CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06978.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 09-06978.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date9/13/2012
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline B, citing significant foreign influence concerns due to the applicant's close ties to high-ranking Afghan officials, including family members. The applicant's failure to disclose these relationships during the security clearance process further contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06978.h1

deniedSep 13, 2012· Hon. Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 61-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from significant concerns regarding the applicant's close family ties to high-ranking Afghan officials and his failure to disclose these relationships during the security clearance process.

Specifically, the applicant has a friend and multiple relatives, including an uncle and several cousins, who have held or currently hold high-ranking positions in the Afghan government. One cousin, the daughter of a high-ranking Afghan official, lives in Afghanistan but works for a U.S. company. The applicant's brother is an Afghan citizen residing in the United States.

The applicant failed to disclose these foreign contacts on his security clearance applications and during a June 22, 2009, interview with a DoD investigator. He answered "NO" to questions about relatives or friends employed by a foreign government, which was deemed a false answer. Additionally, he described close relatives as "distant" with no contact, despite being from a large, close family. The judge concluded that these foreign contacts posed a security risk and that the applicant's lack of candor demonstrated unreliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has multiple relatives who are high-ranking officials in the Afghan government, creating a potential for foreign influence.
The applicant failed to disclose significant foreign contacts on his security clearance applications and during interviews, indicating a lack of candor and honesty.
The applicant's close ties to influential family members in Afghanistan pose a heightened risk of foreign exploitation or coercion.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B.7(a)appliedContact with Foreign Family Members
E.16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission of Relevant Facts
E.16(b)appliedProviding False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 25, 2011
Answer filedJun 28, 2011
Hearing heldJul 30, 2012Applicant was rescheduled multiple times due to being in Afghanistan.
Decision dateSep 13, 2012

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Lack of Candor and Dishonesty Under Guideline E
The Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline B, citing significant foreign influence concerns due to the applicant's close ties to high-ranking Afghan officials, including family members. The applicant's failure to disclose these relationships during the security clearance process further contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has a friend who is a high ranking Afghan official.	Against Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend GOVT-AFFILIATED	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.b	The Applicant has a number of relatives that include several cousins and an uncle who have held or are presently holding high ranking positions in the Afghan government.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.c	The Applicant’s uncle was a high ranking Afghan official in one capacity, and then he became a high ranking Afghan official for another agency.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.d	Another cousin was a high level Afghan official. He presently lives in the United States.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.e	Another cousin, the daughter of a high ranking Afghan official, lives in Afghanistan but works for a United States company.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.f	The Applicant’s brother is a citizen of Afghanistan and resides in the United States.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

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 Administrative Judge found against the Applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that he engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment and lack of candor. The Applicant's failure to disclose foreign contacts and provide truthful answers during the security clearance process raised serious concerns about his trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant failed to disclose any of his relatives or associates that have worked for or are presently working for a foreign government.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	During an interview with a DoD investigator dated June 22, 2009, the Applicant failed to reveal that he had a friend who is a high ranking Afghan official.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	The Applicant answered, 'NO' to interrogatories asking if he has any relatives or friends who have ever been employed by a foreign government. This was a blatantly false answer.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.d	The Applicant described his uncle and two cousins as 'distant relatives' with whom he had no contact, despite being from a large, close family.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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.