Summary
The applicant, a 42-year-old defense contractor born in Afghanistan, sought a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). While he mitigated concerns related to foreign influence due to limited contact with family members in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he failed to mitigate personal conduct concerns stemming from discrepancies in his disclosures during security interviews. Consequently, his application for a security clearance was denied.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has a sister who is a citizen of Germany and resides there. He has limited contact with her (1.a). Applicant has a father-in-law and mother-in-law who reside in the United States. His mother-in-law is a U.S. citizen and his father-in-law's citizenship is pending. They have no affiliation with the Afghanistan government (1.b). Applicant has five sisters-in-law who were citizens of Afghanistan and resided in Pakistan. Three no longer live in Pakistan, two moved to the Netherlands and the third moved to England. None of them are affiliated with the Afghanistan or Pakistan governments (1.c). Applicant has a sister-in-law who is an Afghanistan citizen and resides there. She is a housewife, not affiliated with the Afghanistan government. He has contact with this sister-in-law about once every five years (1.d). Applicant has a brother-in-law who is a citizen of Afghanistan and a resident of France. He is a salesman and has no affiliation with the Afghanistan government. Applicant's last contact with this brother-in-law was over one year ago (1.e). Applicant sent money to his parents-in-law, who were living in Pakistan at the time, using the Hawala system. He admitted to sending approximately $150-$200 six times a year between 2003 and 2004. He also disclosed that he loaned his brother-in-law, who lives in France, $25,000 to assist him with his business (1.f).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1, B2.A2.1. The judge applied mitigating conditions B3.A3.1, B3.A3.2. The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to disclose financial assistance to his in-laws and loans to his brother-in-law during security interviews, raising concerns about personal conduct; The applicant's testimony regarding the reasons for his omissions was found not credible, undermining his case for mitigation.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to disclose financial assistance to his in-laws and loans to his brother-in-law during security interviews, raising concerns about personal conduct.
- The applicant's testimony regarding the reasons for his omissions was found not credible, undermining his case for mitigation.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire or During Any Personnel Security Interview.
- B2.A2.1raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member, Business or Professional Associate, Friend, or Other Person Who Is a Citizen of or Resident in a Foreign Country If That Contact Creates a Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation, Inducement, Manipulation, Pressure, or Coercion.
- B3.A3.1appliedThe Nature of the Relationships with Foreign Persons, the Country in Which These Persons Are Located, or the Positions or Activities of Those Persons in That Country Are Such That It Is Unlikely the Individual Will Be Placed in a Position of Having to Choose Between the Interests of a Foreign Individual, Group, Organization, or Government and the Interests of the U.S.
- B3.A3.2appliedThere Is No Conflict of Interest, Either Because the Individual’s Sense of Loyalty or Obligation to the Foreign Person, Group, Government, or Country Is so Minimal, or the Individual Has Such Deep and Longstanding Relationships and Loyalties in the U.S., That the Individual Can Be Expected to Resolve Any Conflict of Interest in Favor of the U.S. Interest.
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 issuedJan 5, 2011
- Answer filedJan 26, 2011
- Hearing heldSep 30, 2011
- Decision date—
Cite For
- Failure to Disclose Financial Assistance and Loans as a Personal Conduct Issue Under Guideline E
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Limited Family Ties in Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Omissions in Security Interviews