ISCR Case 01-24306.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-24306.h1

deniedApr 10, 2003· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old defense contractor and dual citizen of Lebanon and the U.S. was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's falsification of his security clearance application, specifically by omitting foreign government contacts and one of his trips to Lebanon. The adjudicator found his denials of intent to deceive unpersuasive.

Further contributing to the decision were issues of foreign preference and influence. The applicant's renewal and use of a Lebanese passport after becoming a U.S. citizen indicated a preference for foreign citizenship. Additionally, his financial support of $3,000-$5,000 annually to his parents, who are Lebanese citizens residing in Lebanon, and his continuing contacts with a Lebanese-sponsored cultural and educational organization raised concerns about foreign influence. His four siblings and in-laws also reside in Lebanon.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant could not be trusted to safeguard classified information, primarily due to the falsification of his application and the demonstrated foreign preference and influence.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant falsified his security clearance application by omitting foreign government contacts and travel to Lebanon.
Applicant's renewal and use of a Lebanese passport after becoming a U.S. citizen indicated a preference for foreign citizenship.
Financial support to his parents in Lebanon and ongoing ties to Lebanese organizations raised concerns of foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A3.1.2.1raisedExercise of Dual Citizenship
E2.A3.1.2.2raisedPossession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport
E2.A2.1.2.1raisedImmediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

E2.A3.1.3.4rejectedWillingness to Renounce Dual CitizenshipApplicant's conditional willingness to renounce citizenship was given little weight due to his actions.
E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign PowerInsufficient information about family members to conclude they do not pose a security risk.
E2.A5.1.3appliedNo Mitigating Conditions Applicable

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring those entrusted with this Nation's secrets will make decisions free of concerns for the foreign country of which they may also be a citizen.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 21, 2002
Answer filedSep 12, 2002
Hearing heldDec 6, 2002Hearing date amended to accommodate counsel schedules.
Decision dateApr 10, 2003

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Foreign Preference Concerns Under Guideline C
Foreign Influence Considerations Under Guideline B

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—
2.c	Applicant's parents are citizens of Lebanon, residing in Lebanon. Applicant sends them $3,000.00-5,000.00 per year to help them pay for their medicines.	Against Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	Lebanon	Denied	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.d	Applicant's four siblings are citizens of Lebanon, three reside in Lebanon. None are employed by the government.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Lebanon	Denied	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.e	Applicant's in-laws are also citizens of Lebanon, residing in Lebanon with no significant government contacts.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Lebanon	Denied	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.f	Applicant has continuing contacts with a Lebanese-sponsored cultural and educational organization.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Lebanon	Denied	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.g–2.h	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

2.c

Applicant's parents are citizens of Lebanon, residing in Lebanon. Applicant sends them $3,000.00-5,000.00 per year to help them pay for their medicines.

Against Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Immediate Family

Lebanon

Denied

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.d

Applicant's four siblings are citizens of Lebanon, three reside in Lebanon. None are employed by the government.

Against Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Lebanon

Denied

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.e

Applicant's in-laws are also citizens of Lebanon, residing in Lebanon with no significant government contacts.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Lebanon

Denied

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.f

Applicant has continuing contacts with a Lebanese-sponsored cultural and educational organization.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Lebanon

Denied

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.g–2.h

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	The exercise of dual citizenship.	Against Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Possession and/or use of a foreign passport.	Against Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

The exercise of dual citizenship.

Against Applicant

Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application

Admitted

—

1.b

Possession and/or use of a foreign passport.

Against Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a–3.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
3.c	Applicant failed to disclose his contacts with the Lebanese government and one of his trips to Lebanon.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Foreign Contacts or Interests	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.d	Applicant's denials of any intent to deceive the government are unpersuasive.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a–3.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

3.c

Applicant failed to disclose his contacts with the Lebanese government and one of his trips to Lebanon.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Foreign Contacts or Interests

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

3.d

Applicant's denials of any intent to deceive the government are unpersuasive.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

—

3.e

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES