CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01884 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 19-01884

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/25/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 19-01884.a1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 47-year-old male of Lebanese descent and citizenship, who sought a security clearance for a position as a linguist supporting U.S. forces in Iraq. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline B (foreign influence), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline F (financial considerations). The core allegations included the applicant's dual citizenship, financial ties to Lebanon, and a history of academic dishonesty.
The applicant admitted to the allegations under Guideline B, acknowledging his dual citizenship and maintaining a bank account in Lebanon. He also confirmed his close relationships with family members in Lebanon, including a brother and a cousin who is a police officer. Regarding the personal conduct allegation, he initially denied cheating on university exams but later admitted to the misconduct after consulting a lawyer. He expressed regret for his actions, recognizing their long-term impact on his life. The financial allegations were withdrawn by the government after the applicant provided additional information.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the security concerns related to foreign influence and personal conduct. The judge emphasized that the applicant's close ties to Lebanon, a country with known risks of terrorism and corruption, created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation and potential conflicts of interest. The judge found that the applicant's admissions and explanations did not sufficiently alleviate the concerns regarding his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Withdrawn
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. 19-01884

deniedMay 25, 2021· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old male dual citizen of Lebanon and the U.S. was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant maintained close family ties in Lebanon, including a brother residing in Saudi Arabia and a cousin who is a police officer with the Lebanese Ministry of Justice. He also held a bank account in Lebanon containing approximately $4,000 and had ongoing contact with several aunts and another cousin who are Lebanese citizens and residents.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's personal conduct. In May 2015, he was dismissed from a university for academic dishonesty after cheating on two examinations. The judge determined that the applicant did not adequately mitigate these security concerns, specifically regarding potential foreign exploitation and issues of dishonesty.

Ultimately, the applicant's dual citizenship and extensive family connections in Lebanon were deemed to create an elevated risk of foreign influence. Combined with his history of academic dishonesty and a perceived lack of candor during the investigation, these factors led to the denial of his security clearance, as his reliability and trustworthiness could not be established.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's dual citizenship and close family ties in Lebanon created a heightened risk of foreign influence.
The applicant's history of academic dishonesty and lack of candor during the investigation raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Influence - Contact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedForeign Influence - Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal Conduct - Questionable Judgment and Dishonesty

Key Rule Quoted

“The United States has a compelling interest in protecting and safeguarding classified information from any person, organization, or country that is not authorized to have access to it, regardless of whether that person, organization, or country has interests inimical to those of the United States.”
— ISCR Case No. 02-11570 at 5 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 30, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateMay 25, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Denial Based on Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Impact of Dual Citizenship 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to foreign influence, citing concerns about dual citizenship, foreign bank accounts, and close ties to family members in Lebanon. The applicant admitted to these ties but failed to mitigate the associated security risks, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was a dual citizen of the Lebanese Republic and the United States since 2015.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(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	Applicant maintained a bank account in Lebanon with an approximate amount of $4,000.	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Other	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.c	Applicant's brother is a citizen of Lebanon and resident of Saudi Arabia.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.d	Applicant's cousin is a citizen and resident of Lebanon, and is a police officer with the Lebanese Ministry of Justice.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.e	Applicant has close and continuing contact with at least three aunts and one cousin who are citizens and residents of Lebanon.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns related to academic dishonesty. The applicant was dismissed from a university for cheating on two examinations, which the judge concluded was not mitigated by any evidence presented.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In May 2015, Applicant was dismissed from a university for academic dishonesty by cheating on two examinations.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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.