Summary
The applicant, a 38-year-old defense contractor living in South Korea with his South Korean wife, faced security concerns under Guidelines B, E, and J due to his wife's foreign citizenship and multiple past arrests. The judge found sufficient mitigating evidence regarding the applicant's ties to South Korea and his past conduct, ultimately granting the security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's wife is a citizen and resident of the Republic of Korea (1.a). Applicant's brother-in-law is a citizen and resident of the Republic of Korea (1.b). Applicant and his wife own a house in Korea that is in his wife's name (1.c). Applicant's wife maintains bank accounts in Korea (1.d). Applicant failed to list multiple arrests on his security clearance application (2.a). Applicant answered 'no' to question 21 on the SF 86 regarding felony charges, despite having been charged with felonies that were later dismissed (2.b). Applicant failed to disclose a 1986 arrest for public intoxication and a 1986 arrest for possession of a controlled substance on his SF 86 (2.c). Between 1986 and 1987, Applicant was arrested six times (3.a). In October 1986, Applicant was charged and found guilty of public intoxication (3.b). In December 1986, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance (3.c). In March 1987, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while influenced (DWI) (3.d). In December 1987, Applicant was arrested and charged with burglary, minor in possession, and theft (3.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2.1, E2.A10.1.2.1, E2.A10.1.2.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.4, E2.A10.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant's wife is not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power; The applicant demonstrated a change in lifestyle and successful rehabilitation from past criminal conduct; The applicant's past arrests occurred when he was a juvenile and were not recent.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's wife is not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power.
- The applicant demonstrated a change in lifestyle and successful rehabilitation from past criminal conduct.
- The applicant's past arrests occurred when he was a juvenile and were not recent.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct - Allegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedCriminal Conduct - A Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A2.1.3.1appliedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Member(s) Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedCriminal Conduct - the Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.4appliedCriminal Conduct - the Person Did Not Voluntarily Commit the Act
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedCriminal Conduct - There Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
Key Rule Quoted
“The presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 17, 2005
- Answer filedOct 5, 2005Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
- Decision dateJun 27, 2006
Cite For
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties
- Successful Rehabilitation From Past Criminal Conduct
- Interpretation of Disclosure Requirements on Security Clearance Applications