ISCR Case 03-23474.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-23474.h1

deniedJan 24, 2005· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), E (Personal Conduct), and M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from a history of unauthorized hacking activities, foreign family ties, and intentional falsification of his security clearance application regarding marijuana use.

Specifically, the applicant engaged in hacking activities between 1992 and 1998, which raised concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness. Regarding foreign influence, he has three uncles who are Egyptian citizens and have completed military service in Egypt. While he maintains monthly contact with one uncle, and conversations are limited by a language barrier, he previously stated during an investigation that he would ask to be removed from any project utilized in Egypt due to loyalty to his family's welfare.

Furthermore, the applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application by underreporting his marijuana use, listing only two instances when he had used it more frequently. The judge found his explanation for this discrepancy not credible, concluding that his conduct demonstrated questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, and a lack of candor necessary for access to national secrets. His claims of maturity and positive character references were deemed insufficient to mitigate these significant security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in unauthorized hacking activities from 1992 to 1998, demonstrating a pattern of poor judgment and untrustworthiness.
The applicant maintained foreign contacts that could create potential foreign influence concerns, particularly regarding his loyalty to family in Egypt.
The applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application by underreporting his marijuana use, indicating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

M1raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Entry Into Any Information Technology System
M2raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Modification, Destruction, Manipulation, or Denial of Access to Information Residing on an Information Technology System
B1raisedAn Immediate Family Member, or Person to Whom the Individual Has Close Ties of Affection or Obligation, Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country
E2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
E5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2004
Answer filedSep 7, 2004
Hearing heldDec 13, 2004
Decision dateJan 24, 2005

Cite For

Denial Based on Unauthorized Computer Hacking Under Guideline M
Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Lack of Candor and Intentional Falsification Under Guideline E

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
2.a	The Applicant is a naturalized American citizen. He has three uncles who are citizens of Egypt currently residing in Egypt. They have all completed military service in Egypt. The Applicant maintains monthly telephone contact with one uncle in Egypt, who is a University professor. His conversations with any of his uncles are limited because of the language barrier. They speak Arabic and no English. He speaks only English and very little Arabic. They are not affiliated in any way with the Egyptian Government.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Egypt	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
2.b	In 1998, during his security clearance investigation, the Applicant stated that he would ask to be removed from any project that would be utilized in Egypt as he was loyal to his family members that reside in that region and would be concerned about their welfare. (See Government Exhibits 8 and 9). He explained that he simply answered the question honestly and did not realize that it would be interpreted as loyalty to another country.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Egypt	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
2.c	During the same security clearance investigation, a memorandum of the interview dated February 1999 indicates that the Applicant stated that he advised his references not to discuss information regarding his alcohol abuse, depression, computer hacking/phone switches and illegal drug activity with the Government investigator. The Applicant denies advising his references of such.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant is a naturalized American citizen. He has three uncles who are citizens of Egypt currently residing in Egypt. They have all completed military service in Egypt. The Applicant maintains monthly telephone contact with one uncle in Egypt, who is a University professor. His conversations with any of his uncles are limited because of the language barrier. They speak Arabic and no English. He speaks only English and very little Arabic. They are not affiliated in any way with the Egyptian Government.

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Egypt

Unknown

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

—

2.b

In 1998, during his security clearance investigation, the Applicant stated that he would ask to be removed from any project that would be utilized in Egypt as he was loyal to his family members that reside in that region and would be concerned about their welfare. (See Government Exhibits 8 and 9). He explained that he simply answered the question honestly and did not realize that it would be interpreted as loyalty to another country.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Egypt

Unknown

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

—

2.c

During the same security clearance investigation, a memorandum of the interview dated February 1999 indicates that the Applicant stated that he advised his references not to discuss information regarding his alcohol abuse, depression, computer hacking/phone switches and illegal drug activity with the Government investigator. The Applicant denies advising his references of such.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated September 2, 1998, wherein he was required to indicate whether since the age of sixteen or in the last seven years, whichever is shorter, has he illegally used any illegal drugs. The Applicant answered, "YES", and listed that he used marijuana one time in December 1997, and again in October 1996. He failed to list that he had actually used marijuana more frequently between 1996 and January 1998.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	The Applicant testified that he had no intention to falsify or provide inaccurate information to the Government. He testified that when he completed the application, he only remembered two occasions where he used marijuana, and he later remembered more. However, I do not find this explanation credible.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	The Applicant has shown questionable judgment, untrustworthiness and lacks the candor and honesty required to access the national secrets.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated September 2, 1998, wherein he was required to indicate whether since the age of sixteen or in the last seven years, whichever is shorter, has he illegally used any illegal drugs. The Applicant answered, "YES", and listed that he used marijuana one time in December 1997, and again in October 1996. He failed to list that he had actually used marijuana more frequently between 1996 and January 1998.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.b

The Applicant testified that he had no intention to falsify or provide inaccurate information to the Government. He testified that when he completed the application, he only remembered two occasions where he used marijuana, and he later remembered more. However, I do not find this explanation credible.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.c

The Applicant has shown questionable judgment, untrustworthiness and lacks the candor and honesty required to access the national secrets.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized System Access	Unknown	(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system	—	—
1.b	Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation, or denial of access to information residing on an information technology system.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Modification or Destruction	Unknown	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a system	—	—
1.c–1.f	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

1.a

Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized System Access

Unknown

(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system

—

1.b

Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation, or denial of access to information residing on an information technology system.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Modification or Destruction

Unknown

(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a system

—

1.c–1.f

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

Against Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

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