ISCR Case 11-15263.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-15263.h1

deniedApr 25, 2013· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old U.S. citizen and defense contractor employee, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). While his wife is a U.S. citizen, his parents-in-law are Afghan citizens residing in Pakistan, which raised a potential risk of foreign exploitation. However, the applicant's long-term U.S. residency and family ties mitigated these foreign influence concerns.

The denial primarily stemmed from a history of personal conduct issues. The applicant was terminated from a charitable organization in 2004 for stealing a box of baseball cards, which was cited as poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules. Furthermore, he intentionally provided false information about his employment on his 2008 SF 85P, a January 2011 Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire, and during a February 2011 OPM interview.

Although he corrected some false statements during the OPM interview before being confronted, he did not correct earlier falsifications until confronted. The repeated dishonesty and theft demonstrated significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was terminated from a charitable organization for stealing a box of baseball cards, demonstrating poor judgment.
The applicant intentionally provided false information on multiple security questionnaires and during interviews, undermining his credibility.
The applicant's repeated dishonesty raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Strong U.S. Ties
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 10, 2012
Answer filedNov 1, 2012
Hearing heldApr 15, 2013
Decision dateApr 25, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues
Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Based on U.S. Citizenship and Residency

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
1.a	Applicant’s wife is a U.S. citizen. There are no disqualifying conditions raised by her status.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan and residents of Pakistan. This creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s wife is a U.S. citizen. There are no disqualifying conditions raised by her status.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

—

Unknown

—

1.b

Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan and residents of Pakistan. This creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Unknown

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally provided false information about his employment at the charitable organization on the 2008 SF 85P; in the January 2011 Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire; and during his OPM interview on February 17, 2011.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	There is insufficient information for a determination that Applicant intentionally provided any additional false information during his interview of February 17, 2011.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant was terminated from his position with a charitable organization in 2004 when he stole a box of baseball cards. That conduct showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.d	There is insufficient evidence for a determination that Applicant intentionally provided false information on his 2011 SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant did not correct the falsifications on his 2008 SF 85P or on his January 2011 Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire before being confronted with the facts.	For Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.f	He did correct his false statements to the OPM investigator on February 17, 2011, before being confronted with the facts.	For Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security ProcessingSELF-CORRECTED	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant intentionally provided false information about his employment at the charitable organization on the 2008 SF 85P; in the January 2011 Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire; and during his OPM interview on February 17, 2011.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.b

There is insufficient information for a determination that Applicant intentionally provided any additional false information during his interview of February 17, 2011.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant was terminated from his position with a charitable organization in 2004 when he stole a box of baseball cards. That conduct showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.d

There is insufficient evidence for a determination that Applicant intentionally provided false information on his 2011 SF 86.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

2.e

Applicant did not correct the falsifications on his 2008 SF 85P or on his January 2011 Counterintelligence-Focused Security Screening Questionnaire before being confronted with the facts.

For Applicant

Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing

—

Denied

—

2.f

He did correct his false statements to the OPM investigator on February 17, 2011, before being confronted with the facts.

For Applicant

Failure to Cooperate with Security ProcessingSELF-CORRECTED

—

Denied

—

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

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES