CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-11787.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-11787.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11787.h1

deniedFeb 26, 2010· Hon. Claude R. Heiny II· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old linguist supporting the U.S. Army in Iraq was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited several concerns. Under Guideline B, the applicant has three sisters who are citizens of Lebanon, with two residing in Saudi Arabia and one in Lebanon. Another sister is a Lebanese citizen residing in the U.S. as a resident alien. Additionally, the applicant admitted to possessing approximately $300,000 in a Lebanese bank account, inherited from his father.

Under Guideline E, the applicant failed to appear at his scheduled security clearance hearing on January 26, 2010, without providing reasonable cause for his absence.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to attend the hearing. He also indicated that he no longer required a security clearance and did not propose an alternative hearing date. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to appear at the scheduled security clearance hearing without reasonable cause.
Applicant stated he no longer needed a security clearance and did not provide an alternative date for a hearing.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal ConductApplicant's failure to cooperate with security processing, including not attending the hearing.

Key Rule Quoted

“The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 30, 2009
Answer filedJul 13, 2009
Hearing heldJan 26, 2010Applicant failed to appear.
Decision dateFeb 26, 2010

Cite For

Failure to Appear at a Security Clearance Hearing Under Guideline E
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Requirements for Cooperation in Security Processing Under AG ¶ 15

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant was denied a security clearance due to failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, which was deemed without reasonable cause. The judge found that the applicant's foreign ties, including family members in Lebanon and a bank account in Lebanon, raised security concerns under foreign influence, leading to the denial of the application.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a brother and sister who are citizens of Lebanon residing in Saudi Arabia, he has a sister who is a citizen and resident of Lebanon, and he has another sister who is a citizen of Lebanon residing in the U.S. as a resident alien.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Lebanon	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits he has approximately $300,000 in a bank account in Lebanon, which he inherited from his father.	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	Lebanon	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant failed to appear at his scheduled security clearance hearing without reasonable cause, leading to a default decision and the denial of his security clearance. The judge found that the applicant's failure to cooperate with the security processing was a significant concern under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed, without reasonable cause, to appear at his security clearance hearing set for January 26, 2010.	Against Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-11787 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Daniel Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: none

February 26, 2010 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed, without reasonable cause, to appear at his security clearance hearing set for January 26, 2010. The case file is being forwarded to the Director, DOHA requesting a default decision and the automatic denial or revocation of Applicant’s security clearance.

Statement of the Case

Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny or revoke his eligibility for an industrial security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,1 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on June 30, 2009, detailing security concerns under foreign influence.

On July 13, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR, and requested a hearing. On December 22, 2009, I was assigned the case. On January 4, 2010, DOHA issued a notice of hearing scheduling the hearing which was held on January 26, 2010. The government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 4, which were admitted into evidence. Applicant failed to appear. On February 3, 2010, the transcript (Tr.) was received.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, he denied the factual allegations in ¶ 1.a of the SOR. Applicant’s mother, as of March 2009, is a U.S. citizen. He admitted he has a brother and sister who are citizens of Lebanon residing in Saudi Arabia, he has a sister who is a citizen and resident of Lebanon, and he has another sister who is a citizen of Lebanon residing in the U.S. as a resident alien. Applicant admits he has approximately $300,000 in a bank account in Lebanon, which he inherited from his father.

Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein. After a thorough review of the record, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following additional findings of fact:

Applicant is 57 years old and has worked as a linguist supporting the U.S. Army in Iraq since September 2006. He had an interim secret clearance, which expired March 2009, and he is seeking to obtain a security clearance. Applicant has not been in Lebanon since July 2003, and he currently lives and works in Iraq. Applicant has a bachelor’s degree in structural engineering from a U.S. university. (Tr.12) Applicant’s assets exceed one million dollars. (Tr. 12)

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

On August 6, 2009, Department Counsel (DC) presented Applicant with the government’s proposed exhibits and documents. Applicant responded to the material on August 21, 2009, he provided information and stated he would not be available to leave Iraq until mid-January 2010. On August 27, 2009, Applicant was offered the possibility of having the hearing conducted by video teleconference (VTC) allowing the Applicant to remain in Iraq. (Tr. 10) In September 2009, DC requested Applicant provide the January 2010 dates he would be in Texas. This request was renewed on November 10, 2010. (Tr. 11)

On December 23, 2009, Applicant was sent an e-mail indicating that Applicant’s security clearance hearing would be held in Houston, Texas on January 26, 2010. The e-mail indicated his failure to respond and/or appear at the hearing without approval would result in a default decision and the automatic denial or revocation of his security clearance. (Tr. 5) Applicant responded stating he would not be returning to the U.S. in January 2010 and did not know when he would return. He stated his work with the U.S. Army in Iraq did not require him to have a clearance.

On December 24, 2009, Applicant was informed that the case would proceed unless Applicant’s company withdrew their request for Applicant to have a security clearance. He was informed the hearing date would remain unless: one, his company formally withdrew its request that Applicant have a security clearance, or, two, an alternate time, date, and location were arranged for an in-person hearing or VTC hearing. (Tr. 6) Applicant’s company was provided a sealed envelope to be hand delivered and unopened to Applicant. The accompanying material stated that if the employee was no longer employed by the company or if the employee no longer required a security clearance for access to classified information, the envelope was to be returned unopened. (Tr. 7)

The company security officer acknowledged to DC that the hearing had been scheduled for January 26, 2010. (Tr. 7) DC indicated if Applicant no longer needed a clearance, the company should withdraw their request or make the Applicant available for either an in-person or a VTC hearing.

In a letter dated January 9, 2010, Applicant stated:

I cannot be present in the month of January in Houston for the hearing. I am canceling my interview. I do not need my clearance to be reinstated anymore. I am still in Iraq, and I have no intention to continue this line of work in the states. Thank you for your services. (Appellate Exhibit I, Tr. 8)

Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 15 articulates the security concerns relating to personal conduct. Additionally, it states:

The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, and cooperating with medical or psychological evaluation;

ANALYSIS

Applicant was asked when he would be in the U.S. so that a security clearance hearing could be scheduled. He was given the option of remaining in Iraq and having the hearing conducted by VTC. He said he could not leave Iraq until mid-January 2010; therefore, the hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2010. Applicant responded and stated he no longer needed a clearance. He was informed he needed to be at the hearing unless his company withdrew its request for him to have a clearance or an alternate hearing date was established. Applicant was informed that failing to appear without approval would result in a default decision and the automatic denial or revocation of his security clearance. Applicant failed to appear.

CONCLUSION

Applicant, without reasonable cause, failed to appear at his scheduled security clearance hearing. The file is forwarded to the Director, DOHA for the administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility.

_______________________ CLAUDE R. HEINY II Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.