ISCR Case 09-02220.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02220.h1

deniedJun 11, 2010· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance for his role as a translator with the U.S. military. The Department of Defense cited concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The denial was based on the applicant's significant financial delinquencies, totaling approximately $325,016. This included an unpaid state tax lien from 2008 for about $167,000, and other debts amounting to approximately $158,016, which the applicant admitted. These financial issues were deemed inadequately addressed or mitigated.

Additionally, the applicant's ties to foreign nationals raised security concerns. His father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan residing in Pakistan, and he has two uncles who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. The applicant also traveled to Afghanistan between May and December 2006 and to Pakistan annually from 2001 to 2006. The judge concluded that these foreign ties and financial issues presented unmitigated security risks, leading to the denial of his application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $325,016, which he failed to adequately address or mitigate.
The applicant's ties to foreign nationals, including family members residing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, raised security concerns regarding potential foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionThe nature of the relationships with foreign persons and their locations made it unlikely the applicant would have to choose between foreign and U.S. interests.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionThe applicant's longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S. were deemed sufficient to resolve any potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionContact with foreign citizens was so casual and infrequent that it posed little risk for foreign influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 5, 2009
Answer filedNov 25, 2009
Hearing heldFeb 25, 2010
Decision dateJun 11, 2010

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Financial Considerations Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Mitigating Conditions Applicable to Foreign Influence and Financial Issues

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
1.a	Applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan residing in Pakistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant’s sister-in-law is a citizen of Afghanistan residing in Pakistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	Applicant has two uncles who are citizens of and reside in Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties
1.d	Applicant traveled to Afghanistan between May and December 2006.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant traveled to Pakistan each year between 2001 and 2006.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan residing in Pakistan.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Applicant’s sister-in-law is a citizen of Afghanistan residing in Pakistan.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

1.c

Applicant has two uncles who are citizens of and reside in Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

1.d

Applicant traveled to Afghanistan between May and December 2006.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant traveled to Pakistan each year between 2001 and 2006.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant owes approximately $167,000 in unpaid state taxes for which a lien was filed against him in 2008. $167,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.b	Applicant owes approximately $158,016 in other debts attributable to him. $158,016	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.c–2.o	13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
2.p	Applicant admitted the debt listed at SOR 2.p.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.q–2.bb	38 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant owes approximately $167,000 in unpaid state taxes for which a lien was filed against him in 2008.

$167,000

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

2.b

Applicant owes approximately $158,016 in other debts attributable to him.

$158,016

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied with Explanation

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

2.c–2.o

13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

2.p

Applicant admitted the debt listed at SOR 2.p.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

2.q–2.bb

38 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

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