ISCR Case 14-00336.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00336.h1

deniedSep 4, 2014· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

This security clearance application, filed by a 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from India, was denied under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence) and L (Outside Activities). The applicant maintained significant ties to India, including parents, a younger brother, and in-laws who are all citizens and residents there. He visits his parents annually and communicates with them at least twice monthly, providing up to $500 in monthly support, with an increased contribution of $1,500 during one year due to his mother's illness. His spouse also communicates weekly with her parents in India.

While the applicant has never worked for the Indian government, nor have his family members, and he divested his stock and management responsibilities from a privately held company in India, substantial foreign influence concerns remained. The judge cited the applicant's close family ties in India and a significant financial interest, specifically an investment of over $300,000 in an Indian building expected to yield substantial returns.

Furthermore, the applicant's parents are involved in the management of the Indian company from which he divested, indicating continued financial connections. Despite some mitigating factors related to outside activities, the unresolved foreign influence issues led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has close family ties in India, including parents and siblings, which raises foreign influence concerns.
The applicant invested over $300,000 in a building in India, which is expected to yield significant financial returns, indicating a strong financial interest in India.
The applicant's parents are involved in the management of a company in India, which he has divested from but still maintains financial ties.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 6(b)raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedOutside Activities
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedOutside ActivitiesThe applicant's financial ties to India were not sufficiently mitigated.

Key Rule Quoted

“The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information 'only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.'”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 26, 2014
Answer filedMay 15, 2014
Hearing heldJul 30, 2014
Decision dateSep 4, 2014

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Financial Interests in Foreign Countries as a Disqualifying Factor
Mitigating Conditions Related to Outside Activities Under Guideline L

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 and residents of India; he visits them about once a year; and he communicates with them at least twice a month.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s younger brother (39 years old) is a citizen and resident of India. He communicates with his younger brother less than once a month.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of India. He communicates with them about once a month, and his spouse communicates with them on a weekly basis.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	He contributes up to $500 monthly to support his parents, except for one year, he provided $1,500 because his mother was ill.	For Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has never worked for the Indian government or been involved in Indian politics. None of his family members have ever worked for the Indian government.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s mother and father are citizens and residents of India; he visits them about once a year; and he communicates with them at least twice a month.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant’s younger brother (39 years old) is a citizen and resident of India. He communicates with his younger brother less than once a month.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of India. He communicates with them about once a month, and his spouse communicates with them on a weekly basis.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.d

He contributes up to $500 monthly to support his parents, except for one year, he provided $1,500 because his mother was ill.

For Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant has never worked for the Indian government or been involved in Indian politics. None of his family members have ever worked for the Indian government.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶37)	Mitigating applied (¶38)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has a company in India that is a privately held corporation. He has divested himself of his stock in the India company and does not have management responsibilities there.	For Applicant	Unspecified Outside Activity	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶37)

Mitigating applied (¶38)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant has a company in India that is a privately held corporation. He has divested himself of his stock in the India company and does not have management responsibilities there.

For Applicant

Unspecified Outside Activity

Admitted

—

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

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES