ISCR Case 14-00967.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00967.h1

deniedOct 30, 2014· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Pakistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's father, mother, two brothers, one sister, father-in-law, and mother-in-law are all citizens and residents of Pakistan. The applicant communicates with his parents about once a month and occasionally with other family members. Over 15 years, he sent approximately $10,000 in gifts to his family and traveled to Pakistan five times between 2004 and 2010. While his family members are not involved with the Pakistani government or political movements and comply with laws, their residency in Pakistan raised foreign influence concerns.

Additionally, the applicant faced issues under Guideline F due to unresolved financial debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline B included close family ties in a foreign country and frequent contact, while under Guideline F, a history of not meeting financial obligations was cited.

Although mitigating conditions were considered, such as the family not being involved with a foreign government and the applicant's efforts to resolve some debts, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's connections to family in Pakistan posed a heightened risk of foreign influence, and his financial issues indicated a lack of reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has family members residing in Pakistan, which raises concerns under Guideline B due to potential foreign influence.
The applicant has unresolved financial debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations, which raises concerns under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)appliedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Creditors

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 issuedApr 24, 2014
Answer filedMay 12, 2014Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 30, 2014

Cite For

Heightened Risk of Foreign Influence Due to Familial Ties Under Guideline B
Unresolved Financial Obligations Indicating Lack of Reliability Under Guideline F
Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Issues and Foreign Contacts

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 father, mother, two brothers, one sister, father-in-law, and mother-in-law are citizens and residents of Pakistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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
1.b	Applicant talks with his parents, mostly his mother, about once a month. He talks with his brothers and sister when he calls his parents. He occasionally talks with his in-laws.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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
1.c	Over a 15-year period of time, Applicant sent approximately $10,000 to his family members as birthday and holiday gifts.	For Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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
1.d	Applicant traveled to Pakistan twice in 2004 and 2007. He also traveled to Pakistan in 2006, 2008, and 2010.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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
1.e	Applicant’s family members are not employed by the Pakistani government or involved in political parties or movements.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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
1.f	Applicant’s family members comply with the laws of Pakistan and the United States.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(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

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s father, mother, two brothers, one sister, father-in-law, and mother-in-law are citizens and residents of Pakistan.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

1.b

Applicant talks with his parents, mostly his mother, about once a month. He talks with his brothers and sister when he calls his parents. He occasionally talks with his in-laws.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

1.c

Over a 15-year period of time, Applicant sent approximately $10,000 to his family members as birthday and holiday gifts.

For Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

1.d

Applicant traveled to Pakistan twice in 2004 and 2007. He also traveled to Pakistan in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

1.e

Applicant’s family members are not employed by the Pakistani government or involved in political parties or movements.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

1.f

Applicant’s family members comply with the laws of Pakistan and the United States.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a–2.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (4 against, 2 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a–2.f

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (4 against, 2 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

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