ISCR Case 13-01359.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-01359.h1

grantedJan 9, 2015· Hon. David M. White· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and defense contractor, originally from South Korea, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised issues regarding a 2008 trip to China and a potential visit to North Korea, along with allegations about her cousin's residency and interactions with Chinese nationals.

Specifically, the SOR alleged that her cousin was a South Korean citizen and resident, though he now lives in a major U.S. city with his family. It also claimed she lived with or had close personal interaction with Chinese nationals during her trip, which was found to be untrue. Her conduct during the 2008 China trip was also cited as raising security concerns.

The judge determined that the applicant's relationships and conduct did not pose a significant risk of foreign influence or exploitation. This decision was based on her demonstrated minimal contact with foreign nationals, her family and financial ties being entirely within the United States, and her conduct during the trip being deemed cautious and transparent.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated minimal contact with foreign nationals, mitigating foreign influence concerns.
The applicant's family and financial ties are entirely within the United States, reducing potential conflicts of interest.
The applicant's conduct during her trip was deemed to have been conducted with caution and transparency.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Member
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 7(i)raisedConduct While Traveling Outside the U.S.
AG ¶ 16(b)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe applicant did not intentionally provide false information regarding her potential travel to North Korea.
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating VulnerabilityThe applicant acknowledged that her decisions reflected questionable judgment.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens
AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt Efforts to Correct OmissionsThe applicant's acknowledgment of risks was not deemed sufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 5, 2014
Answer filedMar 25, 2014
Hearing heldOct 16, 2014Department Counsel participated via video teleconference.
Decision dateJan 9, 2015

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Consideration of Personal Conduct Risks Under Guideline E
Impact of Family Ties on 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
1.a	Applicant’s cousin, who is alleged to be a citizen and resident of South Korea in SOR ¶ 1.a, now lives in a major U.S. city with his wife and two children.	For Applicant	Cohabitation with Foreign National Immediate Family	South Korea HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Other
1.b	Contrary to the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.b, she did not live with or have close personal interaction with Chinese nationals while there.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant’s conduct in connection with her 2008 China trip raises security concerns under AG ¶ 7(i), which will be discussed below in connection with parallel concerns under Guideline E.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s cousin, who is alleged to be a citizen and resident of South Korea in SOR ¶ 1.a, now lives in a major U.S. city with his wife and two children.

For Applicant

Cohabitation with Foreign National

Immediate Family

South Korea

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Claimed

Other

1.b

Contrary to the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.b, she did not live with or have close personal interaction with Chinese nationals while there.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Claimed

Other

1.c

Applicant’s conduct in connection with her 2008 China trip raises security concerns under AG ¶ 7(i), which will be discussed below in connection with parallel concerns under Guideline E.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

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

For Applicant

—

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