CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-26595.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-26595.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-26595.h1

deniedNov 12, 2003· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A defense contractor employee, who has resided in the U.S. for fourteen years, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from her significant family ties in Laos and financial support provided to relatives there.

Specifically, the applicant's mother and nine siblings are citizens and residents of Laos. Her father and cohabitant, both Laotian citizens, reside in the U.S. The applicant provides between $200 and $1,000 annually in financial assistance to her family in Laos and traveled to Laos with her father in 2002. All factual allegations regarding foreign influence were admitted by the applicant.

The denial was based on the presence of immediate family members who are not U.S. citizens and could be subject to duress. The applicant did not offer any evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from her relatives' Laotian citizenship, nor did she demonstrate that granting the clearance would be consistent with national security.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has immediate family members who are not U.S. citizens and may be subject to duress.
The applicant failed to provide evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by her relatives' Laotian citizenship.
The applicant did not demonstrate that granting her clearance was consistent with national security.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.1raisedForeign Influence
E2.A2.1.2.1raisedImmediate Family Citizenship

Key Rule Quoted

“"A security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress."”
— Directive, ¶ E2.A2.1.1

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 14, 2003
Answer filedMar 4, 2003Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateNov 12, 2003

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Impact of non-U.S. Citizen Family Members on Security Clearance Eligibility
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Mitigate Disqualifying Conditions

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 found that the applicant's foreign influence ties, particularly to relatives in Laos, raised significant security concerns. The applicant admitted to having family members who are citizens of Laos, including her mother and siblings, and she provides financial support to them. The judge concluded that these ties were not sufficiently mitigated, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's immediate family, and other persons to whom she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation, are not United States citizens and may be subject to duress. These relatives are her father, and her co-habitant for the past five years who are citizens of Laos and live in the U.S.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Laos	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Her mother and nine siblings are citizens of Laos where they reside.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Laos	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	She provides some financial assistance to her family in Laos of between $200.00 and $1,000.00 per year.	Against Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Financial or Property Interest	Laos	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	She traveled to Laos with her father in 2002.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Laos	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant has admitted all of the factual allegations pertaining to foreign influence under Guideline B.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant failed to offer any evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by the Laotian citizenship of her relatives.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). 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

APPEARANCES

DATE: November 12, 2003

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-26595

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is an employee of a defense contractor who has lived in the United States for fourteen years. She has relatives in Laos including her mother with whom she communicates twice a month and sends financial aid. She cohabits with a Laotian citizen and her father lives with her who is also a Laotian citizen. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On February 14,2003, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement, dated March 4, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on July 2, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), consisting of seven documents, was provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She chose not to do so. The case was assigned to, and received by, this Administrative Judge on October 3, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant has admitted all of the factual allegations pertaining to foreign influence under Guideline B. Those admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration of the record the following additional findings of fact are made. Applicant's immediate family, and other persons to whom she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation, are not United States citizens and may be subject to duress. These relatives are her father, and her co-habitant for the past five years who are citizens of Laos and live in the U.S.

Her mother and nine siblings are citizens of Laos where they reside.

She provides some financial assistance to her family in Laos of between $200.00 and $1,000.00 per year. She traveled to Laos with her father in 2002.

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

"A security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. These situations could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information. "Directive, ¶ E2.A2.1.1. Having immediate family members who are citizens of, and residing in a foreign country, may raise a disqualifying security concern. Directive, ¶ E2.A2.1.2.1.

Such security concerns could be mitigated by a determination "that the immediate family members are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States." Directive, ¶ E2.A2.1.3

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence of record, including Applicant's admissions, the Government has established reasons to deny her a security clearance because of foreign influence. Having established such reasons, the Applicant has the burden to establish security suitability through evidence which refutes, mitigates, or extenuates the disqualification and demonstrates that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance. ISCR Case No. 99-0424, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 59 at 33-34 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2001). Mitigating factors are not applicable.

Applicant failed to offer any evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by the Laotian citizenship of her relatives. Applicant has failed to offer any evidence to show that no risk was involved in that relationship. By failing to mitigate these security concerns, Applicant has failed to demonstrate that is clearly consistent with national security to grant her the clearance.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings as required by the Directive, ¶ E3.1.25), are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f. Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-26595.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Rita C. O'Brien, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-26595.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:09:45 AM] 02-26595.h1