CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02239 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 18-02239

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date4/27/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 18-02239.a1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
Applicant, a 35-year-old senior software engineer and naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Pakistan, sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated concerns regarding his in-laws residing in Pakistan and his failure to disclose a brother who has been incarcerated in the U.S. since 2005 on multiple security clearance applications.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to having minimal contact with his in-laws and denied any intent to deceive regarding his brother's incarceration, claiming he was advised not to disclose this information. He acknowledged that he had omitted his brother's details in previous applications but later included them in a 2017 application. Applicant provided letters of recommendation attesting to his integrity and reliability, and he argued that his relationship with his in-laws was not a significant risk to national security.
The administrative judge ruled against Applicant, concluding that while he mitigated concerns related to foreign influence, he did not sufficiently address the personal conduct issues stemming from the falsifications on his security clearance applications. The judge emphasized the importance of honesty in the security clearance process and determined that the applicant's omissions raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02239

deniedApr 27, 2020· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Pakistan and employed as a senior software engineer, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). While the applicant successfully mitigated foreign influence concerns related to his in-laws in Pakistan, significant issues arose regarding his personal conduct.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant repeatedly falsified material facts on security clearance applications in 2013, 2014, and 2015, and during background interviews in 2011 and 2016. Specifically, he failed to disclose his brother as a relative, who was imprisoned. Additionally, it was alleged that the applicant resigned from employment in 2013 after being informed he would be fired.

The administrative judge found that the applicant's explanations for these omissions were not credible and did not demonstrate good faith efforts to correct the falsifications. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct concerns, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated foreign influence concerns related to his in-laws in Pakistan.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Minimal Loyalty to Foreign Contacts
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens
AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment of Behavior and CounselingThe applicant's behavior was not deemed unlikely to recur.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 17, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 13, 2020Conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateApr 27, 2020

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Falsification of Information as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline E
Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Omissions on Security Clearance Applications

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's in-laws are citizens and residents of Pakistan, which raised concerns under Guideline B regarding foreign influence. However, the judge concluded that the applicant's minimal contact with his in-laws and their lack of affiliation with the Pakistani government mitigated the security concerns, resulting in a finding for the applicant on this allegation.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted SOR ¶ 1.a., concerning his in-laws in Pakistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of falsification related to his security clearances, specifically for failing to disclose his brother as a relative. However, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding his resignation from a job before being fired. Overall, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied due to concerns about personal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleged that Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearances in 2015, 2014, 2013, and in background interviews in 2016 and 2011, by failing to disclose his brother as a relative.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—
2.f	The SOR alleged in SOR ¶ 2.f that Applicant resigned from his employment after being told that he would be fired in 2013.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.