Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old defense contractor, faced concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) due to his past use of prostitutes and a romantic relationship with a foreign citizen. The judge found that the applicant's relationship had likely ended and that he had been open about his past conduct, concluding that he was not vulnerable to coercion or exploitation. Consequently, the applicant was granted security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: A person to whom the individual has close ties of affection is a citizen and resident of a foreign country (1). Applicant utilized the services of prostitutes an average of once per year from approximately 1991 to August 2002 (1.a). Some of this activity occurred in applicant's home state, where prostitution is illegal (1.b). Some of this activity also occurred in Nevada and in at least one other country where it is legal (1.c). Applicant's illegal use of prostitutes reflects a lack of discretion and judgment, and accordingly, suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information (1.d).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A4.1.2.1, E2.A4.1.2.3, E2.A4.1.2.4, E2.A2.1.2.1. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A4.1.3.3, E2.A4.1.3.4, E2.A2.1.3.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant's relationship with a foreign citizen was deemed unlikely to result in coercion or exploitation due to infrequent communication and lack of ties to the Thai government; The applicant demonstrated openness and honesty about his past conduct, which mitigated concerns under both guidelines; The applicant's commitment to refrain from illegal activities in the future was credible and supported by his disclosures to friends and coworkers.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's relationship with a foreign citizen was deemed unlikely to result in coercion or exploitation due to infrequent communication and lack of ties to the Thai government.
- The applicant demonstrated openness and honesty about his past conduct, which mitigated concerns under both guidelines.
- The applicant's commitment to refrain from illegal activities in the future was credible and supported by his disclosures to friends and coworkers.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A4.1.2.1raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature.
- E2.A4.1.2.3raisedSexual Behavior That Causes an Individual to Be Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.
- E2.A4.1.2.4raisedSexual Behavior Which Reflects Lack of Discretion or Judgment.
- E2.A2.1.2.1raisedA Person to Whom the Individual Has Close Ties of Affection Is a Citizen and Resident of a Foreign Country.
- E2.A4.1.3.3appliedThere Is No Other Evidence of Questionable Judgment, Irresponsibility, or Emotional Instability.
- E2.A4.1.3.4appliedThe Behavior No Longer Serves as a Basis for Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.
- E2.A2.1.3.3appliedContact and Correspondence with Foreign Citizens Are Casual and Infrequent.
Key Rule Quoted
“"The evidence does not establish that applicant is vulnerable to foreign influence."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 26, 2002
- Answer filedSep 14, 2002
- Hearing heldFeb 27, 2003
- Decision dateApr 24, 2003
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Infrequent Communication with a Foreign National
- Credibility of Applicant's Disclosures Regarding Past Conduct
- Rebuttal of Coercion Vulnerability Based on Openness About Personal Relationships