ISCR Case 16-03936.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03936.h1

deniedJun 6, 2018· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 60-year-old male applicant with a military and federal contracting background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), despite mitigating issues under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from questionable judgment and a lack of candor regarding his online financial interactions with individuals from Ghana.

Specifically, the applicant provided approximately $20,000 in financial support to an individual from Ghana, Person X, whom he met online between 2013 and 2015, initially believing Person X was a woman before learning it was a man involved in a fraudulent scheme. He also provided about $800 to Person Y, despite knowing she had previously extorted money from him. During a trip to Ghana to meet Person X, the applicant was extorted for approximately $3,600 by armed men and subsequently encountered corrupt police who also sought money. From late 2015 to early 2016, he provided about $2,000 to a third woman from Ghana, later discovering she was part of another fraudulent scheme.

Additionally, the applicant failed to timely file and pay his 2013 federal and state income taxes. While he mitigated the foreign influence and financial concerns, his failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process regarding his online financial support to individuals from Ghana ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant mitigated security concerns under Guideline B by demonstrating no heightened risk of foreign exploitation from his wife, a permanent resident from Azerbaijan.
Applicant mitigated financial concerns under Guideline F by resolving his tax debts and adhering to payment plans.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.CappliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
B7.iraisedConduct That May Make the Individual Vulnerable to Exploitation
F19.fraisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Income Tax Returns

Mitigating

B8.aappliedNature of the Relationship with Foreign Persons Is Unlikely to Create a Conflict of Interest
F20.dappliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts

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 issuedApr 27, 2017
Answer filedMay 24, 2017
Hearing heldApr 18, 2018Hearing rescheduled multiple times due to a hurricane and federal funding delays.
Decision dateJun 6, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on Personal Conduct Involving Questionable Judgment and Lack of Candor
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Lack of Evidence of Coercion
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Through Compliance with Tax Obligations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	From approximately 2013 to 2015, Applicant provided approximately $20,000 in financial support to Person X from Ghana that he met online. At the time, he believed this person was a woman. In 2015, he learned the person was a man participating in a fraudulent Internet scheme.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant provided approximately $800 in financial support for Person Y. He was in the United States and was aware that she had already extorted money from him through her cohorts.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant traveled to Ghana to meet Person X and was taken to a place to meet a woman, but soon realized the armed men were there to extort money from him. He paid the men approximately $3,600.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant reported the incident to the police, but they were corrupt and also wanted money from him. Applicant believes the police are part of the fraudulent romance schemes.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	From approximately December 2015 to February 2016, Applicant provided approximately $2,000 in financial support to a third woman from Ghana whom he met online. He later learned that she provided false information about her identity to him and was part of a fraudulent Internet scheme.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

From approximately 2013 to 2015, Applicant provided approximately $20,000 in financial support to Person X from Ghana that he met online. At the time, he believed this person was a woman. In 2015, he learned the person was a man participating in a fraudulent Internet scheme.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant provided approximately $800 in financial support for Person Y. He was in the United States and was aware that she had already extorted money from him through her cohorts.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant traveled to Ghana to meet Person X and was taken to a place to meet a woman, but soon realized the armed men were there to extort money from him. He paid the men approximately $3,600.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant reported the incident to the police, but they were corrupt and also wanted money from him. Applicant believes the police are part of the fraudulent romance schemes.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.e

From approximately December 2015 to February 2016, Applicant provided approximately $2,000 in financial support to a third woman from Ghana whom he met online. He later learned that she provided false information about her identity to him and was part of a fraudulent Internet scheme.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	failed to timely file his 2013 Federal and state income tax return	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
3.b	owed Federal income taxes for tax year 2013 that were not paid timely	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

failed to timely file his 2013 Federal and state income tax return

For Applicant

Tax Filing Failure

Denied

(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax

—

3.b

owed Federal income taxes for tax year 2013 that were not paid timely

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Denied

(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax

—

3.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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