ISCR Case 03-27111.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-27111.h1

deniedAug 17, 2005· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old computer specialist for a federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's wife is a Ukrainian citizen, and her entire family resides in Ukraine. The couple maintained close contact with her family through weekly phone calls, emails, annual visits, and sending gifts. They also sent money to the in-laws three or four times in 2004, partly for medical expenses, and planned a visit in late 2005. These ties raised concerns that the relationship could be exploited by Ukraine.

Additionally, the applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including an arrest by military police for assault against his wife and an ex parte order of protection imposed by a previous wife in 2001 due to alleged threats. While the applicant successfully mitigated the concerns related to his past criminal conduct, he was unable to alleviate the foreign influence concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's wife's close ties to her family in Ukraine, the frequent communication and financial support provided to them, and the applicant's failure to demonstrate that his wife's family members do not pose a security risk or act as agents of a foreign power.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's wife is a Ukrainian citizen with family members residing in Ukraine, creating potential foreign influence concerns.
The applicant maintained frequent communication and financial support with his wife's family, which could be exploited by foreign entities.
The applicant failed to demonstrate that his wife's family members are not a security risk or agents of a foreign power.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1appliedForeign Influence Disqualifying Condition
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionThe applicant did not establish that his wife's family members are not agents of a foreign power.
E2.A2.1.3.2rejectedForeign Influence Mitigating ConditionThe applicant's contacts with foreign citizens were not casual or infrequent due to the close ties with his wife's family.
E2.10.1.2.1appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating Condition
E2.10.1.2.2appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating Condition
E2.10.1.2.4appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating Condition

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”
— Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 23, 2005
Answer filedMar 1, 2005
Hearing heldJun 23, 2005
Decision dateAug 17, 2005

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Close Family Ties Under Guideline B
Impact of Foreign Citizenship of Spouse on Security Clearance
Criminal Conduct History and Its Implications for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 wife is a Ukrainian citizen. The members of her whole family are residents and citizens of the Ukraine.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Ukraine	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant's wife stays in very close contact with her family, talking to them by phone one or two times a week, corresponding by email and visiting them annually.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Ukraine	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.c	Applicant has shown a concern for his in-laws. The relationship Applicant and especially his wife have with her parents and her sister could be exploited by the Ukraine and is a security concern.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Ukraine	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant and his wife send her family birthday and holiday gifts. Applicant and his wife have sent money to his in-laws three or four times in 2004, some of which was used to help pay medical expenses.	Against Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	Ukraine	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.e	Applicant and his wife are planning on visiting her parents and sister sometime in the fall of 2005 in the Ukraine.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Ukraine	Admitted	(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

1.a

Applicant's wife is a Ukrainian citizen. The members of her whole family are residents and citizens of the Ukraine.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Ukraine

Admitted

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

—

1.b

Applicant's wife stays in very close contact with her family, talking to them by phone one or two times a week, corresponding by email and visiting them annually.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Ukraine

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant has shown a concern for his in-laws. The relationship Applicant and especially his wife have with her parents and her sister could be exploited by the Ukraine and is a security concern.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

Ukraine

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant and his wife send her family birthday and holiday gifts. Applicant and his wife have sent money to his in-laws three or four times in 2004, some of which was used to help pay medical expenses.

Against Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

Immediate Family

Ukraine

Admitted

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

—

1.e

Applicant and his wife are planning on visiting her parents and sister sometime in the fall of 2005 in the Ukraine.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

Ukraine

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested by military police for assault consummated by a battery on his wife.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
2.b	In 2001, an ex parte order of protection was imposed against the applicant by his second wife, alleging threats to her life.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested by military police for assault consummated by a battery on his wife.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

—

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

2.b

In 2001, an ex parte order of protection was imposed against the applicant by his second wife, alleging threats to her life.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

—

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES