Summary
The applicant, a 36-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and electrical engineer, sought a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's family ties to the People's Republic of China were deemed insufficient to raise security concerns, and her employment history issues were not considered misconduct. The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns and granted the clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has an uncle living in the People’s Republic of China whom she has not talked with in 16 years (1.a). Her father has a brother, who is 70 and retired, who is a citizen and resident of the PRC. Her father talks to his brother once a year (1.b). Applicant did not list two jobs each lasting two weeks on her e-QIP (2.a). Applicant answered 'no' when asked if she had been fired from a job during the previous seven years (2.b). Applicant was let go from two probationary jobs due to not meeting the companies' expectations, not due to misconduct (2.c). Applicant's responses raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness (2.d). Applicant did not engage in falsification on either form (2.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b), AG ¶ 7(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's family ties to the People's Republic of China were not sufficient to create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation; The applicant's employment terminations were due to skill mismatches, not misconduct, and she did not falsify her employment history; The applicant demonstrated significant ties to the United States, mitigating any potential foreign influence.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's family ties to the People's Republic of China were not sufficient to create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
- The applicant's employment terminations were due to skill mismatches, not misconduct, and she did not falsify her employment history.
- The applicant demonstrated significant ties to the United States, mitigating any potential foreign influence.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 7(a)rejectedContact with Foreign Family MemberThe applicant's limited contact with her uncle in the PRC did not create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
- AG ¶ 7(b)rejectedConnections to a Foreign PersonThe applicant's ties to her uncle were insufficient to create a conflict of interest.
- AG ¶ 7(d)notedSharing Living Quarters with Foreign Persons
- AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's limited contact with her uncle in the PRC mitigated concerns.
- AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of InterestThe applicant's deep ties to the U.S. outweighed any potential foreign influence.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the interests of security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 6, 2014
- Answer filedSep 9, 2014Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
- Hearing held—Decision made based on written submissions.
- Decision dateSep 29, 2015
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B Due to Limited Family Ties
- No Misconduct Found in Employment Terminations Under Guideline E
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions