ISCR Case 02-27607.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-27607.h1

grantedApr 25, 2003· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor with an Associate's Degree was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed that the Applicant's adoptive father, a retired university professor who previously worked for the European Space Administration, lives in Finland. His stepmother and minor half-brother, also Finnish citizens, reside there as well. However, the Applicant maintained very minimal contact with these family members, and no evidence suggested they were connected to any foreign government or could be exploited.

Regarding criminal conduct, the Applicant was involved in domestic disputes with his spouse in November 1995 and May 1997, neither of which resulted in charges. In November 1997, he was arrested and pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant.

As part of his sentence, the Applicant successfully completed a domestic violence program by February 1999, and his probation concluded shortly thereafter. The judge found that the Applicant's minimal contact with his Finnish family mitigated foreign influence concerns, and his successful completion of the domestic violence program and probation demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation for the past criminal conduct. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant had minimal contact with his adoptive father, stepmother, and half-brother, reducing foreign influence concerns.
There was no evidence that the Applicant's family members were connected to any foreign government or could be exploited.
The Applicant successfully completed a domestic violence program and his probation, demonstrating rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B.1.araisedAn Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country;
J.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged;
J.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses;

Mitigating

B.1appliedA Determination That the Immediate Family Member(s) Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power or in a Position to Be Exploited by a Foreign Power;
J.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation;

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who demonstrates a foreign preference, or who is subject to a foreign influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 21, 2002
Answer filedDec 16, 2002
Hearing heldApr 2, 2003
Decision dateApr 25, 2003

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Minimal Family Contact
Successful Rehabilitation From Past Criminal Conduct
The Significance of Time Elapsed Since Criminal Conduct in Security Clearance Determinations

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
1.a	The Applicant's adoptive father lives in Finland, and was a university professor, both in Germany and later in Finland. He also worked for the European Space Administration. However, he has now been retired for "over a year;" and as far as the Applicant can ascertain, has no connection, and never had any connection, with any foreign government. The Applicant has "very minimal" contact with his adoptive father. There is no evidence that his father's presence in Finland can be exploited by any government, nor would he succumb to any such exploitation.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Finland	Unknown	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.b	The Applicant's stepmother and minor half-brother are citizens of and also live in Finland. She is an art teacher, and the Applicant has little, if any, contact with either his stepmother or minor sibling. There is no evidence that they can be exploited by any government, nor would the Applicant succumb to any such exploitation.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Finland	Unknown	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
2.a–2.c	3 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

1.a

The Applicant's adoptive father lives in Finland, and was a university professor, both in Germany and later in Finland. He also worked for the European Space Administration. However, he has now been retired for "over a year;" and as far as the Applicant can ascertain, has no connection, and never had any connection, with any foreign government. The Applicant has "very minimal" contact with his adoptive father. There is no evidence that his father's presence in Finland can be exploited by any government, nor would he succumb to any such exploitation.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Finland

Unknown

—

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

—

1.b

The Applicant's stepmother and minor half-brother are citizens of and also live in Finland. She is an art teacher, and the Applicant has little, if any, contact with either his stepmother or minor sibling. There is no evidence that they can be exploited by any government, nor would the Applicant succumb to any such exploitation.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Finland

Unknown

—

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

—

2.a–2.c

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

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant had a domestic dispute with his spouse in November of 1995. No charges were filed against the Applicant as a result of this dispute.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
2.b	In May of 1997, the Applicant was again involved in a domestic dispute with his spouse. No charges were filed against the Applicant as a result of this domestic dispute.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
2.c	In November of 1997, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently pled no contest to, Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant, a misdemeanor. As part of his sentence, the Applicant successfully completed a domestic violence program in February of 1999, and his probation ended soon thereafter.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant had a domestic dispute with his spouse in November of 1995. No charges were filed against the Applicant as a result of this dispute.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

2.b

In May of 1997, the Applicant was again involved in a domestic dispute with his spouse. No charges were filed against the Applicant as a result of this domestic dispute.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

2.c

In November of 1997, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently pled no contest to, Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant, a misdemeanor. As part of his sentence, the Applicant successfully completed a domestic violence program in February of 1999, and his probation ended soon thereafter.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

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