ISCR Case 06-22050.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-22050.h1

deniedOct 31, 2008· Hon. Robert J. Tuidar· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old senior engineer scientist, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from India, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's parents, two siblings, in-laws, an aunt, and a niece are all citizens and residents of India. While some foreign influence concerns were mitigated due to his established loyalty to the U.S., significant issues remained regarding his personal conduct.

Specifically, the applicant provided false statements during government interviews. He failed to disclose that his wife's aunt had resided with him since 2001 and was still living with him at the time of the interview. Furthermore, when asked about paying foreign nationals for childcare or household duties, he repeatedly denied doing so. However, he had been paying his aunt a monthly salary, which started at $250 in late 2001, increased to $350, and then to $650 per month by May 2002.

These false statements led to a denial of program access by another U.S. government agency in May 2005. The security clearance was ultimately denied because the applicant's false statements regarding foreign nationals residing with him raised significant concerns about his honesty and reliability, his close relationships with family in India created a heightened risk of foreign influence, and his failure to disclose financial arrangements with a foreign national living in his home further undermined his credibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided false statements regarding foreign nationals residing with him, which raised significant concerns about his honesty and reliability.
The applicant's close relationships with family members in India created a heightened risk of foreign influence and potential coercion.
The applicant's failure to disclose financial arrangements with a foreign national living in his home further undermined his credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 18raisedPersonal Conduct Involving Dishonesty

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedEstablished Loyalty to the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedValue of U.S. Business Interests

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2008
Answer filedMar 31, 2008
Hearing heldJul 23, 2008
Decision dateOct 31, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to False Statements Under Guideline E
Impact of Foreign Family Ties on Security Clearance Under Guideline B
Importance of Honesty and Candor in Security Clearance Evaluations Under Guideline E

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
1.a	Applicant’s parents and two of his siblings, a brother and a sister, are residents and citizens of India.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law are residents and citizens of India.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleged that Applicant has an aunt and a niece, who are residents and citizens of India.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	India	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s parents and two of his siblings, a brother and a sister, are residents and citizens of India.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law are residents and citizens of India.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Admitted

—

1.c

The SOR alleged that Applicant has an aunt and a niece, who are residents and citizens of India.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

India

Admitted

—

1.d

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to disclose that his wife’s aunt had resided with him for about three months in 2001 and that this aunt had resided with him since about 2001, and was living with him at the time of the interview.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	During the same interview, when Applicant was asked whether he paid any of the foreign nationals residing with him a salary for child care and/or for performing household duties, he denied having done so. He failed to disclose that he had paid his aunt currently residing with him a salary since late 2001.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	During March 2004 and April 2004 government-sponsored interviews, when he was asked whether any foreign nationals living with him had been paid a salary for child care and/or for performing household duties, he denied paying anyone a salary. He failed to disclose that he had paid his aunt beginning in late 2001 a monthly salary of $250, which he later increased to $350 per month, and beginning in May 2002 increased to $650 per month.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.d	In May 2005, Applicant was denied program access by another U.S. government agency as a result of his having provided false statements.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to disclose that his wife’s aunt had resided with him for about three months in 2001 and that this aunt had resided with him since about 2001, and was living with him at the time of the interview.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

2.b

During the same interview, when Applicant was asked whether he paid any of the foreign nationals residing with him a salary for child care and/or for performing household duties, he denied having done so. He failed to disclose that he had paid his aunt currently residing with him a salary since late 2001.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

2.c

During March 2004 and April 2004 government-sponsored interviews, when he was asked whether any foreign nationals living with him had been paid a salary for child care and/or for performing household duties, he denied paying anyone a salary. He failed to disclose that he had paid his aunt beginning in late 2001 a monthly salary of $250, which he later increased to $350 per month, and beginning in May 2002 increased to $650 per month.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

2.d

In May 2005, Applicant was denied program access by another U.S. government agency as a result of his having provided false statements.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

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