Summary
A 47-year-old U.S. citizen and electrical engineer, originally from Vietnam, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations of intentionally omitting and providing false information regarding his 1994 interactions with Vietnamese government officials across multiple security clearance applications in March 2002, April 2002, and 2008, as well as in responses to interrogatories. This pattern of omissions and misrepresentations raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose meetings with Vietnamese government officials during his 1994 trip to Vietnam in his security clearance applications and statements. The judge found that the applicant intentionally withheld these relevant facts, and his explanations for these omissions were not deemed credible.
Furthermore, the applicant did not make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct these omissions until after receiving the Statement of Reasons. Despite the application of several mitigating conditions, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant intentionally omitted relevant facts regarding his 1994 trip to Vietnam from his security clearance applications and interrogatories.
- The applicant's explanations for his omissions were deemed not credible by the judge.
- The applicant did not make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his omissions until after receiving the Statement of Reasons.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant failed to correct omissions until confronted with the Statement of Reasons.
- AG ¶ 17(b)rejectedImproper or Inadequate Advice of Authorized PersonnelThe applicant's reliance on advice did not mitigate the intentional omissions.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's behavior was not deemed minor and occurred over multiple years.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps TakenThe applicant did not acknowledge the behavior until after the SOR.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 23, 2010
- Answer filedAug 31, 2010
- Hearing heldDec 14, 2010
- Decision dateFeb 25, 2011
Cite For
- Intentional Omissions Regarding Foreign Contacts Under Guideline E
- Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Cases
- Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Leading to Denial of Clearance