ISCR Case 15-07170.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07170.h1

deniedNov 18, 2016· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to downloading child pornography between 2007 and 2011, which raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. Additionally, he illegally sold Adderall and lied to police to protect a fraternity brother who was driving while intoxicated.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's close and ongoing friendship with a Brazilian citizen. This friend's father, grandfather, and aunt hold or held important positions at the highest levels within the Brazilian government. While close ties to a foreign national are not inherently disqualifying, this relationship created a potential for foreign influence and a risk of compromising classified information.

The applicant's refusal to cooperate with government investigators further undermined his credibility. The judge found the evidence presented by the applicant insufficient to mitigate these serious concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's admissions regarding downloading child pornography raised serious doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's close relationship with a Brazilian citizen, whose family holds significant positions in the Brazilian government, created a heightened risk of foreign influence.
The applicant's refusal to cooperate with government investigators further undermined his credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)appliedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)appliedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(b)appliedPattern of Compulsive or High-risk Sexual Behavior
AG ¶ 13(c)appliedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 14(a)rejectedBehavior Occurred During AdolescenceThe applicant's behavior was not limited to adolescence.
AG ¶ 14(b)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's behavior raised serious doubts about his current reliability.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interest as their own.”
— Egan, 484 U.S. at 531

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 27, 2015
Answer filedNov 20, 2015
Hearing heldMay 16, 2016
Decision dateNov 18, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Past Criminal Behavior Under Guideline D
Heightened Risk of Foreign Influence Due to Close Relationships Under Guideline B
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Serious Security Concerns Regarding Personal Conduct 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
2.a	Applicant met (M), a Brazilian citizen and resident, while both were attending college in the United States, but studying abroad. They lived in the same building during four months while studying abroad and became close friends.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Brazil	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant visited his Brazilian friend in 2010 after college and in 2015 with his wife. They have continued their close friendship to present and communicate on a frequent basis.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Brazil	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	M’s father, grandfather, and aunt hold or held important positions at the highest levels within the Brazilian government.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other GOVT-AFFILIATED	Brazil	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	The mere possession of close ties of affection or obligation with a person in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, disqualifying under Guideline B. However, if only one person with close ties lives in a foreign country and an applicant has contacts with that relative, this factor alone may be sufficient to create the potential for foreign influence and could potentially result in the compromise of classified information.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Brazil	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant met (M), a Brazilian citizen and resident, while both were attending college in the United States, but studying abroad. They lived in the same building during four months while studying abroad and became close friends.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Brazil

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant visited his Brazilian friend in 2010 after college and in 2015 with his wife. They have continued their close friendship to present and communicate on a frequent basis.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Brazil

Admitted

—

2.c

M’s father, grandfather, and aunt hold or held important positions at the highest levels within the Brazilian government.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

GOVT-AFFILIATED

Brazil

Admitted

—

2.d

The mere possession of close ties of affection or obligation with a person in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, disqualifying under Guideline B. However, if only one person with close ties lives in a foreign country and an applicant has contacts with that relative, this factor alone may be sufficient to create the potential for foreign influence and could potentially result in the compromise of classified information.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Brazil

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	Between 2007 and 2011, Applicant searched for, downloaded, and masturbated to child pornography.	Against Applicant	Child Pornography Involvement	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted (b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop (c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

1.a

Between 2007 and 2011, Applicant searched for, downloaded, and masturbated to child pornography.

Against Applicant

Child Pornography Involvement

Denied

(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted

(b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a–4.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a–4.e

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	illegally sold Adderall (SOR ¶ 3.a)	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.b	lied to police officers to cover for a fraternity brother who drove while intoxicated (SOR ¶ 3.b)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

illegally sold Adderall (SOR ¶ 3.a)

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

3.b

lied to police officers to cover for a fraternity brother who drove while intoxicated (SOR ¶ 3.b)

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

3.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

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