ISCR Case 09-05160.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-05160.h1

deniedFeb 28, 2011· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had extensive family ties in Pakistan, including a brother-in-law who is a retired colonel in the Pakistani Army. While the applicant stated he was not close to his brother-in-law, he maintained close relationships with his parents-in-law and other siblings-in-law who reside in Pakistan.

Additionally, the applicant provided false information on his August 8, 2005, Security Clearance Application. He falsely answered "No" to a question about arrests, charges, or convictions within the last seven years. In a September 2008 interview, he admitted to being arrested in a foreign country on September 11, 2001, for hitting an immigration official. After diplomatic negotiations, he returned to the U.S. and faced federal human trafficking charges, which were dismissed in 2003. The government also alleged he presented a fake U.S. Army contractor ID in August 2007.

The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his foreign ties and his lack of candor regarding his criminal history. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant family ties in Pakistan, including a retired military officer, which raises concerns of foreign influence.
The applicant provided false information regarding his criminal history during the security clearance process, demonstrating a lack of candor and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant did not prove that his relationships with foreign family members would not create a conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedMinimal Conflict of InterestThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his ties to the U.S. outweighed his foreign connections.
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unique CircumstancesThe judge found that the applicant's conduct regarding the fake ID was mitigated by the circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 25, 2010
Answer filedJun 5, 2010Applicant requested decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 28, 2011

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Lack of Candor and Reliability Under Guideline E
Impact of Foreign Connections 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	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has many in-laws who are citizens and residents of Pakistan, including a brother-in-law who is a retired colonel in the Pakistani Army.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.b	Applicant is not close to his brother-in-law who is a retired colonel in the Pakistani Army, but he considers his parents-in-law and other siblings-in-law to be close.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has many in-laws who are citizens and residents of Pakistan, including a brother-in-law who is a retired colonel in the Pakistani Army.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.b

Applicant is not close to his brother-in-law who is a retired colonel in the Pakistani Army, but he considers his parents-in-law and other siblings-in-law to be close.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant filled out a Security Clearance Application on August 8, 2005. In that Application he was required to answer Question 23., which asked, “Your Police Record: f. In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in response to . . . [other subsections]?” He stated “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning his criminal record. In September 2008 Applicant admitted during an interview that he had been arrested in a foreign country on September 11, 2001, for hitting an immigration official while with his sister-in-law. After diplomatic negotiations, Applicant was allowed to return to the United States. After returning to the United States, Applicant was charged in Federal court with Human Trafficking. In 2003 the charges were dismissed.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The Government alleges in this subparagraph that Applicant intentionally created a fake U.S. Army contractor ID and presented this fake ID to an Army CI screener in August 2007.	For Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsNOT DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant filled out a Security Clearance Application on August 8, 2005. In that Application he was required to answer Question 23., which asked, “Your Police Record: f. In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in response to . . . [other subsections]?” He stated “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning his criminal record. In September 2008 Applicant admitted during an interview that he had been arrested in a foreign country on September 11, 2001, for hitting an immigration official while with his sister-in-law. After diplomatic negotiations, Applicant was allowed to return to the United States. After returning to the United States, Applicant was charged in Federal court with Human Trafficking. In 2003 the charges were dismissed.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

The Government alleges in this subparagraph that Applicant intentionally created a fake U.S. Army contractor ID and presented this fake ID to an Army CI screener in August 2007.

For Applicant

Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsNOT DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

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

Claimed

Other

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

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES