Summary
The applicant, a 52-year-old senior staff analyst for a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines B, D, and E due to an ongoing extramarital relationship with a Bolivian woman and failure to disclose this relationship on his security clearance application. Despite mitigating factors regarding foreign influence, the judge found that personal conduct and sexual behavior concerns were not mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The SOR ¶ 1.a. alleges that Applicant's wife is a Bolivian citizen. This allegation is not established, because she has become a United States citizen (1.a). The SOR ¶ 1.b. and 1.c. allege that Applicant's parents-in-law and his Bolivian girlfriend are citizens and residents of Bolivia (1.b). The SOR ¶ 1.b. and 1.c. allege that Applicant's parents-in-law and his Bolivian girlfriend are citizens and residents of Bolivia (1.c). The SOR ¶ 1.d. alleges that Applicant's will leaves one-half of his estate to his Bolivian girlfriend (1.d). The SOR ¶ 1.e. alleges that Applicant stays in contact with a former girlfriend who was a Colombian citizen and resident (1.e). The applicant engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with a Bolivian woman while married to another woman, which he did not disclose on his security clearance application (3.a). Applicant maintained an extramarital relationship with a Bolivian woman after he was married in April 1998 (1.a). Applicant maintained a joint checking account with the Bolivian woman and sent her approximately $20,000.00 over the past nine years (1.b). Applicant did not disclose his relationship with the Bolivian woman on his security clearance application (1.c). Applicant's will leaves one-half of his estate to his Bolivian girlfriend (1.d).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1.1, E2.A5.2.4, E2.A4.1.1. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1, E2.A5.1.3.5, E2.A5.1.3.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant maintained an extramarital relationship with a Bolivian woman after marrying another Bolivian woman; He failed to disclose this relationship on his security clearance application, which was deemed a deliberate omission; The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding personal conduct and sexual behavior, which were not mitigated.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant maintained an extramarital relationship with a Bolivian woman after marrying another Bolivian woman.
- He failed to disclose this relationship on his security clearance application, which was deemed a deliberate omission.
- The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding personal conduct and sexual behavior, which were not mitigated.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.1appliedPersonal Conduct
- E2.A5.2.4appliedVulnerability to Coercion
- E2.A4.1.1appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
- E2.A2.1.3.1appliedFamily Members Not Agents of a Foreign Power
- E2.A5.1.3.5rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant did not eliminate his vulnerability regarding the Air Force or civilian community.
- E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPrompt Good-faith Efforts to Correct FalsificationThe applicant's disclosure was not motivated by a desire for truth but by fear of losing his clearance.
Key Rule Quoted
“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 27, 2004
- Answer filedApr 30, 2004
- Hearing heldSep 14, 2004
- Decision dateNov 1, 2004
Cite For
- Deliberate Omission of Relevant Facts Under Guideline E
- Vulnerability to Coercion Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Criminal Nature of Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D