Summary
A 53-year-old executive vice president and co-owner of a government contracting company was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his brother's residence in Hong Kong and the applicant's false statements concerning a domestic violence incident.
Under Guideline B, the applicant's brother, a U.S. citizen, has resided in Hong Kong since approximately 1991 or 1992, with the applicant maintaining monthly contact. Additionally, the applicant's father is a retired employee of the Government of Taiwan, and the applicant traveled to Taiwan in 1991, 1998, and twice in 2000, as well as to the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong in 1998.
Concerns under Guideline E and Guideline J arose because the applicant deliberately provided false information to an authorized investigator regarding a physical altercation with his former wife. The judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate these security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant's brother resides in Hong Kong, raising foreign influence concerns under Guideline B.
- Applicant provided false information regarding a physical altercation with his former wife, violating Guideline E.
- The applicant's conduct indicated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor, leading to concerns under Guideline J.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Family Ties to a Foreign Country
- E2.A2.1.2.6raisedForeign Influence - Vulnerability to Coercion
- E2.A5.1.2.3raisedPersonal Conduct - Falsification of Material Facts
- E2.A5.1.2.4raisedPersonal Conduct - Concealment of Information
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPersonal Conduct - Pattern of Dishonesty
- E2.A5.1.2.3raisedCriminal Conduct - Material Falsification
- E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedForeign Influence - Family Members Not Agents of a Foreign PowerApplicant did not provide evidence that his brother could not be exploited by foreign interests.
- E2.A5.1.3.2appliedPersonal Conduct - Isolated IncidentThe falsification was considered an isolated incident.
- E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPersonal Conduct - Prompt Correction of FalsificationApplicant did not correct the falsification before being confronted.
Key Rule Quoted
“[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 15, 2004
- Answer filedOct 25, 2004
- Hearing heldNov 4, 2005
- Decision dateMar 31, 2006
Cite For
- Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties in Hong Kong
- Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Mitigating Conditions Related to Personal Conduct and Their Application