ISCR Case 03-06688.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-06688.h1

grantedMar 28, 2007· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 42-year-old defense contractor employee whose security clearance was granted despite past security violations and foreign influence concerns. The applicant had a history of unintentional security infractions during his Navy service, including leaving classified materials unsecured and destroying a classified document. These issues fell under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

Additionally, concerns were raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to his mother-in-law and father-in-law being citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Saudi Arabia. The applicant himself worked for a defense contractor in Saudi Arabia from 1993 to 1997. His in-laws also made a one-time financial donation in the late 1980s or early 1990s to a humanitarian effort to return a child from Saudi Arabia to the Philippines.

Ultimately, the security clearance was granted. The applicant demonstrated a positive attitude toward security responsibilities following his past violations. Furthermore, his in-laws, as UK citizens, were found to have no current ties to the Saudi government, mitigating foreign influence concerns. Strong character references from his employer and colleagues also supported his trustworthiness and reliability.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant demonstrated a positive attitude towards security responsibilities after past violations.
His in-laws are UK citizens with no current ties to the Saudi government, mitigating foreign influence concerns.
Applicant's employer and colleagues provided strong character references supporting his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A11.1.2.2raisedSecurity Violations Disqualifying ConditionApplicant's past security violations raised concerns about his trustworthiness.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionApplicant's in-laws are not agents of a foreign power and have no current association with the Saudi government.
E2.A11.1.3.1appliedSecurity Violations Mitigating ConditionApplicant's security violations were unintentional and he has since shown a commitment to security protocols.

Key Rule Quoted

“"An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her security clearance."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 4, 2005
Answer filedNov 18, 2005
Hearing heldFeb 22, 2007
Decision dateMar 28, 2007

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Demonstrating Positive Security Behavior After Past Violations Under Guideline K
The Burden of Proof in Security Clearance Cases Rests with the Applicant.

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 mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Saudi Arabia.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Saudi Arabia HEIGHTENED RISK	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	Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant worked in Saudi Arabia from 1993 through 1997, for a defense contractor in support of a U.S. government Foreign Military Sales.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Saudi Arabia HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's in-laws provided a one time financial donation in the late 1980s or early 1990s, to a humanitarian effort to return a child to the Philippines from Saudi Arabia.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Extended Family	Philippines	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Saudi Arabia.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Saudi Arabia

HEIGHTENED RISK

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

Documented

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Applicant worked in Saudi Arabia from 1993 through 1997, for a defense contractor in support of a U.S. government Foreign Military Sales.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Saudi Arabia

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

1.c–1.d

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

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

1.e

Applicant's in-laws provided a one time financial donation in the late 1980s or early 1990s, to a humanitarian effort to return a child to the Philippines from Saudi Arabia.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Extended Family

Philippines

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a–2.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a–2.c

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

For Applicant

—

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

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES