ISCR Case 12-05669.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05669.h1

grantedJan 17, 2014· Hon. James F. Duffy· hearing

Summary

A 63-year-old federal contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Guideline B concerns stemmed from the applicant's extensive family ties in Iraq, including a mother, ten sisters (four full, six half), a mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and a nephew, all of whom are citizens and residents of Iraq. Additionally, a brother residing in the U.S. was believed to still be an Iraqi citizen. The applicant maintained monthly telephone contact with his mother and visited Iraq in 2009 and 2012-2013.

Guideline E concerns arose from a past employment termination in August 2008, which occurred after his embassy badge and access were revoked. The applicant was also alleged to have falsified his September 12, 2010, e-QIP by not disclosing this termination.

The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns. He credibly testified that he was unaware of his termination until after submitting his e-QIP. His family ties in Iraq were not deemed to pose a heightened risk of foreign influence, given the nature of those relationships and his lack of financial support to family members there. The applicant also provided positive character references and demonstrated a commitment to U.S. interests, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant credibly testified that he was unaware of his termination until after submitting his e-QIP.
The applicant's family ties in Iraq were deemed not to create a heightened risk of foreign influence due to the nature of those relationships and his lack of financial support to family members in Iraq.
The applicant received positive character references and demonstrated a commitment to U.S. interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign ContactsThe applicant's family members in Iraq created a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign PersonsThe applicant's ties to Iraq raised concerns about foreign influence.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of RelationshipsThe applicant's relationships with family members in Iraq were not deemed to pose a heightened risk.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedU.S. Citizenship and ResidenceThe applicant and his immediate family are U.S. citizens, reducing the risk of foreign influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 31, 2013
Answer filedAug 23, 2013
Hearing heldNov 21, 2013
Decision dateJan 17, 2014

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Employment Termination
Consideration of Family Ties in Assessing Security Clearance Eligibility

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
2.a	Applicant’s mother, six sisters, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and a nephew are citizens and residents of Iraq.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
2.b	Applicant has a brother who is a resident of the United States and believes he is still a citizen of Iraq.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
2.c	Applicant talks to his mother monthly on the telephone and traveled to Iraq to visit her from April to June 2009 and from October 2012 to February 2013.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
2.d	Applicant has four sisters and two half-sisters who are citizens and residents of Iraq.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Extended Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
2.e	Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Iraq.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
2.f	Applicant’s nephew is a citizen and resident of Iraq.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Iraq HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant’s mother, six sisters, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and a nephew are citizens and residents of Iraq.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

2.b

Applicant has a brother who is a resident of the United States and believes he is still a citizen of Iraq.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

2.c

Applicant talks to his mother monthly on the telephone and traveled to Iraq to visit her from April to June 2009 and from October 2012 to February 2013.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

2.d

Applicant has four sisters and two half-sisters who are citizens and residents of Iraq.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

2.e

Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Iraq.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

2.f

Applicant’s nephew is a citizen and resident of Iraq.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Iraq

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was terminated from a job in August 2008 after a regional security officer informed his employer that Applicant’s embassy badge and access had been revoked.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated September 12, 2010, by concealing that termination of employment.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was terminated from a job in August 2008 after a regional security officer informed his employer that Applicant’s embassy badge and access had been revoked.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant falsified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated September 12, 2010, by concealing that termination of employment.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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