Loading case…

ISCR 04-04051.h1: Guideline B security clearance hearing, denied (2005) · CASE

ISCR Case 04-04051.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-04051.h1

deniedOct 20, 2005· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Iraq, employed as a linguist for a federal contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from concerns regarding his familial ties to Iraq. His wife, who resides with him in the U.S., is an Iraqi citizen, and his two sisters and parents-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. The applicant had also visited his sisters in Iraq in 1994 and traveled there in 2000 to marry his wife.

The Statement of Reasons highlighted these connections, specifically noting the applicant's wife, sisters, and in-laws as Iraqi citizens and residents. The primary reason for the denial was the applicant's failure to provide sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns associated with these foreign ties.

The judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate that any mitigating conditions applied to his situation, leaving unaddressed the potential for foreign influence through his immediate family members in Iraq. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the applicant was denied

Applicant has immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq, creating potential for foreign influence.
Applicant failed to provide mitigating information regarding his ties to family members in Iraq.
The applicant did not demonstrate that any mitigating conditions applied to his situation.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.1appliedAn Immediate Family Member, or a Person to Whom the Individual Has Close Ties of Affection or Obligation, Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.2.2appliedSharing Living Quarters with a Person or Persons, Regardless of Their Citizenship Status, If the Potential for Adverse Foreign Influence or Duress Exists
E2.A2.1.2.3appliedRelatives, Cohabitants, or Associates Who Are Connected with Any Foreign Government

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.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedApr 28, 2005
Answer filedMay 11, 2005Applicant admitted all allegations.
Hearing held—Case decided on written record.
Decision dateOct 20, 2005

Cite for

Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Immediate Family Ties Under Guideline B
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence
Importance of Providing Detailed Information to Address Disqualifying Conditions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 62: “Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002.”
Tenure: ~3 years: “Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002.”
Clearance at issue: Secret: “While assigned to do work for Drug Enforcement Agency, Applicant held a national security clearance.”
Held a clearance before: Yes: “While assigned to do work for Drug Enforcement Agency, Applicant held a national security clearance.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to foreign influence. The applicant's ties to family members in Iraq, including a wife, sisters, and parents-in-law, raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated by any evidence provided. The decision emphasized the potential for foreign influence due to these relationships, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Foreign Influence DIGEST: Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant is a naturalized United States citizen from Iraq. Applicant's wife is a citizen of Iraq and resides with him in the United States. Applicant's two sisters are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant's parents-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant visited his sisters in Iraq in 1994, and in 2000 he traveled there to meet and marry his wife. Applicant failed to provide any information to mitigate the security concerns regarding foreign influence. Clearance is denied. CASENO: 04-04051.h1 DATE: 10/20/2005 DATE: October 20, 2005

In Re:

------------- SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 04-04051

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CAROL G. RICCIARDELLO

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. Applicant is a naturalized United States citizen from Iraq. Applicant's wife is a citizen of Iraq and resides with him in the United States. Applicant's two sisters are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant's parents-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant visited his sisters in Iraq in 1994, and in 2000 he traveled there to meet and marry his wife. Applicant failed to provide any information to mitigate the security concerns regarding foreign influence. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On April 28, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating they were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. (1) The SOR, which is in essence the administrative complaint, alleges a security concern under Guideline B, foreign influence.

In a sworn statement dated May 11, 2005, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, admitting all allegations. Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the government's file of relevant material (FORM) on July 13, 2005. The FORM was received by Applicant on July 25, 2005. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant provided additional material without objection and it was made part of the record. The case was assigned to me on October 7, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant's admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In addition, after a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and statements, I make the following findings of fact:

Applicant is a 62-year-old linguist who has worked for a federal contractor since 2002. He has a masters degree from an American university. Applicant is from Iraq and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1993. He married an American citizen in 1986, and was divorced from her in 1991. Applicant married his present wife in Iraq in 2000. She is a citizen of Iraq and a registered alien in the United States. She resides with Applicant in the United States. They have one child born in 2002. From May 2001 to November 2003, Applicant worked for a language specialist company. While assigned to do work for Drug Enforcement Agency, Applicant held a national security clearance. (2)

Applicant has two sisters who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant's mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant's father-in-law works for the Ministry of Public Works in Iraq. Applicant sends a sister in Iraq $100.00 every six months. Applicant traveled to Iraq in 1994 to visit his sisters, and again in 2000 to meet and marry his current wife.

Applicant is considered by people who have worked with him and know him to be a person of integrity and high moral principles. He is considered a good friend that can be trusted. Applicant is hard working, reliable and ready to help others. He is considered a loyal citizen.

No other information was provided by Applicant.

Iraq currently operates under an Interim Government and conditions there are considered extremely dangerous. (3) Many terrorist and criminal elements remain active there. (4) Multi-national forces and civilians continue to be attacked throughout the country. (5) The security environment across Iraq is dangerous, volatile and unpredictable. (6) There are killings as well as extortions and kidnappings of Americans and other foreigners. (7) Americans are strongly warned against traveling in Iraq. (8)

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating a person's eligibility to hold a security clearance. Included in the guidelines are disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) applicable to each specific guideline. Considering the evidence as a whole Guideline B, foreign influence, with its respective DC and MC, applies in this case. Additionally, each security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the factors listed in the Directive. Specifically these are: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.

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. (9) The government has the burden of proving controverted facts. (10) The burden of proof is something less than a preponderance of evidence. (11) Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. (12) Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. (13)

No one has a right to a security clearance (14) and "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." (15) Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information. (16) The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant. (17) It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guideline most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:

Guideline B-Foreign Influence is a concern because a security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligations are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. These situations could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information. Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interest in other countries are also relevant to security determinations if they make an individual potentially vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guidelines are set forth and discussed in the conclusions below.

CONCLUSION

I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline B.

Based on all the evidence, Foreign Influence Disqualifying Condition (FI DC) E2.A2.1.2.1 (An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country), FI DC E2.A2.1.2.2 (Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence or duress exists), and FI DC E2.A2.1.2.3 (Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government) all apply. Applicant's two sisters are immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant semi-annually sends one sister money. Applicant's in-laws are also citizens and residents of Iraq and he has ties of affection to them through his wife. Applicant's father-in-law works for the Iraqi government. Applicant's wife, who lives in the United States with him is an Iraqi citizen. There is potential for foreign influence due to Applicant's family ties.

No information was provided by Applicant to mitigate the security concerns regarding his sisters and in-laws who are all citizens of Iraq and reside there. Applicant failed to provide any information that may mitigate the security concerns regarding his wife's citizenship; any information about any contact he or his wife may have with his relatives and her parents; if there is any contact, whether it is casual and infrequent; any information that may mitigate Applicant's father- in-law's contact with the Iraqi government; what, if any, connection his other relatives in Iraq may have with the government; and any other relevant facts that may mitigate the security concerns raised by his family ties. Without specific and detailed information I find no mitigating conditions apply. Therefore, I also find Applicant has failed to meet his burden and mitigate the security concern regarding foreign influence.

In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The objective of the security- clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering the "whole person" concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts, omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. I have considered the whole person and I find Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns. Therefore, I am persuaded by the totality of the evidence in this case, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Accordingly, Guideline B is decided against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1 Foreign Influence (Guideline B) AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a. Against the Applicant Subparagraph 1.b. Against the Applicant Subparagraph 1.c. Against the Applicant Subparagraph 1.d. Against the Applicant Subparagraph 1.e. Against the Applicant Subparagraph 1.f. Against the Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance to Applicant. Clearance is denied. Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge 1. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as amended and modified (Directive). 2. Statement from former employer dated July 15, 2005. 3. Item 6. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. Item 7. 8. Id. 9. ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2. 10. ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14. 11. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). 12. ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15. 13. ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15. 14. Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 15. Id. 16. Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2. 17. Executive Order 10865 § 7.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-04051.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:28:22 PM] Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se