ISCR Case 16-00891.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00891.h1

deniedNov 15, 2018· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 60-year-old defense contractor and former military officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to his involvement in events leading to his wife's felony conviction. The applicant and his wife accepted a $750,000 payment from an individual with significant foreign connections, using $675,000 of it to purchase a house. During this period, and both before and after the loan, the applicant's wife, a consular associate, regularly adjudicated visa applications for employees of specific companies and close associates of the individual who provided the loan. Neither the applicant nor his wife disclosed this payment to any U.S. Government official.

Furthermore, the couple provided false information on two home equity loan applications by failing to disclose the $750,000 loan. Although the United States agreed not to prosecute the applicant as part of his wife's plea agreement, these actions raised significant security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's acceptance of the substantial loan while his wife adjudicated visas for the lender's associates, and the deliberate omission of this loan on multiple home equity loan applications, demonstrating a lack of candor. The judge also found the applicant's testimony to be self-serving and not credible, indicating a failure to take accountability for the circumstances that led to his wife's conviction.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant accepted a substantial loan from an individual with foreign connections while his wife adjudicated visa applications for that individual's associates.
The applicant and his wife failed to disclose the loan on multiple home equity loan applications, constituting deliberate omission and lack of candor.
The applicant's testimony was deemed self-serving and not credible, indicating a lack of accountability for the events leading to his wife's conviction.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 21, 2017
Answer filedJul 14, 2017
Hearing heldAug 18, 2018
Decision dateNov 15, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Lack of Credibility in Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Conduct
Impact of Spouse's Criminal Conduct 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	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was involved in events that led to his wife’s felony conviction. He and his wife accepted $750,000 from an individual with substantial foreign connections, part of which they used to buy a house for $675,000. Applicant’s wife regularly adjudicated visa applications submitted by employees of Companies X and Y and close associates and relatives of Mr. A throughout her tenure as a consular associate, including the periods before and after the loan agreement with Mr. A. Neither of them informed any member of the U.S. Government about the payment.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.b	They provided false information on applications for two home equity loans when they failed to divulge the loan from Mr. A.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	As part of his wife’s plea agreement, the United States agreed not to prosecute Applicant.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was involved in events that led to his wife’s felony conviction. He and his wife accepted $750,000 from an individual with substantial foreign connections, part of which they used to buy a house for $675,000. Applicant’s wife regularly adjudicated visa applications submitted by employees of Companies X and Y and close associates and relatives of Mr. A throughout her tenure as a consular associate, including the periods before and after the loan agreement with Mr. A. Neither of them informed any member of the U.S. Government about the payment.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.b

They provided false information on applications for two home equity loans when they failed to divulge the loan from Mr. A.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

1.c

As part of his wife’s plea agreement, the United States agreed not to prosecute Applicant.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES