ISCR Case 13-00533.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00533.h1

grantedMay 28, 2014· Hon. James F. Duffy· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old U.S. citizen and linguist, originally from Afghanistan, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited family ties in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, including a brother and sister in Afghanistan, and in-laws in Uzbekistan. It also noted that his sister, an Afghan citizen, resides in the U.S. Additionally, the applicant wired approximately $15,000 to a business associate in China between 2009 and 2011 and visited a Chinese Consulate multiple times for visas.

Personal conduct issues included an exemption from Afghan military service obtained through forged university documents, and paying a smuggler $2,000 in 1990 to forge his foreign passport to match an illegally obtained U.S. visa. He then traveled with his family to Singapore and China using these forged documents, eventually arriving illegally in the U.S. in November 1991 after destroying the forged passport and visa. Other concerns included multiple traffic violations, a 2000 arrest for corporal injury to his spouse (categorized as detention only), and a 2002 conviction for battery of spouse, which resulted in a one-day jail sentence, anger management, community service, and probation, though this conviction was later dismissed.

The applicant was also alleged to have falsified material facts on his e-QIP and Foreign Travel document by failing to list an alternate name, not disclosing business ventures and financial support to a foreign national in China, and omitting several trips to China and one to Uzbekistan. However, the judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns by demonstrating a lack of recent contact with foreign relatives for nearly ten years, a commitment to his U.S. responsibilities, and credible explanations for past conduct, including steps taken to correct misstatements.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant had not had contact with his siblings in Afghanistan for almost ten years, reducing the risk of foreign influence.
He demonstrated a commitment to his family and responsibilities in the U.S., including his work as a linguist and positive character references.
The applicant provided credible explanations for past conduct and showed that he had taken steps to correct any misstatements in his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B.7.araisedContact with Foreign Family Members
B.7.braisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
B.7.eraisedSubstantial Business Interests in Foreign Countries

Mitigating

B.8appliedNo Contact with Foreign Relatives for Significant Time
E.2appliedEvidence of Rehabilitation or Changed Circumstances

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2013
Answer filedOct 20, 2013Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 28, 2014

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Lack of Recent Contact with Foreign Relatives
Consideration of Personal Conduct History in Security Clearance Decisions
Importance of Demonstrating Commitment to U.S. Responsibilities in Security Clearance Evaluations.

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 brother and sister are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law were citizens and residents of Uzbekistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Uzbekistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s sister is a citizen of Afghanistan currently residing in the United States.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant wired approximately $15,000 to a business associate (‘Mike’ last name unknown) in China from about 2009 to at least 2011 for his personal business.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—
1.e	Applicant visited a Chinese Consulate on at least three occasions to obtain visas for travel to China.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s brother and sister are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

—

1.b

Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law were citizens and residents of Uzbekistan.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Uzbekistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant’s sister is a citizen of Afghanistan currently residing in the United States.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant wired approximately $15,000 to a business associate (‘Mike’ last name unknown) in China from about 2009 to at least 2011 for his personal business.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

1.e

Applicant visited a Chinese Consulate on at least three occasions to obtain visas for travel to China.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was required to serve in the Afghan military, but was able to be exempted from this requirement after an acquaintance was able to forge university documentation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant paid a smuggler approximately $2,000 to forge his foreign passport to reflect his name on a U.S. visa the smuggler obtained illegally in about 1990.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant and his family traveled to 'Singapore, China' using his forged passport and/or illegally obtained U.S. visa in about January 1991 in order to board a flight going to the United States.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant and his family missed their connecting flight to the United States in about January 1991. They were able to reside in Singapore while their 'handlers' took care of all of their arrangements and accommodations until their next flight to the United States was arranged in about November 1991.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant destroyed his forged passport and/or illegal U.S. visa on the airplane while en route to the United States.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant arrived in the United States illegally in about November 1991.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant was charged with at least six moving traffic violations.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	In September 2000, he was arrested and charged with inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. The prosecutor released him, and the arrest was categorized as a 'detention only' for lack of sufficient evidence.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	In May 2002, he was arrested and charged with threatening crime with the intent to terrorize, battery of spouse, and battery. He was convicted of the battery of spouse offense and sentenced to one day in jail. He also attended anger management classes, performed community service, and served about one year on probation. This conviction was later dismissed.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.j	In Section 5 of the e-QIP, he responded 'No' to the question that asked whether he had used any other names. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that question because he failed to list one of the names he used.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.k	In Section 20B of the e-QIP, Applicant responded 'No' to questions that asked whether within the past seven years he had provided advice or support to any individual associated with a foreign business; whether he had provided advice or served as a consultant to any foreign government official or agency; or whether he was offered a job by any foreign national, including as a consultant. He also responded 'No' to a question that asked whether he had 'in the past seven (7) years been involved with any other type of business venture with a foreign national not described above (own, co-own, serve as business consultant, provide financial support, etc)'. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that latter question because he was involved in business transactions in China and had wired about $15,000 to a business contact there named 'Mike' since approximately 2009.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.l	In Section 20C of the e-QIP, Applicant responded 'Yes' to a question that asked whether he had traveled outside of the United States in the past seven years. He then listed four trips to China and one trip to Saudi Arabia. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that question because he failed to list four other trips to China.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.m	The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in filling out the Foreign Travel document because he failed to disclose one trip to Uzbekistan and five trips to China.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Other	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was required to serve in the Afghan military, but was able to be exempted from this requirement after an acquaintance was able to forge university documentation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant paid a smuggler approximately $2,000 to forge his foreign passport to reflect his name on a U.S. visa the smuggler obtained illegally in about 1990.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant and his family traveled to 'Singapore, China' using his forged passport and/or illegally obtained U.S. visa in about January 1991 in order to board a flight going to the United States.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.d

Applicant and his family missed their connecting flight to the United States in about January 1991. They were able to reside in Singapore while their 'handlers' took care of all of their arrangements and accommodations until their next flight to the United States was arranged in about November 1991.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.e

Applicant destroyed his forged passport and/or illegal U.S. visa on the airplane while en route to the United States.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.f

Applicant arrived in the United States illegally in about November 1991.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.g

Applicant was charged with at least six moving traffic violations.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.h

In September 2000, he was arrested and charged with inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. The prosecutor released him, and the arrest was categorized as a 'detention only' for lack of sufficient evidence.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.i

In May 2002, he was arrested and charged with threatening crime with the intent to terrorize, battery of spouse, and battery. He was convicted of the battery of spouse offense and sentenced to one day in jail. He also attended anger management classes, performed community service, and served about one year on probation. This conviction was later dismissed.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.j

In Section 5 of the e-QIP, he responded 'No' to the question that asked whether he had used any other names. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that question because he failed to list one of the names he used.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Other

Admitted

—

2.k

In Section 20B of the e-QIP, Applicant responded 'No' to questions that asked whether within the past seven years he had provided advice or support to any individual associated with a foreign business; whether he had provided advice or served as a consultant to any foreign government official or agency; or whether he was offered a job by any foreign national, including as a consultant. He also responded 'No' to a question that asked whether he had 'in the past seven (7) years been involved with any other type of business venture with a foreign national not described above (own, co-own, serve as business consultant, provide financial support, etc)'. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that latter question because he was involved in business transactions in China and had wired about $15,000 to a business contact there named 'Mike' since approximately 2009.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Other

Admitted

—

2.l

In Section 20C of the e-QIP, Applicant responded 'Yes' to a question that asked whether he had traveled outside of the United States in the past seven years. He then listed four trips to China and one trip to Saudi Arabia. The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in his response to that question because he failed to list four other trips to China.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Other

Admitted

—

2.m

The SOR alleged that he falsified material facts in filling out the Foreign Travel document because he failed to disclose one trip to Uzbekistan and five trips to China.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Other

Admitted

—

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