ISCR Case 03-11357.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-11357.h1

grantedMar 18, 2005· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old computer programmer for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's two brothers and one sister residing in Taiwan, with one brother holding a non-sensitive government position there. Additionally, the applicant had traveled annually to Taiwan for ten years before her father's death, and while she initially did not report all these trips, she later disclosed them voluntarily. Her most recent trip to Taiwan was in 2002.

The primary issues raised were the applicant's family ties in Taiwan and her initial omission of previous annual trips on her SF 85P and a subsequent affidavit, though she did disclose a 2001 trip. Disqualifying conditions related to foreign influence and personal conduct were considered.

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, finding that the applicant's family members in Taiwan were not in positions susceptible to exploitation by a foreign power. The applicant's voluntary disclosure of previously omitted travel information demonstrated candor, and her long-standing employment and prior security clearance further supported her trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's family members in Taiwan were not in positions to be exploited by a foreign power.
The applicant voluntarily disclosed previously omitted travel information, demonstrating candor.
The applicant's long-standing employment and previous security clearance supported her trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Members Are Citizens of a Foreign Country.
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission of Relevant Facts From Security Questionnaire.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence - Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power.
E2.A5.1.3.2appliedPersonal Conduct - Falsification Was an Isolated Incident and Not Recent.
E2.A5.1.3.3appliedPersonal Conduct - Prompt, Good Faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification.

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).”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 18, 2004
Answer filedNov 1, 2004
Hearing heldFeb 8, 2005
Decision dateMar 18, 2005

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Mitigating Conditions for Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Consideration of Voluntary Disclosure in Security Clearance Cases

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 has two brothers and one sister who remain in Taiwan. One brother works for the government in Taiwan in a non-sensitive position.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Taiwan	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant traveled annually to Taiwan for ten years before her father died. Initially, she did not report all of the trips but did so later voluntarily.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Taiwan	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.c	She has had only one occasion since to travel to Taiwan and that was in 2002 after the SF 85P was submitted when a brother-in-law was terminally ill with cancer.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Taiwan	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	She disclosed her 2001 trip to Taiwan on her SF 85P and a subsequent affidavit but not the yearly trips for the ten previous years.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Taiwan	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
1.e	She has two twin brothers and one sister who remain in and are citizens of Taiwan.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Taiwan	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Deep U.S. Ties

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has two brothers and one sister who remain in Taiwan. One brother works for the government in Taiwan in a non-sensitive position.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Taiwan

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Applicant traveled annually to Taiwan for ten years before her father died. Initially, she did not report all of the trips but did so later voluntarily.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Taiwan

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation

1.c

She has had only one occasion since to travel to Taiwan and that was in 2002 after the SF 85P was submitted when a brother-in-law was terminally ill with cancer.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Taiwan

Admitted

—

1.d

She disclosed her 2001 trip to Taiwan on her SF 85P and a subsequent affidavit but not the yearly trips for the ten previous years.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Taiwan

Admitted

—

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

1.e

She has two twin brothers and one sister who remain in and are citizens of Taiwan.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Taiwan

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	SELF-CORRECTED	Foreign Contacts or Interests		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

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

For Applicant

SELF-CORRECTED

Foreign Contacts or Interests

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES