ISCR Case 17-04265.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04265.h1

grantedAug 13, 2018· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old U.S. citizen and linguist, originally from Afghanistan, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The foreign influence concerns stemmed from the applicant's close family ties in Afghanistan, including a father, two brothers, and a sister who are citizens and residents there. The applicant maintained regular contact with these family members, including weekly calls and monthly financial support to his father, monthly contact with a brother, and quarterly contact with a sister.

Concerns under Personal Conduct involved two incidents. In March 2015, a team lead recommended the applicant's release due to alleged performance issues, including altering a message's intent, adding extraneous comments to a translation, tasking an individual without advisor direction, discussing operational details on an unsecure line, and possessing a cell phone during debriefs. In October 2017, the applicant violated a policy by leaving base without authorization, stating he was assisting an Afghan military officer with a resume at a nearby Afghan military installation.

Ultimately, the security clearance was granted. The judge found that the applicant demonstrated strong ties to the U.S. and a commitment to U.S. military service. Favorable recommendations from military personnel attested to the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, and the incidents of misconduct were considered minor and attributed to misunderstandings rather than dishonesty.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated strong ties to the U.S. and a commitment to serving the U.S. military.
Favorable recommendations from military personnel highlighted the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
The incidents of misconduct were deemed minor and resulted from misunderstandings, not dishonesty.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's two incidents of misconduct raised questions about his judgment and compliance with rules.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor or Infrequent OffensesThe incidents were considered minor violations and unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment and CounselingThe applicant acknowledged the incidents and took steps to comply with policies thereafter.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 10, 2018
Answer filedFeb 16, 2018
Hearing heldJul 19, 2018
Decision dateAug 13, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Strong U.S. Ties
Evaluation of Personal Conduct Incidents as Minor
Importance of Positive Performance Evaluations in Security Clearance Decisions

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	Applicant has several close family members who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	His father, two brothers and a sister are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant calls his father weekly. He sends his father $200 to $300 a month.	For Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant has contact with his brother on a monthly basis.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant has quarterly contact with his sister.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant has several close family members who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

2.b

His father, two brothers and a sister are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant calls his father weekly. He sends his father $200 to $300 a month.

For Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

2.d

Applicant has contact with his brother on a monthly basis.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

2.e

Applicant has quarterly contact with his sister.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	In March 2015, Applicant’s team lead recommended the release of Applicant because of performance issues. It was alleged that Applicant changed the intent of a message from an advisor during a task; added extraneous comments to the translation which were not consistent with what the advisor dictated to be translated; tasked an individual to conduct a mission without the direction of the assigned advisor; discussed operational details on an unsecure line, and possessed a cell phone during debriefs.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Claimed Other
1.b	In October 2017, Applicant violated the policy of not going off base even though he was briefed on the policy. On October 21, 2017, Applicant’s Site Manager performed a personnel accountability check. Applicant was unaccounted for. The gate guards observed Applicant entering the U.S. installation around 5:30 pm. When confronted about where he was, Applicant told the Site Manager that he was at the nearby Afghan Military Installation helping an Afghan military officer to complete a resume in order to apply for military school in the United States. Applicant stated it took longer than anticipated. Applicant was not answering his cell phone because the phone was in the process of recharging in his room.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

In March 2015, Applicant’s team lead recommended the release of Applicant because of performance issues. It was alleged that Applicant changed the intent of a message from an advisor during a task; added extraneous comments to the translation which were not consistent with what the advisor dictated to be translated; tasked an individual to conduct a mission without the direction of the assigned advisor; discussed operational details on an unsecure line, and possessed a cell phone during debriefs.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

Claimed

Other

1.b

In October 2017, Applicant violated the policy of not going off base even though he was briefed on the policy. On October 21, 2017, Applicant’s Site Manager performed a personnel accountability check. Applicant was unaccounted for. The gate guards observed Applicant entering the U.S. installation around 5:30 pm. When confronted about where he was, Applicant told the Site Manager that he was at the nearby Afghan Military Installation helping an Afghan military officer to complete a resume in order to apply for military school in the United States. Applicant stated it took longer than anticipated. Applicant was not answering his cell phone because the phone was in the process of recharging in his room.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

Claimed

Other

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