ISCR Case 02-21302.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-21302.h1

deniedFeb 24, 2004· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, 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 several factors, including the applicant's wife retaining Indian citizenship to protect her financial interests, which was seen as a potential foreign influence. Additionally, the applicant and his wife anticipated substantial inheritances from their parents' estates in India, creating a financial interest in the country that raised security concerns.

Specific allegations included the applicant's wife, mother, brother, sister-in-law, father-in-law, and mother-in-law all being citizens of India, with most residing in India. His sister and brother-in-law were also Indian citizens residing in the United Arab Emirates. The applicant maintained two bank accounts in India. Furthermore, the applicant possessed an Indian passport that was valid until July 2003, despite stating on his SF-86 that it had expired in 1997.

This misrepresentation on the SF-86, where he incorrectly reported the issuance and expiration dates of his Indian passport, was cited as a deliberate falsification of material facts. The combination of these foreign ties, financial interests, and the personal conduct issue regarding the SF-86 led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's wife retains Indian citizenship to protect her financial interests, exposing him to potential foreign influence.
The applicant's expected inheritance from his mother and his wife's substantial expected inheritance create a financial interest in India that raises security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Close Ties to Foreign Citizens
E2.A2.1.2.2appliedForeign Influence - Potential for Adverse Influence
E2.A3.1.1rejectedForeign Preference - Possession of Foreign PassportThe applicant no longer holds an Indian passport and has not traveled on it since becoming a U.S. citizen.
E2.A5.1.1rejectedPersonal Conduct - Lack of CandorThe applicant provided a credible explanation for the erroneous information on his SF-86.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence - Family Members Not Agents of Foreign Power
E2.A2.1.3.5appliedForeign Influence - Minimal Foreign Financial Interests
E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedPersonal Conduct - Isolated Incident of FalsificationThe applicant's misunderstanding of the SF-86 question was not deemed deliberate.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2003
Answer filedJun 12, 2003
Hearing heldSep 26, 2003
Decision dateFeb 24, 2004

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Spouse's Citizenship Under Guideline B
Foreign Financial Interests Impacting Security Clearance
Misunderstanding of SF-86 Questions as a Mitigating Factor Under Guideline E

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
3.a	Applicant's wife is a citizen of India who resides in the United States.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	India	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
3.b	Applicant's mother is a citizen of India who resides in India.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant's brother is a citizen of India who resides in India.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant's sister-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant's father-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.f	Applicant's mother-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.g	Applicant's sister and brother-in-law are citizens of India who reside in the United Arab Emirates.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.h	Applicant has two bank accounts in India.	For Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India	Denied	—	—	—
3.i	Applicant and his wife expect to inherit substantial sums of money from their parents' estates.	Against Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Financial or Property Interest	India	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
3.j–3.k	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant's wife is a citizen of India who resides in the United States.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

India

Denied

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

3.b

Applicant's mother is a citizen of India who resides in India.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.c

Applicant's brother is a citizen of India who resides in India.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.d

Applicant's sister-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.e

Applicant's father-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.f

Applicant's mother-in-law is a citizen of India who resides in India.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.g

Applicant's sister and brother-in-law are citizens of India who reside in the United Arab Emirates.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

3.h

Applicant has two bank accounts in India.

For Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

Denied

—

3.i

Applicant and his wife expect to inherit substantial sums of money from their parents' estates.

Against Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Financial or Property Interest

India

Denied

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

3.j–3.k

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	On May 20, 2002, Applicant had in his possession an Indian passport that did not expire until July 2003.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

On May 20, 2002, Applicant had in his possession an Indian passport that did not expire until July 2003.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified material facts on his SF-86 when, in response to Question 15, he stated that his Indian passport was issued in 1987 and expired in 1997 when in fact his Indian passport was issued in 1993 and expired in 2003.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately falsified material facts on his SF-86 when, in response to Question 15, he stated that his Indian passport was issued in 1987 and expired in 1997 when in fact his Indian passport was issued in 1993 and expired in 2003.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

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