ISCR Case 09-06697.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06697.h1

deniedMay 11, 2011· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old federal contractor with a background in counterintelligence and language instruction was denied a security clearance under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), and E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from concerning statements made during prior employment screenings that raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to stating in a January 2002 interview that he was unsure if he could work for a U.S. President who did not share his political and personal views. In a June 2004 interview, he expressed an affinity for Israel and indicated he might be tempted to omit or alter translated information to aid the Israeli people if it could result in adverse action against them. During the same 2004 interview, he admitted to claiming eight hours of work daily while only working six hours from January to April 2002. Additionally, he married his current wife, a foreign citizen, in 2004, which violated a federal agency policy against association with foreign nationals, though he stated this was unintentional.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's troubling statements regarding his ability to work for a Commander in Chief with differing views and his expressed willingness to potentially alter information to aid Israelis. The applicant did not provide satisfactory explanations to mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant made troubling statements regarding his ability to work for a Commander in Chief whose views he did not share.
He expressed an affinity for Israel and indicated he might alter information to aid Israelis, raising concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant did not provide satisfactory explanations to mitigate the concerns raised by his statements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Key Rule Quoted

“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 3, 2010
Answer filedDec 1, 2010Applicant timely answered the amended SOR.
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2011
Decision dateMay 11, 2011

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct
Impact of Troubling Statements on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Applicant's Judgment and Reliability in Security Clearance Decisions

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
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant expressed an affinity for Israel, and that if asked to translate information that could result in adverse action against Israelis, he may be tempted to omit or alter information to aid the Israeli people.	For Applicant	Foreign Voting	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant expressed an affinity for Israel, and that if asked to translate information that could result in adverse action against Israelis, he may be tempted to omit or alter information to aid the Israeli people.

For Applicant

Foreign Voting

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a(1)	During a January 2002 interview with the federal agency, Applicant expressed concerns about whether he would be able to work for an administration or mission that was contrary to his moral values. During the same interview, he stated that he was unsure if he could ever work for a Commander in Chief (i.e., the U.S. President) who did not share his political and personal views. With explanation, Applicant admits making this statement.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.a(2)	During a June 2004 interview (not January 2002 as alleged) with the same federal agency, Applicant stated that he had an affinity for Israel, and that if asked to translate information that could result in adverse action against Israelis, he may be tempted to omit or alter information to aid the Israeli people. With explanation, Applicant admits making this statement.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.a(3)	During the same June 2004 interview, he reported that from January 2002 to April 2002, while working at the language school, he often worked six hours daily, but claimed eight hours daily. With explanation, Applicant admits this conduct.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.a(4)	Applicant married his current wife in 2004, when she was a foreign citizen, in violation of the federal agency’s policy against association with foreign nationals. With explanation, Applicant admits unknowingly or unintentionally violating this policy.	For Applicant	Violation of Written Commitment	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a(1)

During a January 2002 interview with the federal agency, Applicant expressed concerns about whether he would be able to work for an administration or mission that was contrary to his moral values. During the same interview, he stated that he was unsure if he could ever work for a Commander in Chief (i.e., the U.S. President) who did not share his political and personal views. With explanation, Applicant admits making this statement.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

—

1.a(2)

During a June 2004 interview (not January 2002 as alleged) with the same federal agency, Applicant stated that he had an affinity for Israel, and that if asked to translate information that could result in adverse action against Israelis, he may be tempted to omit or alter information to aid the Israeli people. With explanation, Applicant admits making this statement.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

—

1.a(3)

During the same June 2004 interview, he reported that from January 2002 to April 2002, while working at the language school, he often worked six hours daily, but claimed eight hours daily. With explanation, Applicant admits this conduct.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.a(4)

Applicant married his current wife in 2004, when she was a foreign citizen, in violation of the federal agency’s policy against association with foreign nationals. With explanation, Applicant admits unknowingly or unintentionally violating this policy.

For Applicant

Violation of Written Commitment

—

Admitted

—

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

ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES