Summary
The applicant, a 32-year-old policy analyst for a DoD contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline B due to his stepfather's Lebanese citizenship and under Guideline E for past academic dishonesty and software copyright violations. The judge found that the applicant's minimal contact with his stepfather and his brother, along with the time elapsed since the misconduct, mitigated the concerns, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in a foreign country; (1.a). The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determination employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities (1.b). The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determination employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities (2.a). A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violations of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency (2.b).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2, E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A5.1.2.5. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1, E2.A5.1.3.1. The decision turned on the following: Applicant had minimal contact with his stepfather and his brother, who no longer have connections with the Lebanese Government; The academic dishonesty occurred over ten years ago, and the applicant has since established a reputation for honesty and integrity; The applicant did not knowingly and willfully violate copyright laws and ceased copying software when he became aware of the legalities; The omission of information from the SF 86 was not willful and did not pertain to his judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- Applicant had minimal contact with his stepfather and his brother, who no longer have connections with the Lebanese Government.
- The academic dishonesty occurred over ten years ago, and the applicant has since established a reputation for honesty and integrity.
- The applicant did not knowingly and willfully violate copyright laws and ceased copying software when he became aware of the legalities.
- The omission of information from the SF 86 was not willful and did not pertain to his judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2raisedForeign Influence
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence
- E2.A5.1.3.1appliedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A5.1.3.1appliedPersonal Conduct
Key Rule Quoted
“The Government has the burden of proving any controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 12, 2002
- Answer filedMar 6, 2002
- Hearing heldMay 23, 2002
- Decision dateJun 18, 2002
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Minimal Contact with Foreign Relatives
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Based on Time Elapsed and Reputation for Integrity
- Interpretation of SF 86 Questions Regarding Foreign Contacts and the Relevance of Omitted Information