Loading case…

ISCR 02-24875.h2: Guideline B security clearance hearing, denied (2006) · CASE

ISCR Case 02-24875.h2denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-24875.h2

deniedMay 5, 2006· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A security clearance application was denied under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unmitigated concerns regarding the applicant's family members residing in Laos. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to demonstrate that these family members were not agents of a foreign government or positioned to exert influence over her.

The judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently address these disqualifying conditions. Specifically, the applicant failed to prove that her family members in Laos were not agents of a foreign government, nor did she mitigate the broader concerns about potential foreign influence.

Consequently, despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the judge determined that the foreign influence risks remained unresolved, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant failed to demonstrate that her family members in Laos were not agents of a foreign government.
The applicant did not mitigate the concerns regarding foreign influence on her.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the foreign influence concerns.

Key rule quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedMar 29, 2006Remanded by the Appeal Board.
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMay 5, 2006

Cite for

Failure to Mitigate Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Insufficient Evidence Regarding Family Members' Potential Influence
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Due to Lack of Evidence

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge denied the applicant's security clearance due to concerns about foreign influence stemming from family members living in Laos. The applicant failed to demonstrate that these family members were not agents of a foreign government or positioned to exert influence over her, which led to the conclusion that granting a clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Foreign Influence

DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate that her family members living in Laos were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant, thus failing to mitigate the foreign influence concerns. Clearance denied.

CASENO: 02-24875.h2

DATE: 05/05/2006

DATE: May 5, 2006

In Re:

---------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-24875

REMAND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR.

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant failed to demonstrate that her family members living in Laos were not agents of a foreign government or so situated as to provide a point of influence on Applicant, thus failing to mitigate the foreign influence concerns. Clearance denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On 29 March 2006, the Appeal Board remanded this case to me "for the purpose of locating the [U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Laos, dated 23 (1) February 2001] and making it part of the record." The Appeal Board concluded that I erred by not including the report in the record forwarded on appeal. As directed, I have attached the requested report to this decision (Tab A). In addition, to complete the record, I have attached copies of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: Laos, dated November 2003 and the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Consular Information Sheet: Laos, dated 30 December 2003 (Tab B), both of which were officially noticed at the hearing but missing from the case file forwarded to the Appeal Board. (2)

DISCUSSION

One aspect of the Appeal Board remand that must be addressed is the conclusion that a publication officially noticed over the objection of one of the parties must have hard copy included in the record of trial. The Appeal Board's conclusion ignores an essential component of official notice: that adjudicative facts may be noticed when they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. In other words, you could look it up. The noticed State Department publications are well within this requirement. Although I was not required to take official notice of these publications, it was well within my discretion to do so. Further, while Department Counsel provided hard copy to me and Applicant as a matter of convenience, hard copies were not required for me to take official notice. I could have as easily and properly taken official notice of these publications with only a citation to their locations, whether physically in a library or in an agency on-line reading room. For clarity, I attach a "screen shot" of the State Department's access page to its major reports--notably including human rights reports from 1993-2005 (Tab C). I can easily access and print same report I officially noticed (Tab D) varying only in the number of printed pages. Thus, any interested party can--working from the cite I gave in the record (Tr. 15)--locate the publication that I noticed. Another important component of official notice is the ability to take official notice at any time in the proceeding, whether requested or not. Addressing Applicant's issue that I should not have taken official notice of the 2000 human rights report because it was irrelevant because outdated, I take official notice that the section of the 2000 Human Rights Report upon which I largely based my three-sentence finding about the government of Laos--section 1.f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home or Correspondence--remains essentially unchanged in subsequent reports through 2005. (See, Tab C)

The Appeal Board remand requires no change to my Findings of Fact, Policies, Conclusions, or Formal Findings. Accordingly, there is no reason to change my decision.

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied.

John G. Metz, Jr.

Administrative Judge

1. The Appeal Board incorrectly states the date of the report because it relies on the exhibit list provided by Department Counsel and not my record identification of the report (Tr. 15) that clearly records the correct date.

2. However, these three publications were in the case file when I issued my decision.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jason Perry, Esquire, Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-24875.h2.htm[6/24/2021 11:08:30 AM] Sabrina Elaine Redd, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT August Bequai, Esquire