ISCR Case 13-00427.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00427.h1

deniedNov 20, 2013· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 21-year-old linguist with family ties to Afghanistan, faced security concerns under Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline E (personal conduct). While she mitigated foreign influence concerns due to her U.S. citizenship and lack of contact with foreign relatives, she was denied a security clearance due to intentional omissions and misrepresentations regarding her employment history, which raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s parents are citizens of Afghanistan. Her aunts are citizens of Afghanistan and residents of Pakistan. Applicant’s foreign contacts create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. They also create a potential conflict of interest (1.a). There are no disqualifying conditions raised by Applicant’s high school friend or her brother-in-law, who is a citizen of Afghanistan and a U.S. permanent resident (1.b). Applicant answered “No” to Question 13C of the November 2011 SF 86. She should have answered “Yes” because of the circumstances surrounding how her employment ended in October 2011 (2.a).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant intentionally provided false information on her SF 86 regarding her employment termination; The applicant's lack of candor during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally provided false information on her SF 86 regarding her employment termination.
The applicant's lack of candor during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

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

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 29, 2013
Answer filedJun 18, 2013
Hearing heldOct 18, 2013
Decision dateNov 20, 2013

Cite For

Intentional Misrepresentation of Employment History Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to U.S. Citizenship and Lack of Contact with Foreign Relatives
Importance of Candor in the Security Clearance Process

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 parents are citizens of Afghanistan. Her aunts are citizens of Afghanistan and residents of Pakistan. Applicant’s foreign contacts create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. They also create a potential conflict of interest.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan, 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	(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	—
1.b	There are no disqualifying conditions raised by Applicant’s high school friend or her brother-in-law, who is a citizen of Afghanistan and a U.S. permanent resident.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Afghanistan	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s parents are citizens of Afghanistan. Her aunts are citizens of Afghanistan and residents of Pakistan. Applicant’s foreign contacts create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. They also create a potential conflict of interest.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan, 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

(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

—

1.b

There are no disqualifying conditions raised by Applicant’s high school friend or her brother-in-law, who is a citizen of Afghanistan and a U.S. permanent resident.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Afghanistan

Unknown

—

1.c–1.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant answered “No” to Question 13C of the November 2011 SF 86. She should have answered “Yes” because of the circumstances surrounding how her employment ended in October 2011.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant answered “No” to Question 13C of the November 2011 SF 86. She should have answered “Yes” because of the circumstances surrounding how her employment ended in October 2011.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

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

—

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