Summary
A 48-year-old chemist with a doctorate and extensive experience in organic and polymer chemistry was granted a Secret security clearance despite concerns raised under Guideline L (Outside Activities). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant engaged in outside employment, including consulting for foreign companies since 1998, and traveled to the People's Republic of China in July 2001 for a technical presentation attended by a Chinese corporation. It also noted his anticipation of potential future employment with a Chinese firm believed to receive government funding, and that he had not reported his foreign consulting work to his employer.
However, the judge found that the applicant's consulting work involved commercially available technology not subject to U.S. export controls, and that he had no contact with the Chinese company since his 2001 trip. The technology involved in his consulting was significantly less advanced than his defense contractor work.
The clearance was granted because the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding of his security responsibilities and the risks associated with foreign consulting. His consulting activities were commercial and did not involve classified or sensitive technology, posing no conflict with his defense contractor responsibilities.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's consulting work involved technology that was ten to twenty years behind the advanced work performed for the defense contractor.
- The applicant demonstrated a clear understanding of his security responsibilities and the risks associated with foreign consulting.
- The applicant's consulting activities were commercial in nature and did not involve classified or sensitive technology.
Conditions Referenced
- L.1raisedOutside Employment or ActivitiesThe applicant's consulting activities with foreign companies raised concerns regarding potential conflicts with his security responsibilities.
- L.2appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant's consulting work was determined to be in the public domain and not subject to U.S. export controls.
- L.3appliedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant had taken steps to ensure compliance with security protocols and had not disclosed classified information.
Key Rule Quoted
“"The applicant's consulting work does not pose a conflict as it is commercial in nature and involves technology ten to twenty years behind the advanced work performed for the defense contractor."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 2, 2002
- Answer filedApr 22, 2002
- Hearing heldJul 15, 2002Hearing was held as scheduled.
- Decision dateOct 30, 2002
Cite For
- Evaluation of Foreign Consulting Activities Under Guideline L
- Consideration of Technology Age in Security Clearance Decisions
- Importance of Compliance with Security Protocols in Mitigating Concerns