Summary
A 45-year-old senior Linux administrator was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's spouse is a citizen of Russia, and her parents are citizens and residents of Russia. These family ties were disclosed in the applicant's 2013 security clearance application. While these foreign ties were not ultimately deemed an unacceptable risk, they were initially raised as a disqualifying condition.
The primary reason for denial stemmed from significant financial considerations. The applicant had a collection account for approximately $145,000 due to child-support arrears, which was also disclosed in his 2013 application. Additionally, an $85 collection account with a communications company was noted, though this debt was subsequently paid.
Despite the payment of the smaller debt, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient effort to resolve the substantial child-support arrearage. The ongoing and unaddressed nature of these financial problems raised serious security concerns under Guideline F, leading to the denial of the security clearance application.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to show a reasonable effort to resolve a child-support arrearage of approximately $145,000.
- The applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not adequately addressed, raising serious security concerns under Guideline F.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact 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.
- AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections 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.
- AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedThe Nature of the Relationships with Foreign Persons, the Country in Which These Persons Are Located, or the Positions or Activities of Those Persons in That Country Are Such That It Is Unlikely the Individual Will Be Placed in a Position of Having to Choose Between the Interests of a Foreign Individual, Group, Organization, or Government and the Interests of the United States.The applicant's ties to Russia raised security concerns despite his expressed disdain for the Russian government.
- AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedThere Is No Conflict of Interest, Either Because the Individual's Sense of Loyalty or Obligation to the Foreign Person, Group, Government, or Country Is so Minimal, or the Individual Has Such Deep and Longstanding Relationships and Loyalties in the United States, That the Individual Can Be Expected to Resolve Any Conflict of Interest in Favor of the U.S. Interest.The applicant's ongoing financial issues and lack of resolution efforts indicated a potential conflict of interest.
Key Rule Quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 20, 2016
- Answer filedDec 24, 2014
- Hearing heldJan 11, 2016
- Decision date—
Cite For
- Denial Based on Unresolved Child-support Arrears Under Guideline F
- Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties to Russia Under Guideline B
- Insufficient Evidence of Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations as a Security Concern.