CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-13760.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-13760.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-13760.h1

deniedApr 25, 2013· Hon. Nichole L. Noel· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns regarding his relationships with Chinese nationals and his handling of sensitive information.

Specifically, the applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence concerns stemming from his wife and her parents, all citizens of the People’s Republic of China. During a December 2009 trip to China, he did not report suspicious contacts with two women. Additionally, the applicant provided his wife, a Chinese national, with access to sensitive work-related documents. He also failed to disclose pertinent information about his wife's imminent arrival to the United States during his subject interview.

The judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate sound judgment or an adequate understanding of security risks, leading to the denial of his clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence concerns due to relationships with his wife and her parents, all Chinese citizens.
Applicant did not report suspicious contacts with two women during a trip to China.
Applicant gave his wife access to sensitive work-related documents.
Applicant failed to disclose pertinent information regarding his wife's imminent arrival during his interview.
Applicant demonstrated a limited understanding of security risks and poor judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Applicant has demonstrated that he does not possess the sound judgment required of those given access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 22, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 25, 2013

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Related to Relationships with Foreign Nationals
Failure to Report Suspicious Contacts During Foreign Travel
Insufficient Understanding of Security Risks Impacting Clearance Eligibility

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 foreign influence concerns due to his relationships with his wife and her parents, all of whom are citizens of China. The applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the foreign influence concerns raised by his relationships with wife and her parents, all of whom are citizens of the People’s Republic of China (China).	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	People’s Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant did not report suspicious contacts with two women during his December 2009 trip to China.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant gave his wife, a Chinese national, access to sensitive work-related documents.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	People’s Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose pertinent information regarding his wife’s imminent arrival to the United States during his subject interview.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—

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 judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The applicant failed to report suspicious contacts during a trip to China and provided sensitive work-related documents to his wife, a Chinese national. As a result, the applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to report suspicious contacts with two women during his December 2009 trip to China.	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant gave his wife, a Chinese national, access to sensitive work-related documents.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-13760 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

04/25/2013 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge:

Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny his eligibility for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant failed to mitigate the foreign influence concerns raised by his relationships with wife and her parents, all of whom are citizens of the People’s Republic of China (China). Applicant also failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct. He did not report suspicious contacts with two women during his December 2009 trip to China. He also gave his wife, a Chinese national, access to sensitive work-related documents. Clearance denied.

Statement of the Case

On August 22, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the foreign influence guideline. 1 DOD with Chinese nationals. He also failed to disclose pertinent information regarding his wife’s imminent arrival to the United States during his subject interview. His understanding of security risks seems to be limited to overt acts of attempted espionage and does not encompass the subtle risks that can be present in seemingly banal activities. Furthermore, Applicant does not appreciate that his off-duty conduct and relationships are relevant to assessment of his security worthiness. Applicant has demonstrated that he does not possess the sound judgment required of those given access to classified information. Accordingly, his access must be revoked.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.d: Against Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.b – 1.c.: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 2.a -2.b.: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

__________________________ Nichole L. Noel Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended; as well as DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply to this