Summary
A 51-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and software engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's parents, sisters, and extended family reside in Taiwan, and her brother is a resident citizen of China. She also travels annually to Taiwan to visit her parents.
Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have falsified material facts on her November 30, 1999 security clearance application by failing to list her brother, sisters, and extended family members. Disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2.1 and E2.A5.1.2.2 were raised.
However, the judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. She has worked in the defense industry since 1982 and held a security clearance for over 20 years without incident. Her family ties were not deemed an unacceptable risk of foreign influence, as none of her relatives are agents of a foreign power. Furthermore, her omissions on the application were determined to be unintentional, not willful falsification. Mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1 and E2.A5.1.2.2 were applied, and the security clearance was granted.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant has worked in the defense industry since 1982 and held a security clearance for over 20 years without incident.
- The applicant's family ties do not pose an unacceptable risk of foreign influence as none of her relatives are agents of a foreign power.
- The applicant's omissions on her security clearance application were determined to be unintentional and not indicative of willful falsification.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence
- E2.A5.1.2.2rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's omissions were found to be unintentional and not indicative of knowing and willful falsification.
Key Rule Quoted
“While the mere possession of family ties with persons in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, automatically disqualifying . . . [it] does raise a prima facie security concern sufficient to require an applicant to present evidence of rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to meet the applicant's burden of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the applicant.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 24, 2003
- Answer filedOct 21, 2003
- Hearing heldJan 20, 2004
- Decision dateNov 30, 2004
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
- Unintentional Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Long-standing Employment in the Defense Industry as a Mitigating Factor for Security Clearance Eligibility