ISCR Case 02-26945.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-26945.h1

grantedJul 20, 2004· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old engineer with dual U.S. and Taiwanese citizenship sought a security clearance, which was ultimately granted. Initial concerns were raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Specifically, the applicant was a dual citizen who had renewed and possessed a Taiwanese passport after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. This led to allegations of foreign preference and potential foreign influence due to family ties in Taiwan.

Additionally, the applicant faced allegations of personal conduct related to his security clearance application dated April 16, 2001. He answered "NO" to Question 15, which asked if he had an active foreign passport in the last seven years, despite having been issued a Taiwanese passport on December 6, 1999. The government alleged this was an intentional falsification of material aspects of his background.

However, the judge found that the applicant had mitigated these concerns. He renounced his Taiwanese citizenship, surrendered his Taiwanese passport, and received a Loss of Nationality Certificate, demonstrating a clear preference for the United States. Furthermore, his immediate family resides in the U.S., addressing foreign influence concerns. The inaccuracies in his application were determined to be careless mistakes rather than intentional falsifications. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant renounced his Taiwanese citizenship and surrendered his Taiwanese passport, demonstrating a preference for the United States.
The applicant's immediate family resides in the United States, mitigating foreign influence concerns.
The applicant's inaccuracies in the security clearance application were deemed careless mistakes rather than intentional falsifications.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C1raisedForeign Preference
B1raisedForeign Influence
E1raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

C1appliedForeign PreferenceThe applicant renounced his dual citizenship and surrendered his foreign passport.
B1appliedForeign InfluenceThe applicant's immediate family resides in the U.S. and there is no evidence of foreign influence.
E1appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's inaccuracies were found to be careless mistakes, not intentional.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government must make out a case under Guideline C (foreign preference) Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline E (personal conduct) that establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2003
Answer filedJan 2, 2004
Hearing heldJun 9, 2004
Decision dateJul 20, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Preference Through Renunciation of Citizenship
Absence of Foreign Influence Due to Family Residing in the U.S.
Careless Mistakes in Application Not Constituting Intentional Falsification

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	The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	—	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
2.a–2.a	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

—

Denied

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

2.a–2.a

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

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant is a dual citizen of Taiwan and the United States.	For Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	—
1.b	The Applicant renewed his Taiwanese passport after becoming a naturalized United States citizen.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	—
1.c	The Applicant possessed his Taiwanese passport that was issued on December 6, 1999.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	—
2.a	The Applicant surrendered his passport to the Taiwan Economic and Cultural office and received his Loss of Nationality Certificate from the Taiwanese Minister of Interior.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	(d) the exercise of the rights/privileges/obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen	—
3.a	The Applicant did not intentionally falsify a security clearance application.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	The Applicant was careless in completing his security clearance application.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant is a dual citizen of Taiwan and the United States.

For Applicant

Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests

—

1.b

The Applicant renewed his Taiwanese passport after becoming a naturalized United States citizen.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests

—

1.c

The Applicant possessed his Taiwanese passport that was issued on December 6, 1999.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests

—

2.a

The Applicant surrendered his passport to the Taiwan Economic and Cultural office and received his Loss of Nationality Certificate from the Taiwanese Minister of Interior.

For Applicant

Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status

Admitted

—

(d) the exercise of the rights/privileges/obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen

—

3.a

The Applicant did not intentionally falsify a security clearance application.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Denied

—

3.b

The Applicant was careless in completing his security clearance application.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
3.b	The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated April 16, 2001. Question 15 of the application asked him, "In the last seven years, have you had an active passport that was issued by a foreign government? The Applicant answered "NO". This was a false answer. The Applicant was issued a Taiwanese passport on December 6, 1999.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

3.b

The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated April 16, 2001. Question 15 of the application asked him, "In the last seven years, have you had an active passport that was issued by a foreign government? The Applicant answered "NO". This was a false answer. The Applicant was issued a Taiwanese passport on December 6, 1999.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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