ISCR Case 03-25400.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-25400.h1

grantedOct 30, 2006· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old Senior Engineer for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The applicant, born in Taiwan in 1949, had family members who immigrated to the U.S. and became citizens, with the exception of his mother, who remains a citizen and resident of Taiwan. The applicant had limited contact with his mother and traveled to Taiwan for company business and family matters, including his father's funeral and visiting his mother in the hospital.

The judge determined that these foreign family ties did not pose a security risk. Additionally, the applicant faced allegations regarding two security violations in 1997, where he failed to properly secure classified materials and improperly stored secret documents. However, these issues were mitigated by the fact that no further violations occurred after 1997.

The applicant received additional security training, which enhanced his awareness of security policies and protocols. He demonstrated rehabilitation and a commitment to safeguarding classified information, leading the judge to conclude that his past conduct issues were resolved. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's foreign family ties are limited and do not pose a security risk.
The applicant has not had any security violations since 1997 and has received additional security training.
The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation and a commitment to following security protocols.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 1raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 1raisedSecurity Violations
AG ¶ 1raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 1appliedForeign InfluenceThe applicant's family ties do not constitute an unacceptable security risk.
AG ¶ 2appliedSecurity ViolationsThe applicant's violations were isolated and infrequent, and he has demonstrated a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.
AG ¶ 1appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant has shown rehabilitation and a commitment to compliance with security regulations.

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 issuedOct 4, 2005
Answer filedJun 21, 2005Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 30, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Demonstration of Rehabilitation After Security Violations Under Guideline K
Consideration of Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Determinations 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
1.a	The Applicant was born in Taiwan, Republic of China, (ROC) in 1949. He and all of his family members, except his mother, immigrated to the United States. All of his family are United States citizens and reside in the United States, except his mother. His mother is a citizen and resident of Taiwan (ROC).	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Taiwan	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 (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
1.b	The Applicant has no regular contact with her. The Applicant traveled to Taiwan in 1998, 1999, 2000 for company business which was paid for by his employer. He traveled to Taiwan in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to either attend his father's funeral or to visit his mother in the hospital.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Taiwan	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 (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
1.c	The Applicant understands the responsibilities that come along with holding a security clearance and promises that he will protect the national interest of the United States at all times no matter what.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	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 (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
2.a	The Applicant's two security violations in 1997 have not been repeated and have been mitigated by additional security training and demonstrated rehabilitation.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
2.b	The Applicant has received additional security training that has made him more aware of security policies which has helped him to avoid additional security violations or episodes of carelessness. He has had no further security violations since 1997.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
3.a	The Applicant is a naturalized citizen of the United States. The Applicant has no foreign ties or contacts that could potentially influence him.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	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 (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant was born in Taiwan, Republic of China, (ROC) in 1949. He and all of his family members, except his mother, immigrated to the United States. All of his family are United States citizens and reside in the United States, except his mother. His mother is a citizen and resident of Taiwan (ROC).

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Taiwan

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

1.b

The Applicant has no regular contact with her. The Applicant traveled to Taiwan in 1998, 1999, 2000 for company business which was paid for by his employer. He traveled to Taiwan in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to either attend his father's funeral or to visit his mother in the hospital.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Taiwan

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

1.c

The Applicant understands the responsibilities that come along with holding a security clearance and promises that he will protect the national interest of the United States at all times no matter what.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

2.a

The Applicant's two security violations in 1997 have not been repeated and have been mitigated by additional security training and demonstrated rehabilitation.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

2.b

The Applicant has received additional security training that has made him more aware of security policies which has helped him to avoid additional security violations or episodes of carelessness. He has had no further security violations since 1997.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

3.a

The Applicant is a naturalized citizen of the United States. The Applicant has no foreign ties or contacts that could potentially influence him.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

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

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

2.a–2.b

2 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	On February 10, 1997, the Applicant failed to properly secure classified materials in violation of his company's security manual dated November 1995, specifically Section 13.1 and Section 13.2. (See Government Exhibit 7).	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili… (d) the violation was inadvertent, promptly reported, no evidence of compromise, and does not suggest a pattern	Claimed Other
2.b	Four months later, in June 1997, secret documents under the Applicant's accountability were discovered as being improperly stored. The Applicant placed classified documents outside of the Controlled Program area. (See Government Exhibit 6).	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili… (d) the violation was inadvertent, promptly reported, no evidence of compromise, and does not suggest a pattern	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

On February 10, 1997, the Applicant failed to properly secure classified materials in violation of his company's security manual dated November 1995, specifically Section 13.1 and Section 13.2. (See Government Exhibit 7).

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

(d) the violation was inadvertent, promptly reported, no evidence of compromise, and does not suggest a pattern

Claimed

Other

2.b

Four months later, in June 1997, secret documents under the Applicant's accountability were discovered as being improperly stored. The Applicant placed classified documents outside of the Controlled Program area. (See Government Exhibit 6).

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

(d) the violation was inadvertent, promptly reported, no evidence of compromise, and does not suggest a pattern

Claimed

Other

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES