ISCR Case 03-00066.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-00066.h1

grantedMay 23, 2005· Hon. Roger E. Willmeth· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old president and CEO of a U.S. systems integration company was granted a security clearance after addressing concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline L (Outside Activities). The applicant's parents are citizens of India, residing there for approximately half of each year, and are also permanent residents of the U.S. for the remainder. His father, a retired Indian government accountant, receives a small pension, though their primary income is from investments.

In February 2001, the applicant traveled to India, selecting his parents' Indian software development company, in which they are sole shareholders, to provide services for a commercial product. This led to daily electronic and monthly telephonic contact with his cousin, a director of the company, and biweekly electronic contact with another director. The applicant also traveled to India in February and November 2002 for family visits and business with the company.

To mitigate the security concerns, the applicant terminated the business relationship with his parents' company, no longer requiring their services as he has hired employees to perform the work. Additionally, his parents are permanent residents of the U.S. and intend to apply for citizenship. These actions reduced the foreign influence risks, resulting in the granting of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant terminated the business relationship with his parents' Indian software development company.
He no longer requires the services of the company, having hired employees to perform the work.
Applicant's parents are permanent residents of the U.S. and intend to apply for citizenship.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1raisedImmediate Family Member Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.2.2raisedConduct Which May Make the Individual Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Pressure by a Foreign Government
E2.A12.1.2.2raisedService with Any Foreign National

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power
E2.A12.1.3.2appliedIndividual Terminates the Employment or Discontinues the Activity Upon Being Notified That It Is in Conflict with Security Responsibilities

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 issuedJan 12, 2004
Answer filedJan 27, 2004
Hearing heldJul 22, 2004
Decision dateMay 23, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Through Termination of Foreign Business Relationships
Application of Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline B and Guideline L
Impact of Family Residency Status on Security Clearance Decisions

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	Applicant's parents are citizens of India and reside there for approximately half of each year. They are also permanent residents of the United States where they reside for the remainder of each year.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant's father was employed by the Indian Government as an accountant until his retirement in 1991. He receives a small pension from the Indian Government. However, Applicant's parents receive a greater income from their investments.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	In February 2001, Applicant traveled to India to visit family and to interview prospective suppliers of software development. He selected his parents' company to provide software development services to his company for a commercial product.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India	Denied	(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Severed Foreign Contact
1.d	His parents are the sole shareholders in an Indian software development company.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India	Denied	(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Severed Foreign Contact
1.e	Applicant's cousin is a director of his parents' software development company. Beginning in February 2001, Applicant had electronic contact with him related to business matters on a daily basis and telephonic contact with him related to business matters on a monthly basis.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India	Denied	(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Severed Foreign Contact
1.f	Applicant also had electronic contact with another director of his parents' company on a biweekly basis. Since July 2003, most of the contact with his parents' company is through Applicant's staff.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India	Denied	(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Severed Foreign Contact
1.g	Applicant traveled to India in February 2002 and November 2002 to visit family and conduct business with his parents software development company.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India	Denied	(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Severed Foreign Contact

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's parents are citizens of India and reside there for approximately half of each year. They are also permanent residents of the United States where they reside for the remainder of each year.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Applicant's father was employed by the Indian Government as an accountant until his retirement in 1991. He receives a small pension from the Indian Government. However, Applicant's parents receive a greater income from their investments.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.c

In February 2001, Applicant traveled to India to visit family and to interview prospective suppliers of software development. He selected his parents' company to provide software development services to his company for a commercial product.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

Denied

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Severed Foreign Contact

1.d

His parents are the sole shareholders in an Indian software development company.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

Denied

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Severed Foreign Contact

1.e

Applicant's cousin is a director of his parents' software development company. Beginning in February 2001, Applicant had electronic contact with him related to business matters on a daily basis and telephonic contact with him related to business matters on a monthly basis.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

Denied

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Severed Foreign Contact

1.f

Applicant also had electronic contact with another director of his parents' company on a biweekly basis. Since July 2003, most of the contact with his parents' company is through Applicant's staff.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

Denied

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Severed Foreign Contact

1.g

Applicant traveled to India in February 2002 and November 2002 to visit family and conduct business with his parents software development company.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

Denied

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Severed Foreign Contact

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶37)	Mitigating applied (¶38)	Mitigation
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶37)

Mitigating applied (¶38)

Mitigation

2.a–2.d

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

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision