A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-13760.h1
DeniedDecided Apr 25, 2013 · Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to his relationships with Chinese nationals and failure to report suspicious contacts during a trip to China. The judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate sound judgment or an 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 ¶ 7 Foreign Influenceraised
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductraised
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 issued
- 08/22/2012
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 04/25/2013
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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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