Summary
A 69-year-old university professor and Department of Defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline L (Outside Activities). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant maintained contact with a member of the Bahrain government and a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, it was alleged that the applicant engaged in outside activities with foreign nationals, governments, or entities that could create a conflict of interest with security responsibilities.
The judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts were primarily academic and did not pose a heightened risk of foreign exploitation. The relationships with foreign nationals were characterized as casual and infrequent, which mitigated potential security concerns.
Ultimately, the applicant's longstanding ties to the U.S. and demonstrated commitment to national security were key factors in the decision. The judge concluded that the nature of these contacts did not create a conflict of interest, leading to the granting of the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's foreign contacts were primarily academic in nature and did not create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
- The applicant's relationships with foreign nationals were casual and infrequent, mitigating potential security concerns.
- The applicant has longstanding ties to the U.S. and demonstrated a commitment to national security.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 7(a)rejectedContact with Foreign NationalsThe Government did not demonstrate a heightened risk due to the nature of the applicant's foreign contacts.
- AG ¶ 7(b)rejectedPotential Conflict of InterestThe Government did not establish a potential conflict of interest between the applicant's contacts and his obligation to protect classified information.
- AG ¶ 37(a)rejectedEmployment with Foreign EntitiesThe applicant's outside activities did not pose a conflict of interest with his security responsibilities.
- AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe relationships were unlikely to place the applicant in a position of divided allegiance.
- AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of InterestThe applicant's deep ties to the U.S. outweighed any minimal obligations to foreign contacts.
- AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent ContactThe applicant's communication with foreign nationals was infrequent and did not create a risk for foreign influence.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 23, 2016
- Answer filedMar 2, 2017Response to amended SOR.
- Hearing heldMay 17, 2017Hearing conducted as scheduled.
- Decision dateJul 7, 2017
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
- Evaluation of Outside Activities Under Guideline L
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations