ISCR Case 04-01630.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-01630.h1

grantedDec 6, 2005· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States since age two, was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant has immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Israel, and a potential financial interest in an Israeli property valued at $100,000, owned by his father.

However, the judge determined that none of these family members are employed by the Israeli government or are in positions susceptible to exploitation. The applicant's strong ties to the U.S., including other U.S. citizen family members, were found to mitigate any foreign influence concerns, and the potential financial interest in the Israeli property was deemed minimal.

Regarding personal conduct, an allegation arose from the applicant's March 4, 2003, Security Clearance Application (SCA), where he answered "No" to a question about prior clearance denials. Evidence showed that a denial of access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) occurred in June 2003, three months *after* the SCA was completed. Therefore, the judge concluded the applicant did not provide false information, leading to the security clearance being granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant's immediate family members in Israel are not employed by the Israeli government and cannot be exploited.
Applicant has a strong attachment to the United States, having lived there since age two and having U.S. citizen family members.
The potential financial interest in property in Israel is minimal and does not pose a significant risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Family Members Are Citizens and Residents of a Foreign Country.
E2.A2.1.2.8raisedForeign Influence - Financial Interests in a Foreign Country.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence - the Individual Has Strong Ties to the United States.
E2.A2.1.3.5appliedForeign Influence - the Financial Interests Are Not Significant Enough to Cause the Individual to Act Against U.S. Interests.
E2.A2.1.3.2appliedPersonal Conduct - the Individual Did Not Provide False Information in the Security Clearance Application.

Key Rule Quoted

“"The clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 26, 2005
Answer filedFeb 16, 2005
Hearing heldSep 13, 2005
Decision dateDec 6, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Strong U.S. Ties
Correctness of Responses in Security Clearance Applications Regarding Prior Denials
Evaluation of Minimal Financial Interests in Foreign Properties

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 immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Israel.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Israel	Admitted	(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	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	None of them has ever been employed by the Government of Israel or is in a position to be exploited by Israel in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Israel	Admitted	(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	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	Applicant has a potential financial interest in a property in Israel, owned by his father and estimated to be worth $100,000.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	Israel	Admitted	(h) foreign nationals acting to increase the individual’s vulnerability	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Deep U.S. Ties

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Israel.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Israel

Admitted

(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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

None of them has ever been employed by the Government of Israel or is in a position to be exploited by Israel in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to these family members and his loyalty to the United States.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

Israel

Admitted

(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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.c

Applicant has a potential financial interest in a property in Israel, owned by his father and estimated to be worth $100,000.

For Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

Israel

Admitted

(h) foreign nationals acting to increase the individual’s vulnerability

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant completed a SCA on March 4, 2003. Question #32 asks, "To your knowledge have you ever had a clearance or access authorization denied, suspended or revoked, or have you ever been debarred from Government employment?" Applicant answered "No" to this question. The evidence shows that Applicant was ultimately denied access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), but it was not until June 2003, which was three months after he completed the SCA.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant completed a SCA on March 4, 2003. Question #32 asks, "To your knowledge have you ever had a clearance or access authorization denied, suspended or revoked, or have you ever been debarred from Government employment?" Applicant answered "No" to this question. The evidence shows that Applicant was ultimately denied access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), but it was not until June 2003, which was three months after he completed the SCA.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES