ISCR Case 14-00245.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00245.h1

grantedSep 23, 2014· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved a 44-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from South Korea, who works as a software engineer. Concerns were raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to his family ties in South Korea. Specifically, the Statement of Reasons alleged that his contact with foreign family members could create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation or coercion, and that his connections to a foreign country could create a conflict of interest regarding sensitive information.

Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a) and AG ¶ 7(b) were initially raised. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a) and AG ¶ 8(b), ultimately finding that the applicant's relationships did not pose a heightened risk of foreign influence.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors: the applicant's family members in South Korea have no connections to the South Korean government or terrorist organizations; the applicant has resided in the U.S. for over 14 years and demonstrated loyalty by relinquishing his South Korean citizenship; and his contacts with family members in South Korea are infrequent, thus not creating a risk of foreign influence. The security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's family members in South Korea do not have connections to the South Korean government or terrorist organizations.
The applicant has lived in the U.S. for over 14 years and has demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. by relinquishing his South Korean citizenship.
The applicant's contacts with family members in South Korea are infrequent and do not create a risk of foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant has family members in South Korea, which could create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign PersonsThe applicant's family ties could create a potential conflict of interest.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of RelationshipsThe applicant's family members are not likely to place him in a position of choosing between U.S. and foreign interests.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of InterestThe applicant has deep and longstanding relationships in the U.S. and can be expected to resolve conflicts in favor of U.S. interests.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 27, 2014
Answer filedApr 8, 2014Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateSep 23, 2014

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Consideration of Family Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating 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	Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	South Korea HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other
1.b	Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information;	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	South Korea HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

South Korea

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

1.b

Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information;

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

South Korea

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

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