Prior Service in a foreign military and clearances

[Geenie]

Gentlemen,

my go-to guy for these types of questions has gone off the grid, so I would like to pose the following question openly: How is service in a foreign military rated by US army recruiters, specifically with regard to obtaining the clearances needed for service in SOF units.

I have consulted AR 601-210, but was unable to find an answer.

In the publicly available security clearance guidelines, "Military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country" is referenced as a factor that may be disqualifying to obtaining a clearance. The corresponding mitigating circumstance is listed as "Activity is sanctioned by the United States."

I am considering doing a year or two in the German military. This would allow me to gain some valuable preliminary training during a time in my life where I am not yet able to move the US and enlist in the Army. Since Germany is a NATO partner of the US, I would hope that my prior training would be viewed as an asset by a recruiter or clearance review board. At the same time, however, I would not want to risk adding anything to the list of things that may preclude me being granted a clearance later on. How can I find out whether voluntarily joining a foreign (allied) military is sanctioned by the United States?

If anyone has first hand knowledge of the relevant regulations, can point me in the right direction, or has other advice for me in this matter, I would be grateful.

[Scimitar]

Hello Geenie,


Firstly, here a good read

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/5200.2-R.pdf
Specifically Appendix 8c(3) pp139

"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(1) the exercise of dual citizenship;
(2) possession and/or use of a foreign passport;
(3) military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;
(4) accepting educational, medical, or other benefits, such as retirement and social welfare, from a foreign country;
(5) residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;
(6) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;
(7) seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;
(8) voting in foreign elections; and
(9) performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
DoD 5200.2-R, January 1987

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(1) dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
(2) indicators of possible foreign preference (e.g., foreign military service) occurred before obtaining United States citizenship;
(3) activity is sanctioned by the United States;
(4) individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.

Interestingly, apparently "willingness" changed in the last few years, as most contries actually simply don't have regulations that even allow someone to revoke their citizenship, the US does, but is one of the few. Apparently all that is required now is a letter stating that you are willing to revoke your citizenship. When I contacted my "other" country government employee in charge of such things, she laughed and said, "sure send me the letter of revokation, I'll put it in my top draw with all the others"


Secondly,

One resource to take note of is the "DOD Security Clearance review board" that publish most of its findings ever year.

Link = http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2010.html

My limited understanding is that if a clearance request is at all dubious, it is rejected and then an appeal can be heard by this board, so in essence this board decides where the line in the sand is drawn.

If the regs are ambigious on an issue then it is likely that this board will have created some precedence on the mater.

I recommend you cut and paste this into a word document and use the search function.

Note: This document only covers civilian contractor’s hearings, I would hazard a guess that the precedence created would follow over to the uniformed side of the house, but that is a total uneducated guess.

I'm not sure where, if at all, the uniformed hearings are published.

Others here, will be able to clear up these questions

Hope this helps

Scimitar

[Geenie]

Scimitar,

Thanks for your reply! The first resource you reference is actually one that I quoted in my original post. Good to know we found the same stuff

Regarding the renunciation of dual-citizenship, it seems to be one of those things were you consistently get different answers, depending on who you talk to. I recently was in contact with a recruiter who frequents this board and he had this to say on the matter:

AR 601-210 is the regulation that I as a recruiter have to go by when enlisting applicants into the Army. Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-4f. states that, "Applicants enlisting into the RA/AR/ARNG holding dual citizenship with the United States and another country may enlist; however, they may not be enlisted into an MOS that requires a security clearance unless they already possess a clearance".
[...]
I found out today from my higher headquarters that if you want to go in the Army with an 18X contract, you would have to renounce your German Citizenship. You would have to go to the Embassy and turn in your passport and let them know that you no longer wish to be a German citizen.

I too, have heard, however, that many countries don't actually recognize one's renunciation, which is fortunate if one would prefer to maintain dual citizenship, e.g. for family reasons.

Either way, I've come to terms with not being 100% sure about what I'll end up with in regards to potentially having to renounce my dual-citizenship. Ultimately, the willingness to do so must be there if I truly have my heart set on becoming SF.

Nevertheless, this thread isn't about dual-citizenship per se, and the question remains as to how much of a concern service in an allied military would really be to the US Army. I have received a PM from one member of this board who served in the IDF and got his clearance. That is a good sign, though I know that the IDF may be a special exception in some regards.

I will sort through the second source you mention and post my findings here. In the meantime, I would welcome any other opinions or experiences from the distinguished members of this board.

[goon175]

It will create much more trouble than it is worth. Use some common sense, and look at what you stand to gain versus what you stand to lose. If I were you, I would just wait until you can join the U.S. Army. Keep in mind, the Army is not in the waiver granting mood right now with the RIF that is happening.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by goon175

It will create much more trouble than it is worth. Use some common sense, and look at what you stand to gain versus what you stand to lose. If I were you, I would just wait until you can join the U.S. Army. Keep in mind, the Army is not in the waiver granting mood right now with the RIF that is happening.

Good point on the waiver front, however the RIF does not apply so much to the SOF side of the house.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

Good point on the waiver front, however the RIF does not apply so much to the SOF side of the house.

For those who are SOF.

For those trying to become SOF that will mean less and less waivers.

[Geenie]

Gentlemen,

thanks again for your input. The link provided by Scimitar is an excellent source for all questions regarding security clearance questions and should give good indication as to how review boards think and adjudicate to anyone who has any questions regarding clearances. I am reposting it for good measure:

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2010.html

With regard to my findings in general, it all depends. Not much surprise there. The "whole person concept" is exactly that. Anyone who has concerns about obtaining a security clearance should familiarize themselves with the documents linked in this thread and take as many steps toward mitigation of any potential concerns as possible.

In my particular case, I fear that I am off to a bad start. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Realpolitik]

Sorry for reviving an old thread, but I'm interested in an update if possible, as I am in a similar boat.

[Dalik]

PM sent.