ISCR Case 13-00630.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00630.h1

deniedMar 24, 2014· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to ongoing familial ties in Afghanistan. The applicant's mother, father, three brothers, one sister, and a brother-in-law are all citizens and residents of Afghanistan. Additionally, two cousins reside there. The applicant's father is a police officer, and his mother is a school teacher. The applicant reported speaking with his father quarterly and his mother twice a month.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant maintained frequent contact with multiple family members in Afghanistan, which created a potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, some of these family members hold positions that could benefit from access to sensitive information, increasing the risk of coercion.

Despite the applicant's military service and commendations, the judge determined that he did not demonstrate sufficient ties or loyalty to the U.S. to mitigate the security concerns posed by these foreign connections. Consequently, the application for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant maintained frequent contact with multiple family members residing in Afghanistan, creating a potential conflict of interest.
The applicant's family members hold positions that could benefit from access to sensitive information, increasing the risk of coercion.
The applicant did not demonstrate sufficient ties or loyalty to the U.S. to mitigate the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons That Create Potential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's family members' positions in Afghanistan create a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Loyalty to U.S.The applicant's limited time in the U.S. and lack of significant economic ties do not support a resolution of conflicts in favor of U.S. interests.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant's contacts with family members are sufficiently frequent and not casual.

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 issuedAug 30, 2013
Answer filedOct 8, 2013
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 24, 2014

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Familial Ties Under Guideline B
Potential Conflict of Interest From Foreign Family Members
Insufficient Ties to the U.S. to Mitigate Foreign Influence Concerns

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 mother and father are citizens of and residents in Afghanistan. His three brothers and one sister are residents in and are citizens of Afghanistan. His brother-in-law is resident in and a citizen of Afghanistan.	Against Applicant	Parent 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 father is a police officer. Applicant claims he does not speak to his father because of family problems except on a quarterly basis. Applicant’s mother is a school teacher. He speaks to her twice a month according to the 2013 relatives and associates form.	Against Applicant	Parent 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.c	Applicant has two cousins listed in his “relatives and associates” forms in the file. They reside in and are citizens of Afghanistan. The allegation in the SOR that he has three cousins Applicant denied claiming he only had two cousins and one friend.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.d–1.g	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s mother and father are citizens of and residents in Afghanistan. His three brothers and one sister are residents in and are citizens of Afghanistan. His brother-in-law is resident in and a citizen of Afghanistan.

Against Applicant

Parent 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 father is a police officer. Applicant claims he does not speak to his father because of family problems except on a quarterly basis. Applicant’s mother is a school teacher. He speaks to her twice a month according to the 2013 relatives and associates form.

Against Applicant

Parent 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.c

Applicant has two cousins listed in his “relatives and associates” forms in the file. They reside in and are citizens of Afghanistan. The allegation in the SOR that he has three cousins Applicant denied claiming he only had two cousins and one friend.

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

—

1.d–1.g

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

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

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