ISCR Case 18-02192

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02192

deniedAug 7, 2019· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's ongoing financial support to family in Afghanistan was a significant factor, creating a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.

Additionally, the applicant had a history of arrests, including a 1995 conviction for soliciting a prostitute, which he disclosed in a 2009 Screening Questionnaire. He also did not disclose two other arrests in his 2014 e-QIP, asserting they were dismissed. During a January 2018 interview, the applicant revealed he lived and worked in Afghanistan from December 2014 to May 2016, establishing a business partnership with his Afghan brother-in-law, registered in the brother-in-law's name.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence concerns stemming from his family ties and business in Afghanistan. Furthermore, his arrest history and incomplete disclosures during the security clearance process demonstrated questionable judgment and reliability. These factors collectively led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not mitigate foreign influence concerns due to family ties in Afghanistan.
The applicant's history of arrests and failure to disclose relevant information during the security clearance process indicated questionable judgment and reliability.
The applicant's financial support to family members in Afghanistan created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant's contact with family members in Afghanistan created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign PersonsThe applicant's connections to family in Afghanistan created a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or FalsificationThe applicant deliberately falsified or concealed relevant facts in his e-QIPs.
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedProviding False or Misleading InformationThe applicant provided misleading information during his interview.
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's pattern of personal misconduct raised questions about his reliability.
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedVulnerability to ExploitationThe applicant's business dealings in Afghanistan created a vulnerability to exploitation.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 27, 2018
Answer filedFeb 1, 2019
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 7, 2019

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Personal Conduct Issues Related to Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
The Impact of Financial Support to Foreign Relatives on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns arising from his connections to family members in Afghanistan.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.b–1.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns arising from his connections to family members in Afghanistan.

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.b–1.c

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with soliciting a prostitute. He disclosed this information in his March 2009 Screening Questionnaire (SQ). He stated that he talked to a prostitute for a cousin, who could not speak English. He was convicted and placed on probation for one year.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.i	Applicant credibly asserted that he did not disclose two arrests in his 2014 e-QIP because both cases were dismissed.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
2.j	During his January 2018 interview, Applicant stated that from December 2014 until May 2016, he lived and worked in Afghanistan. He told the investigator that he and his brother-in-law, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan, started a business partnership, buying gas from Iran and shipping it to Afghanistan. Applicant said he registered the business in his brother-in-law’s name because as a U.S. ci	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with soliciting a prostitute. He disclosed this information in his March 2009 Screening Questionnaire (SQ). He stated that he talked to a prostitute for a cousin, who could not speak English. He was convicted and placed on probation for one year.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.i

Applicant credibly asserted that he did not disclose two arrests in his 2014 e-QIP because both cases were dismissed.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

2.j

During his January 2018 interview, Applicant stated that from December 2014 until May 2016, he lived and worked in Afghanistan. He told the investigator that he and his brother-in-law, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan, started a business partnership, buying gas from Iran and shipping it to Afghanistan. Applicant said he registered the business in his brother-in-law’s name because as a U.S. ci

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

Foreign Contacts or Interests

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION