of his chosen sport. With little likelihood of being named as an umpire for the 2000 Summer Olympics through the United States Amateur Softball Association, Applicant in 1996 began an association with European country #1's softball association, which has involved coaching the country's national team in international events, coaching a girls club, umpiring at international tournaments as a representative of foreign country #1, conducting coaching and umpiring clinics in European country #1, and providing other assistance, to include fund-raising, for European country #1's softball association. As an umpire representing the foreign nation, Applicant through the ESF became certified by the ISF and eligible for selection to officiate at the Olympics. Based on his on-field performance at an Olympic qualifier held in July 1999, Applicant was one of three "European" umpires selected for further consideration. Advised at the end of the tournament that if selected he would attend the Olympics as an official representing European country #1, Applicant met with a European country #1 official regarding the process of obtaining that nation's citizenship. Informed he was eligible for derivative citizenship based on his mother's birth in that country, Applicant intended to submit the required documentation, but he never filed the application as he could not find his mother's birth certificate. After he failed to be selected to officiate at the 2000 Summer Olympics, Applicant inquired of the ESF as to the likelihood of him being considered for future Olympic games. Told there was no reason to believe he would not be eligible, Applicant as of June 2000 intended to pursue dual citizenship ["I feel this an opportunity of a lifetime that I could be selected to officiate at the Olympics, and for that reason only, I intend to pursue obtaining dual citizenship (US/European country #1) within the next several years, prior to the 2004 Olympic games"]. Applicant has continued to umpire at European tournaments, including in July 2001at the European championship softball tournament as a representative of European country #1 so that the foreign softball federation would not have to pay the $800 to $900 fine for a substitute at-large umpire.
Applicant does not dispute his substantial involvement with European country #1 softball since 1996, but submits it does not indicate a preference for European country #1 over the United States. Guideline C is based on actions taken by an individual which indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States. Conduct which could raise a security concern in this regard include the exercise of dual citizenship (See E2.A3.1.2.1.) as well as possession and/or use of a foreign passport (See E2.A3.1.2.2.). Eligible for European country #1 citizenship, Applicant to date has not filed his application. Since Applicant has not acquired foreign citizenship or a foreign passport, neither disqualifying condition (DC) E2.A3.1.2.1. nor DC E2.A3.1.2.2. applies. The presence or absence of a specific adjudicative factor is not necessarily dispositive of the issue, as factors such as the nature and extent of the conduct, the frequency and recency of the conduct, the motivation for the conduct, the potential for pressure or coercion, as well as the likelihood of continuation must be considered in evaluating the relevance of a person's conduct. Applicant clearly intended to obtain dual citizenship and was thwarted only because of his inability to produce his mother's birth certificate. As of June 2000, Applicant expressed an intent to pursue European country #1 citizenship with possible procurement of a foreign passport if necessary to realize his dream of umpiring at the Olympics. Since he requires a security clearance for his job, Applicant no longer intends to acquire European country #1 citizenship as he does not want to jeopardize his defense-related employment. Given the degree of Applicant's candor about the extent of his activities on behalf of European country #1 softball interests, I have no reason to doubt Applicant's sincerity in this regard.
However, while I am persuaded that Applicant initially contacted European country #1's softball association because of his love of the sport and the potential for international exposure, his efforts on behalf of European country #1 softball, which continue to date, have gone beyond what might reasonably be explained as simply a passion for the sport. Since 1996, Applicant has served in the international softball sporting arena as a representative for that foreign nation, coaching a girls softball club as well as the national team and umpiring at international tournaments. On a few occasions, Applicant has saved European country #1's softball association significant funds by umpiring as an official representative from European country #1. At ISF meetings, Applicant attends as a non-voting delegate on European country #1's behalf, advising European country #1 softball association officers. During softball season, he contacts the secretary general of the foreign softball association once per week and the president regularly. On his own initiative, Applicant engages in fund-raising activities at his defense-related employment in the United States, and he secures the assistance of other softball coaches and umpires in the United States, to benefit European country #1 softball. Although Applicant has gained an international reputation as an umpire largely through his efforts on behalf of European country #1 softball, and consequently was asked to conduct an advanced umpire clinic in European country #7 in October 2001, the level of his involvement in softball in other foreign countries is minimal when compared to European country #1. Applicant has expressed that in the event he no longer needs a security clearance, he would investigate obtaining European country #1 citizenship if it would give him a chance to umpire at an Olympic event. Clearly, apart from the security clearance issue, Applicant sees no problem with acquiring European country #1 citizenship. While the United States recognizes dual citizenship, the Government does not encourage it because of the potential for conflicts which may arise by virtue of one being subject to the laws of two jurisdictions whose interests may not always coincide. Although there is no evidence Applicant has made decisions inimical to the United States in connection with his foreign softball affiliation, he remains personally invested in European country #1's softball program to such an extent to engender security significant doubts as to whether he can be counted on to make decisions without regard to foreign interests. Applicant's contributions to the United States defense effort are lauded, but his off-duty conduct remains of security concern. Subparagraphs 1.a., 1.c., 1.d. and 1.e. are thus resolved against him. Since Applicant does not intend to apply for European country #1 citizenship as long as he requires a security clearance, subparagraph 1.b. is found for him.
Under guideline B, a security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he is bound by affection, influence or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. Applicant has paternal cousins (and until May 2001 a paternal uncle) who are resident in European country #2. Notwithstanding the lack of any prior knowledge of these relations before February 1998, Applicant made the effort to meet with them in September 1998 and February 1999, which reflects obligation if not a genuine desire to establish a personal connection with them. He continued to contact them thereafter on the order of once per week initially and then once per month, researching on their behalf the process of obtaining "green cards" in the United States. From July 1999 to at least June 2000, Applicant was involved in a romantic relationship with a foreign national resident in European country #5. Through his efforts on behalf of European country #1 softball, Applicant has had regular contact with the president and secretary-general of that nation's softball association. Both are resident citizens of European country #1. Applicant shares a particularly close personal relationship with Mr. A, residing with him on his trips to European country #1. In August 1998, Applicant entertained Mr. A's two daughters in his home in the United States. Disqualifying condition E2.A2.1.2.1. (an immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country) applies in evaluating Applicant's security worthiness.
The security concerns engendered by the foreign citizenship of family members and close associates may be mitigated where it can be determined that the immediate family member(s), (spouse, father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters), cohabitant, or associate(s) in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States (MC E2.A2.1.3.1.), or contact and correspondence with foreign citizens are casual and infrequent (MC E2.A2.1.3.3.). While his contact with his paternal relations in European country #2 from September 1998 to approximately June 2000 cannot be considered casual, Applicant has lost contact with these relatives. There is little risk of Applicant being vulnerable to foreign influence because of the foreign citizenship and residency of these cousins. His relationship with them pales in comparison with his feelings of affection for the members of his immediate family (sons, mother and siblings), all of whom are resident citizens of the United States. Similarly, a romantic relationship with a foreign national cannot reasonably be viewed as casual. The risk of foreign influence which existed because of Applicant's long-distance relationship with Ms. C has been overcome by subsequent events, namely the termination of their romance. There is no evidence Applicant currently maintains any contact with Ms. C. Subparagraphs 2.a. and 2.d. are thus found for Applicant.
Applicant's ties to European country #1 softball officials Mr. A and Ms. B are not so easily dismissed. Applicant shares more than a professional relationship with them, especially with Mr. A. In February 1998, Applicant enjoyed the hospitality of Mr. A in the latter's home before accompanying Mr. A and Ms. B to an ESF congress meeting. On trips to Europe to umpire in tournaments held in countries other than European country #1, Applicant has visited with Mr. A. In September 1998, Applicant officiated at a European cup championship in European country #3. Before the tournament, Applicant stayed with Mr. A in the latter's home in European country #1. In February 1999, Applicant flew at his expense to European country #3 to attend an ESF congress meeting. After the meeting, Applicant drove to European country #1 with Mr. A and Ms. B, where he stayed with Mr. A for four days. In February 2000, Applicant stayed with Mr. A for a couple of days at the latter's residence in European country #1 before attending with Mr. A and Ms. B an ISF congress meeting held in the Middle East. Even during off-season, Applicant has regular contact with Mr. A and monthly contact with Ms. B. Although there is no evidence any undue influence has been brought to bear on either Mr. A or Ms. B by European country #1 governmental or police authorities, Mr. A and Ms. B are in prominent positions with regard to a sport which has increased visibility since it was raised to the Olympic level and receives some (albeit limited) government funding. (4) After considering the nature of his ongoing relationship with these foreign nationals, the risk of undue influence cannot be completely discounted. Subparagraphs 2.b. and 2.c. are thus concluded against Applicant.
Formal Findings as required by Section 3. Paragraph 7 of Enclosure 1 to the Directive are hereby rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline C: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against the Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline B: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: For the Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
1. Applicant testified that following a leave of absence, he returned to the university in 1976 and graduated in 1979. (See transcript p. 70). On his security clearance application (Ex. 1), Applicant provided dates of attendance at the university from September 1970 to May 1971 and from July 1976 to January 1978. There is no indication of any degree or diploma having been received by him from the university.
2. Applicant and a witness testified the process for selection in the United States was political rather than based solely on merit. (See transcript pp. 39-40, 126-27).
3. Applicant testified European country #1's softball association receives limited government funding (about $2,500 per year) which goes to the junior or senior national team. The six softball clubs in that foreign country are on their own with respect to funding. (See transcript p. 139).
4. Although not alleged as raising foreign influence concerns, Applicant's service as a representative of European country #1 at international tournaments and as a non-voting delegate at ISF meetings increases his vulnerability to possible coercion or pressure. (See DC E2.A2.1.2.6.).