CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-09685.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 12-09685.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date1/25/2013
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Henry Lazzaro
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated due to the fact that all alleged foreign relatives were either deceased or residing in the United States. The applicant successfully demonstrated that he had no ongoing foreign contacts that could pose a security risk. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline B.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-09685.h1

grantedJan 25, 2013· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, working as a defense contractor linguist, was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant had multiple relatives, including his mother, father, father-in-law, sister, brother, and sister-in-law, who were citizens and residents of Afghanistan, thereby creating foreign influence concerns. However, the judge found that all alleged foreign relatives were either deceased or resided in the U.S., effectively mitigating these concerns.

Regarding financial considerations, the applicant faced allegations of two charged-off automobile loans totaling $9,696, and another charged-off automobile loan for approximately $31,131. The applicant successfully demonstrated that he was a victim of identity theft, which accounted for these financial issues. Additionally, some financial difficulties were attributed to circumstances beyond his control, such as unemployment. These factors led to the resolution of the financial concerns, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

All alleged foreign relatives are deceased or reside in the U.S., mitigating foreign influence concerns.
The applicant proved he was a victim of identity theft, resolving financial concerns.
The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, such as unemployment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

MC 20(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
MC 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond Individual’s Control
MC 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”
— Executive Order 10865, DoD Directive 5220.6

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 21, 2012
Answer filedSep 4, 2012Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateJan 25, 2013

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B When Relatives Reside in the U.S.
Identity Theft as a Mitigating Factor for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F.
The Importance of Circumstances Beyond an Applicant's Control in Financial Matters.

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated due to the fact that all alleged foreign relatives were either deceased or residing in the United States. The applicant successfully demonstrated that he had no ongoing foreign contacts that could pose a security risk. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline B.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s mother is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s father is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s father-in-law is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant’s sister is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant’s brother is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant’s sister-in-law is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Afghanistan	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant’s relatives create security concerns due to their foreign citizenship.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Afghanistan	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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns, primarily due to evidence of identity theft and successful disputes of several debts. The applicant's financial issues were largely attributed to circumstances beyond his control, and the debts in question were not likely to prompt illegal actions to resolve them.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a–2.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—
2.d	two automobile loans charged off in the combined amount of $9,696 $9,696	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
2.e	two automobile loans charged off in the combined amount of $9,696 $9,696	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
2.f	an automobile loan charged off in the approximate amount of $31,131 $31,131	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.