Summary
The applicant, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen employed by a defense contractor, faced security clearance denial due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), D (Sexual Behavior), and E (Personal Conduct). The applicant engaged in risky online behavior leading to extortion and maintained multiple relationships with foreign nationals, raising questions about potential coercion. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or change in behavior, resulting in a denial of security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant uses social media, including dating applications, in order to communicate with foreign nationals (2.a). In about January 2019, a stranger located in what Applicant believes was the Philippines (the Scammer) posed as a female online, and coerced Applicant into exposing himself over a video call (2.b). Applicant panicked, and over the next two days, sent the Scammer two electronic wire transfers totaling $1,000 (2.c). In February 2019, Applicant self-reported this extortion to his security officer at his place of employment (2.d). In July 2016, Applicant met a Chinese national, Ms. A, on an online dating site (2.e). Applicant engaged in activity of a sexual nature over a video conference call that was recorded with a person he did not know, resulting in him being extorted twice for approximately $1,000 (1.a). Applicant's online sexual video conferencing that resulted in him being exploited (3.a).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b), AG ¶ 12(c), AG ¶ 12(d), AG ¶ 16(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 14(b), AG ¶ 14(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant engaged in risky online behavior that led to extortion, demonstrating a lack of judgment; The applicant maintained multiple relationships with foreign nationals, particularly from China, raising concerns about potential coercion; The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or change in behavior after the extortion incident.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant engaged in risky online behavior that led to extortion, demonstrating a lack of judgment.
- The applicant maintained multiple relationships with foreign nationals, particularly from China, raising concerns about potential coercion.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or change in behavior after the extortion incident.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Contacts and Interests
- AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of Interest
- AG ¶ 12(c)raisedVulnerability to Coercion
- AG ¶ 12(d)raisedLack of Discretion or Judgment
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedVulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships Unlikely to Create ConflictThe applicant's relationships with foreign nationals, particularly from China, create a potential conflict of interest.
- AG ¶ 14(b)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant did not demonstrate that his risky behavior is unlikely to recur.
- AG ¶ 14(c)rejectedBehavior No Longer Serves as Basis for CoercionThe applicant failed to show that his past behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion.
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 issuedJun 18, 2021
- Answer filedJul 14, 2021Requested decision based on written record.
- Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
- Decision dateAug 11, 2022
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Risky Online Behavior Under Guideline D
- Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B Due to Relationships with Foreign Nationals
- Lack of Sufficient Evidence for Rehabilitation Under Guideline E