Summary
The applicant, a 55-year-old software engineer with over 30 years in the defense industry, faced security concerns under Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline K (security violations) due to family ties in China and past security violations. The judge found that the applicant's security violations were inadvertent and did not compromise classified information, and that his familial connections did not pose a significant risk of coercion or conflict of interest. The applicant's request for a security clearance was granted.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s son lives in the People’s Republic of China (China) and is married to a citizen of China (SOR 2.a) (2.a). Applicant’s daughter-in-law is a citizen and resident of China enrolled as a graduate student at a Chinese university (SOR 2.b) (2.b). In October 2012, Applicant committed a security violation by bringing a cell phone into a secure facility and failing to report it before the phone was discovered during a spot inspection (1.a). In September 2013, Applicant committed a security violation by failing to discover a classified compact disc while closing a secure area at the end of the workday (1.b). On December 18, 2014, Applicant was fired from his job after three times committing security violations by “tailgating” to gain access to a secure space despite being twice warned about such procedural violations (1.c).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 34(g), AG ¶ 34(h). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 35(a), AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's security violations were deemed inadvertent and did not result in the loss or compromise of classified information; The applicant's familial ties to China were not likely to create a conflict of interest or coercion due to his limited contact with family members abroad; The applicant has a long career in the defense industry and has held a security clearance for most of his life.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's security violations were deemed inadvertent and did not result in the loss or compromise of classified information.
- The applicant's familial ties to China were not likely to create a conflict of interest or coercion due to his limited contact with family members abroad.
- The applicant has a long career in the defense industry and has held a security clearance for most of his life.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified Information
- AG ¶ 34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Habits
- AG ¶ 35(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Behavior or Infrequent Occurrence
- AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons
- AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Strong U.S. Ties
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 29, 2016
- Answer filedJan 23, 2017
- Hearing heldAug 9, 2016
- Decision date—
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Violations Under Guideline K Due to Inadvertent Nature
- Assessment of Foreign Influence Risks Under Guideline B Considering Limited Contact with Foreign Family Members
- Application of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions.