Summary
The applicant, a 30-year-old married U.S. Marine Corps veteran, sought a security clearance under Guideline B due to concerns about foreign influence stemming from his Russian in-laws. Despite his commendable military service and stable employment, the judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the security risks associated with his parents-in-law, particularly given the father's position in the Russian military and the geopolitical context of U.S.-Russia relations.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s wife is a 24-year old Russian citizen who has been living in the U.S. for the past four years (1.a). Applicant’s parent-in-laws are dual Russian/Ukrainian citizens who live in Russia (1.b). Applicant’s father-in-law is a lieutenant colonel in the Russian Federation Army (1.c). Applicant’s wife’s maternal grandparents are citizens and residents of Ukraine (1.d). Applicant’s wife’s aunt is a Russian citizen who lives in Italy (1.e). Applicant has had minimal contact with his wife’s aunt (1.f).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's father-in-law is a lieutenant colonel in the Russian Federation Army, creating a significant security concern; The applicant's relationship with his parents-in-law was deemed to create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion due to their Russian citizenship and residency.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's father-in-law is a lieutenant colonel in the Russian Federation Army, creating a significant security concern.
- The applicant's relationship with his parents-in-law was deemed to create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion due to their Russian citizenship and residency.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Influence
- AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of RelationshipsThe applicant's relationship with his parents-in-law was not considered casual or infrequent enough to mitigate the security concern.
- AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual CommunicationThe applicant's limited communication with his in-laws did not overcome the presumption of familial ties.
Key rule quoted
“A current and accurate assessment of the ‘geopolitical situation’ and the security/intelligence profile of the [foreign] country vis-a-vis the United States is crucial in Guideline B cases.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedAug 3, 2010
- Answer filedSep 9, 2010
- Hearing heldOct 27, 2010
- Decision dateJan 24, 2011
Cite for
- Impact of Foreign Family Ties Under Guideline B
- Geopolitical Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
- The Presumption of Familial Ties in Foreign Influence Cases