ISCR Case 05-02102.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-02102.h1

deniedSep 29, 2009· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct, and alcohol consumption. The applicant had significant family ties in countries with known security risks, including a wife, two children, and two step-children who are citizens and residents of Country One. His mother-in-law and her husband, also citizens of Country One, reside in Country Two, where the husband is employed by an important person. Both Country One and Country Two are noted for security concerns, including terrorist threats and human rights issues, with U.S. travel warnings in effect for both.

The applicant also demonstrated a pattern of alcohol abuse, with three Driving Under the Influence (DUI) incidents. These occurred in 1998 in Country Four, in 2003 on an American military installation in Country Three, and again in 2007 in Country Three. Despite denying drinking to intoxication two to three times per month, an interview report indicated he becomes intoxicated after three beers and drinks to intoxication with that frequency, though he stated intentions to quit drinking.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant's three alcohol-related incidents indicated a pattern of abuse, and his immediate family's residence in a country with severe economic problems and terrorist threats raised unmitigated foreign influence concerns. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to alleviate these security risks.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had three alcohol-related incidents, indicating a pattern of alcohol abuse.
The applicant's immediate family resides in a country with severe economic problems and terrorist threats, raising concerns of foreign influence.
The applicant failed to provide compelling evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his foreign contacts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G-22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G-22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
B-7(a)raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member
B-7(b)raisedConnections to a Foreign Person or Country

Mitigating

G-23(a)rejectedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was InfrequentThe applicant continues to drink alcohol despite acknowledging its adverse impact.
G-23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Issues and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant has not established a pattern of abstinence or responsible use.
B-8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's family ties create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
B-8(b)rejectedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Deep U.S. TiesThe applicant's connections to foreign countries present a potential conflict of 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 issuedDec 12, 2008
Answer filedFeb 4, 2009
Hearing held—Decision made without a hearing.
Decision dateSep 29, 2009

Cite For

Excessive Alcohol Consumption as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline G
Foreign Contacts Raising Security Concerns Under Guideline B
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Despite Acknowledgment of Issues

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	The Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident Country One. She lives there with the Applicant’s two children as well as his two step-children. The step-children are also citizens of Country One. The Applicant states in his Answer, “My wife has no interest in becoming an American citizen. . . . Because of the assignments I have chosen, my wife and I decided for the family to reside in [Country One] to receive family and moral support during my deployment. My intentions [are] to retire in [Country One] in the future.”	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Country One 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	—	—
2.b	The Applicant’s mother-in-law and her second husband are citizens of Country One and reside in Country Two. The Applicant admits that the husband is employed on a personal basis by an important person in Country Two. The Applicant states in his Answer, “I do not receive any benefits through my mother-in-law (sic) husband employment with [the important person].” Other than this statement, the record is silent regarding the extent and depth of the Applicant’s relationship with his relatives who live in Country Two.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Country Two 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	—	—
2.c	The Applicant has many contacts with Country One. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discuss the situation in Country One at this time. Country One is a multiparty republic with an elected president and bicameral legislature. It is a representative democracy modeled on the U.S. system and has been a close ally of the United States with ties stretching back more than a century. Country One has severe economic problems, exacerbated by threats from terrorist groups in certain parts of the country. A travel warning has been issued to U.S. citizens, warning them of the potential terrorist threat in Country One. In addition to the terrorist threat, the United States is also concerned about internal human rights issues which present a serious destabilizing concern. These include arbitrary, unlawful and extrajudicial killings by elements of the security services, as well as arbitrary and warrantless arrests and detentions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Country One 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	—	—
2.d	The Applicant also has contacts, through his wife’s family, with Country Two. It is also appropriate to discuss the situation in that country as well. Country Two is a monarchy with an all-powerful ruling family. The central institution of the Country Two government is the monarchy, and there are no political parties or national elections. The United States Government finds that there are significant human rights problems in Country Two, such as judicially sanctioned corporal punishment, denial of public trials, and restrictions on civil liberties. There is corruption and a lack of government transparency, as well as discrimination and violence against women. Other religious, ethnic and minority groups have faced discrimination. Terrorist acts have been committed against Americans in Country Two and the U.S. Government has issued a travel warning due to the ongoing security threat.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Country Two 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	—	—
2.e–2.f	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident Country One. She lives there with the Applicant’s two children as well as his two step-children. The step-children are also citizens of Country One. The Applicant states in his Answer, “My wife has no interest in becoming an American citizen. . . . Because of the assignments I have chosen, my wife and I decided for the family to reside in [Country One] to receive family and moral support during my deployment. My intentions [are] to retire in [Country One] in the future.”

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Country One

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

—

2.b

The Applicant’s mother-in-law and her second husband are citizens of Country One and reside in Country Two. The Applicant admits that the husband is employed on a personal basis by an important person in Country Two. The Applicant states in his Answer, “I do not receive any benefits through my mother-in-law (sic) husband employment with [the important person].” Other than this statement, the record is silent regarding the extent and depth of the Applicant’s relationship with his relatives who live in Country Two.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

GOVT-AFFILIATED

Country Two

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

—

2.c

The Applicant has many contacts with Country One. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discuss the situation in Country One at this time. Country One is a multiparty republic with an elected president and bicameral legislature. It is a representative democracy modeled on the U.S. system and has been a close ally of the United States with ties stretching back more than a century. Country One has severe economic problems, exacerbated by threats from terrorist groups in certain parts of the country. A travel warning has been issued to U.S. citizens, warning them of the potential terrorist threat in Country One. In addition to the terrorist threat, the United States is also concerned about internal human rights issues which present a serious destabilizing concern. These include arbitrary, unlawful and extrajudicial killings by elements of the security services, as well as arbitrary and warrantless arrests and detentions.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Country One

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

—

2.d

The Applicant also has contacts, through his wife’s family, with Country Two. It is also appropriate to discuss the situation in that country as well. Country Two is a monarchy with an all-powerful ruling family. The central institution of the Country Two government is the monarchy, and there are no political parties or national elections. The United States Government finds that there are significant human rights problems in Country Two, such as judicially sanctioned corporal punishment, denial of public trials, and restrictions on civil liberties. There is corruption and a lack of government transparency, as well as discrimination and violence against women. Other religious, ethnic and minority groups have faced discrimination. Terrorist acts have been committed against Americans in Country Two and the U.S. Government has issued a travel warning due to the ongoing security threat.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Country Two

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

—

2.e–2.f

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

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The Applicant filled out a Security Clearance Application on January 27, 2003. In that Application the Applicant was required to answer Question 24., which asked, “Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” He stated “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning his prior use of alcohol. The report of the Applicant’s interview held in November 2007 states, “Regarding the unadmitted 1998 drunk driving arrest, the subject forgot about the incident when completing the SF86.” The Applicant did not file an answer regarding this allegation in the amended SOR, which I find is a denial. Given the state of this record, I cannot find with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally falsified his Application. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	The Government alleges in this subparagraph that the Applicant withheld information during his November 2007 interview. Specifically, that he was questioned about other alcohol related incidents and, while revealing one in January 2007, he actively failed to disclose information on the 2003 DUI arrest set forth in subparagraph 1.b., above. I have reviewed the statement and it does not state that the Applicant actively, or passively, denied any other alcohol related incidents. Given the state of this record, I cannot find with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally did not tell the interviewer about his 2003 arrest. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The Applicant filled out a Security Clearance Application on January 27, 2003. In that Application the Applicant was required to answer Question 24., which asked, “Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” He stated “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning his prior use of alcohol. The report of the Applicant’s interview held in November 2007 states, “Regarding the unadmitted 1998 drunk driving arrest, the subject forgot about the incident when completing the SF86.” The Applicant did not file an answer regarding this allegation in the amended SOR, which I find is a denial. Given the state of this record, I cannot find with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally falsified his Application. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

3.b

The Government alleges in this subparagraph that the Applicant withheld information during his November 2007 interview. Specifically, that he was questioned about other alcohol related incidents and, while revealing one in January 2007, he actively failed to disclose information on the 2003 DUI arrest set forth in subparagraph 1.b., above. I have reviewed the statement and it does not state that the Applicant actively, or passively, denied any other alcohol related incidents. Given the state of this record, I cannot find with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally did not tell the interviewer about his 2003 arrest. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2007, while working for his employer in the ---------------------- (Country Three). He paid a fine to the government of Country Three, and his employer transferred him back to the United States. (Item 8 at 3, and Item 10.)	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	The Applicant was arrested in October 2003 on an American military installation in Country Three for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. The Applicant admits being required to take alcohol education classes and his driver’s license being restricted.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	The Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in August 1998 on an American military installation in ---------- (Country Four). According to the Military Police report, the Applicant refused to complete the field sobriety test and also refused to take any breath tests. As a result of this incident his driving privileges on the base were suspended for one year. (Item 9.)	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	The Applicant denied that, as of November 2007, he drank to the point of intoxication two to three times per month. In his Answer the Applicant states, “I only stated that I only drink a few beers two to three times a month.” In a report of an interview with the Applicant, which the Applicant authenticated as being accurate on the day he was interviewed, it is stated: The subject [Applicant] becomes intoxicated after drinking three beers. When intoxicated, the subject becomes friendly and sociable. The subject will drink to intoxication two to three times a month. The subject does not believe he has a problem with alcohol. The subject’s future intentions are to quit drinking alcohol all together. It has caused to (sic) many problems for him in the past. (Item 8 at 4.)	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2007, while working for his employer in the ---------------------- (Country Three). He paid a fine to the government of Country Three, and his employer transferred him back to the United States. (Item 8 at 3, and Item 10.)

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.b

The Applicant was arrested in October 2003 on an American military installation in Country Three for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. The Applicant admits being required to take alcohol education classes and his driver’s license being restricted.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.c

The Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in August 1998 on an American military installation in ---------- (Country Four). According to the Military Police report, the Applicant refused to complete the field sobriety test and also refused to take any breath tests. As a result of this incident his driving privileges on the base were suspended for one year. (Item 9.)

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.d

The Applicant denied that, as of November 2007, he drank to the point of intoxication two to three times per month. In his Answer the Applicant states, “I only stated that I only drink a few beers two to three times a month.” In a report of an interview with the Applicant, which the Applicant authenticated as being accurate on the day he was interviewed, it is stated: The subject [Applicant] becomes intoxicated after drinking three beers. When intoxicated, the subject becomes friendly and sociable. The subject will drink to intoxication two to three times a month. The subject does not believe he has a problem with alcohol. The subject’s future intentions are to quit drinking alcohol all together. It has caused to (sic) many problems for him in the past. (Item 8 at 4.)

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

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