Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 53-year-old retired Air Force senior master sergeant of Chinese descent, sought to retain his security clearance amid concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), E (Personal Conduct), and F (Financial Considerations). The applicant mitigated these concerns by demonstrating stable financial status, a lack of significant foreign influence, and a commitment to U.S. interests, leading to a favorable decision for security clearance.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: From 2002 to 2008 Applicant was self-employed in the electronics field. His major contract was with a Japanese corporation. The general manager for the contract was a Japanese citizen, hereafter referred to as Mr. A. Applicant closed his firm in December 2008 because of the downturn in the economy and shortly afterward began working for an American firm, Company One. Applicant and Mr. A continued to correspond by email on an occasional basis until 2016, primarily about sports. In early 2011 Mr. A contacted Applicant. Mr. A at that time was stationed in a European country. He asked Applicant for a loan of approximately $40,000 so he could arrange to conclude his affairs in Europe and return to Japan. Applicant had the funds available and transferred the money to Mr. A in July 2011. Applicant loaned an additional $10,000 to Mr. A in 2013. The loans were repaid in full by Mr. A in May 2016, as shown by banking documents. Applicant has had no contact with Mr. A since 2016. Applicant does not intend to transfer money to Mr. A again (1.a). Applicant admitted that he has relatives in China. The contacts are distant relatives of Applicant’s father. Applicant and his father visited these people once, in 1992. Applicant’s father, who is deceased, asked Applicant to maintain contact with these family members. Applicant does this by calling them on Chinese New Year, and other special occasions. He had dinner with one of them seven years ago, when he was in China on business. He has had no other personal contact with these people, since the initial visit (1.b). Applicant failed to follow his employer’s security policies and regulations regarding foreign travel (2.a). Applicant failed to obtain a hand-carry letter for company equipment taken to China (2.b). In approximately 2009 Applicant lent about $65,000 to his then sister-in-law. This loan was to allow the sister-in-law to open a frozen yogurt shop. The sister-in-law eventually paid Applicant approximately $7,000 on the loan. The rest of the loan was unpaid and the shop closed. Applicant vehemently stated he would not lend this person money ever again (3.a). In November 2013 Applicant lent $42,000 to his sister. This money was so his sister could buy a house at a discounted rate. Starting in March 2014 Applicant’s sister began paying this money back on a monthly basis. She made consistent payments and completely paid back this loan in February 2016, as shown by banking documents (3.b). The Government alleges that Applicant’s conduct lending money to Mr. A, discussed under subparagraph 1.a, above, also has security significance under this guideline (3.c).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b), AG ¶ 7(f). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated that his foreign contacts were minimal and did not pose a significant risk of foreign influence; He provided evidence of financial stability and responsible financial behavior, including repayment of loans; The applicant's strong ties to the U.S. and positive character references supported his case for clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant demonstrated that his foreign contacts were minimal and did not pose a significant risk of foreign influence.
• He provided evidence of financial stability and responsible financial behavior, including repayment of loans.
• The applicant's strong ties to the U.S. and positive character references supported his case for clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJan 9, 2017
• Answer filedMar 17, 2017
• Hearing heldAug 23, 2017
• Decision dateJun 19, 2018

Cite For

• Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
• Evaluation of Personal Conduct Related to Foreign Travel Under Guideline E
• Financial Responsibility and Stability as Mitigating Factors Under Guideline F