ISCR Case 07-15877.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-15877.h1

grantedDec 22, 2008· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 51-year-old engineer with 27 years in the defense industry, whose security clearance was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons raised concerns regarding the applicant's foreign contacts and the reporting of these associations.

Specifically, the applicant corresponded weekly with a Cambodian national and a Philippine national via an internet service, also speaking to each by telephone. He also corresponded at least weekly and spoke bi-weekly by phone with a Vietnamese national, whom he met during a December 2006 trip to Vietnam. While the applicant did not initially report these foreign contacts to his Facility Security Officer (FSO), the government did not establish a responsibility for him to do so at the time. He did, however, report all these associations after the fact, as evidenced by Foreign Relative or Associate Interviews, and reported his trip to Vietnam to his FSO.

Ultimately, the judge granted the security clearance. The decision noted the applicant's long history of holding a clearance without violations, his subsequent reporting of foreign contacts and the trip to Vietnam, and his actions to terminate relationships with foreign nationals. These factors demonstrated that the applicant did not lack candor or fail to safeguard classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant had a long history of holding a security clearance without violations.
The applicant reported his foreign contacts and trip to Vietnam after the fact, demonstrating transparency.
The applicant took steps to terminate relationships with foreign nationals, mitigating concerns about exploitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
K33raisedDeliberate or Negligent Failure to Comply with Rules and Regulations for Protecting Classified or Other Sensitive Information

Mitigating

E17(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress
K34appliedThe Individual Complied with the Requirements of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 8, 2008
Answer filedJul 18, 2008
Hearing heldSep 25, 2008
Decision dateDec 22, 2008

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Contact Concerns Under Guideline E
Compliance with Handling Protected Information Under Guideline K
Application of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Through the auspices of an internet service, which he joined in 2006, the Applicant corresponded, about once a week, with a Cambodian national. He also spoke to her on one occasion by telephone. When corresponding with this foreign national, he did not report this foreign contact to his Facility Security Officer (FSO), but the Government has failed to show that Applicant has a responsibility to do so. He did, however, report his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.	For Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Through the auspices of the same internet service the Applicant corresponded, about once a week, with a Philippine national. He also spoke to her on the telephone. When corresponding with this foreign national, he did not report this foreign contact to his Facility Security Officer (FSO), but the Government has failed to show that Applicant has a responsibility to do so. He did, however, report his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.	For Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Through the auspices of the internet service the Applicant corresponded, "at least once a week," with a Vietnamese national. About every other week, he also spoke to her on the telephone. In December of 2006, during a visit to Vietnam, the Applicant met this foreign national. The primary purpose of this trip was to visit Vietnam, and not to visit this foreign national. The Applicant did report his trip to Vietnam to his FSO. He also reported his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.	For Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Through the auspices of an internet service, which he joined in 2006, the Applicant corresponded, about once a week, with a Cambodian national. He also spoke to her on one occasion by telephone. When corresponding with this foreign national, he did not report this foreign contact to his Facility Security Officer (FSO), but the Government has failed to show that Applicant has a responsibility to do so. He did, however, report his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.

For Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

Foreign Contacts or Interests

Admitted

—

1.b

Through the auspices of the same internet service the Applicant corresponded, about once a week, with a Philippine national. He also spoke to her on the telephone. When corresponding with this foreign national, he did not report this foreign contact to his Facility Security Officer (FSO), but the Government has failed to show that Applicant has a responsibility to do so. He did, however, report his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.

For Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

Foreign Contacts or Interests

Denied

—

1.c

Through the auspices of the internet service the Applicant corresponded, "at least once a week," with a Vietnamese national. About every other week, he also spoke to her on the telephone. In December of 2006, during a visit to Vietnam, the Applicant met this foreign national. The primary purpose of this trip was to visit Vietnam, and not to visit this foreign national. The Applicant did report his trip to Vietnam to his FSO. He also reported his association with this foreign national after the fact, as evidenced by a Foreign Relative or Associate Interview.

For Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

Foreign Contacts or Interests

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant did comply with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual by reporting his December 2006 trip to Vietnam (TR at page 43 line 15 to page 44 line 22, and AppX A at Encl III).	For Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant did comply with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual by reporting his December 2006 trip to Vietnam (TR at page 43 line 15 to page 44 line 22, and AppX A at Encl III).

For Applicant

Unspecified Information Handling

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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