ISCR Case 08-07613.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07613.h1

deniedJun 4, 2009· Hon. David M. White· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman, which he concealed from his family and failed to disclose on multiple security clearance applications. The affair began in 2002 while he was serving in Ecuador, and he continued to visit her approximately twice a year, providing regular financial support of $100 per month and additional payments of $300 twice annually, purportedly for nursing school expenses.

The applicant admitted to never informing his Air Force supervisors or disclosing the relationship during security debriefs after his visits. He also failed to list her as an associate on his 2006 and 2008 security clearance applications. He claimed his financial contributions were gifts given out of generosity and stated he was consulting an attorney about a divorce, awaiting his wife's relocation to simplify the process.

The judge found that the nature of the relationship raised significant security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on the heightened risk of foreign exploitation due to the clandestine affair, the applicant's lack of candor and questionable judgment in failing to disclose the relationship, and concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness stemming from the ongoing affair and financial support to a foreign national.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant maintained a clandestine extramarital affair with a foreign national, creating a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
He failed to disclose this relationship on his security clearance applications, demonstrating a lack of candor and questionable judgment.
The ongoing nature of the affair and financial support provided to the foreign national raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Influence - Contact with a Foreign National
AG ¶ 7(i)raisedForeign Influence - Conduct While Traveling Outside the U.S.
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior - Vulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 15(a)raisedPersonal Conduct - Omission of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 15, 2009
Answer filedFeb 13, 2009Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJun 4, 2009

Cite For

Security Concerns Regarding Foreign Influence Due to Clandestine Relationships
Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications
Vulnerability to Coercion From Foreign Contacts

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 conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support.	Against Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Ecuador LOW RISK / ALLY	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support.

Against Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Ecuador

LOW RISK / ALLY

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support. He concealed this information from his family and professional associates, and omitted any mention of her on his application to upgrade his clearance.	Against Applicant	Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk	Admitted	(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

3.a

Applicant conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support. He concealed this information from his family and professional associates, and omitted any mention of her on his application to upgrade his clearance.

Against Applicant

Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk

Admitted

(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
1.a	Applicant conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	He concealed this information from his family and professional associates, and omitted any mention of her on his application to upgrade his clearance.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	He did not directly respond to SOR ¶¶ 2.a or 3.a, but those two paragraphs incorporated allegations from Item 5.	Against Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	He failed to list her as an associate on his 2006 and 2008 security clearance applications.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	He admitted that he never told his Air Force supervisors about the relationship nor did he disclose it during security debriefs after his visits.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.f	He explained that all his contributions to her financial well being were gifts for which he expected nothing in return that he made due to his generous nature.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	He has sent the woman payments of $100 per month and additional payments of $300 twice per year, purportedly to help her with nursing school expenses.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	He has returned to Ecuador approximately twice a year since 2002 to continue the affair.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	He claimed that he has consulted an attorney about obtaining a divorce, but is waiting for his wife to move to the state where he resides to make the process easier.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant conducted a clandestine extramarital affair with an Ecuadoran woman he met while serving there in 2002, returning to see her about twice a year and providing regular financial support.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

1.b

He concealed this information from his family and professional associates, and omitted any mention of her on his application to upgrade his clearance.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.c

He did not directly respond to SOR ¶¶ 2.a or 3.a, but those two paragraphs incorporated allegations from Item 5.

Against Applicant

Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing

—

Unknown

—

1.d

He failed to list her as an associate on his 2006 and 2008 security clearance applications.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.e

He admitted that he never told his Air Force supervisors about the relationship nor did he disclose it during security debriefs after his visits.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.f

He explained that all his contributions to her financial well being were gifts for which he expected nothing in return that he made due to his generous nature.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.g

He has sent the woman payments of $100 per month and additional payments of $300 twice per year, purportedly to help her with nursing school expenses.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.h

He has returned to Ecuador approximately twice a year since 2002 to continue the affair.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

1.i

He claimed that he has consulted an attorney about obtaining a divorce, but is waiting for his wife to move to the state where he resides to make the process easier.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

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