Summary
The applicant, a 26-year-old U.S. citizen and defense contractor janitor, faced security clearance concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence) and E (Personal Conduct) due to his marriage to an illegal alien from Mexico and inaccuracies in his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts did not pose a significant security risk and that his inaccuracies were not intentional, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence, which could result in the compromise of classified information (1.a). Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence, which could result in the compromise of classified information (1.b). Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to protect classified information (2.a). Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to protect classified information (2.b). Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to protect classified information (2.c). Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to protect classified information (2.d). Applicant completed his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing dated December 15, 2010. Question 23(a) asked Applicant if in the last seven years, has he used any illegal substances. Applicant answered, “No”. This was an inaccurate response. Applicant failed to disclose the fact that he used marijuana on one occasion in November 2008 (2.a). Question 26(d) of the same questionnaire asked Applicant if he had a lien placed against him for failing to pay taxes or other debts. Applicant answered, “No”. The Government contends that this was an inaccurate response since Applicant failed to disclose a tax lien that was filed against him in November 2007 in the amount of $398.00 (2.b). Question 26(g) of the same application asked Applicant if he has ever had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency. Applicant answered, “No”. This was an inaccurate response. The Government alleges that Applicant failed to list two outstanding debts: one owed to a creditor in the amount of $1,866.00; the other owed to a creditor in the amount of $301 (2.c).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions 7(a), 7(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions 8(a), 8(b), 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant is a native-born U.S. citizen with no significant foreign contacts that pose a security risk; His wife is in the process of obtaining legal citizenship and has no plans to return to Mexico; The applicant demonstrated candor regarding his wife's immigration status and his past marijuana use.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant is a native-born U.S. citizen with no significant foreign contacts that pose a security risk.
- His wife is in the process of obtaining legal citizenship and has no plans to return to Mexico.
- The applicant demonstrated candor regarding his wife's immigration status and his past marijuana use.
Conditions referenced
- 7(a)raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member, Business or Professional Associate, Friend, or Other Person Who Is a Citizen of or Resident in a Foreign Country If That Contact Creates a Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation, Inducement, Manipulation, Pressure, or Coercion.
- 7(d)raisedSharing Living Quarters with a Person or Persons, Regardless of Citizenship Status, If That Relationship Creates a Heightened Risk of Foreign Inducement, Manipulation, Pressure, or Coercion.
- 8(a)appliedThe Nature of the Relationships with Foreign Persons, the Country in Which These Persons Are Located, or the Positions or Activities of Those Person in That Country Are Such That It Is Unlikely the Individual Will Be Placed in a Position of Having to Choose Between the Interests of a Foreign Individual, Group, Organization, or Government and the Interests of the U.S.
- 8(b)appliedThere Is No Conflict of Interest, Either Because the Individual’s Sense of Loyalty or Obligation to the Foreign Person, Group, Government, or Country Is so Minimal, or the Individual Has Such Deep and Longstanding Relationships and Loyalties to the U.S., That the Individual Can Be Expected to Resolve Any Conflict of Interest in Favor of the U.S. Interest.
- 8(c)appliedContact or Communication with Foreign Citizens Is so Casual and Infrequent That There Is Little Likelihood That It Could Create a Risk for Foreign Influence or Exploitation.
Key rule quoted
“The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedSep 26, 2012
- Answer filedOct 17, 2012
- Hearing heldFeb 13, 2013Record remained open until February 19, 2013.
- Decision dateApr 10, 2013
Cite for
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
- Consideration of Personal Conduct Inaccuracies as Non-intentional Under Guideline E
- Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations