CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-02687.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-02687.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-02687.h1

grantedApr 28, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old native-born U.S. citizen engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) related to his wife's family ties in Thailand. The government's Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant's wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had immediate family members, a cousin, and two close friends who were residents, citizens, and/or agents of a foreign country. Specifically, her mother was a citizen and resident of Thailand, and her two brothers had lived in Vietnam since the 1960s. Further allegations included that her cousin was a Thai military attaché stationed in a third country, and she maintained a close relationship with a former senior officer in the Thai military.

The judge found that the applicant successfully rebutted these concerns. The applicant presented convincing evidence that his wife's family relationships did not pose an unacceptable security risk. This was primarily due to the infrequent and casual nature of his wife's contacts with her family and friends in Thailand.

Additionally, the applicant provided credible testimony indicating he would report any attempts to solicit classified information. Based on this evidence, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant presented convincing evidence that his wife's family relationships do not pose an unacceptable security risk.
The applicant's wife's contacts with her family and friends in Thailand were infrequent and casual.
The applicant's credible testimony indicated he would report any attempts to solicit classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1.2.2raisedPotential for Adverse Foreign Influence or Duress Exists
E2.A2.1.2.3raisedRelatives, Cohabitants, or Associates Who Are Connected with Any Foreign Government

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.3appliedContact and Correspondence with Foreign Citizens Are Casual and Infrequent

Key Rule Quoted

“It is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant applicant access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 16, 2005
Answer filedOct 7, 2005
Hearing heldFeb 14, 2006
Decision dateApr 28, 2006

Cite For

Rebuttal of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Evaluation of Infrequent and Casual Foreign Contacts
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Security Protocols

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign ties, primarily through his wife's family and friends in Thailand, did not pose an unacceptable security risk. The applicant successfully rebutted the government's concerns, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Spouse or Partner · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's wife has immediate family members, a cousin, and two close friends who are residents, citizens and/or agents of a foreign country.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Thailand LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied with Explanation	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Contact Disclosed to Authorities Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant's wife's mother is a citizen and resident of Thailand.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Thailand LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied with Explanation	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Contact Disclosed to Authorities Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	Applicant's wife's two brothers have lived in Vietnam since the 1960s.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Vietnam LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied with Explanation	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Contact Disclosed to Authorities Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.d	Applicant's wife's cousin was a Thai military attache stationed in a third country.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Thailand LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied with Explanation	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Contact Disclosed to Authorities Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.e	Applicant's wife has a close relationship with a former senior officer in the Thai military.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend GOVT-AFFILIATED	Thailand LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied with Explanation	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed Contact Disclosed to Authorities Documented Deep U.S. Ties

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). 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

APPEARANCES

DATE: April 28, 2006

In Re: ------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance

CR Case No. 05-02687 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant's wife, a naturalized United States citizen, has immediate family members, a cousin, and two close friends who are residents, citizens and/or agents of a foreign country. Applicant presented convincing evidence that these relationships do not pose an unacceptable security risk. I therefore conclude that applicant has rebutted the Government's prima facie case. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 16, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 7, 2005. The case was assigned to the undersigned on November 30, 2005. A Notice of Hearing was issued on January 25, 2006, and the hearing was held on February 14, 2006. The transcript was received on February 27, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 42 year old engineer who was born and raised in the United States. Applicant's wife was born and raised in Thailand. Applicant met her in 2000 while she was working at a convenience store in the United States. They married in 2001. She became a United States citizen in 2002. It is unclear if the wife is currently a dual citizen; however, she considers herself solely a United States citizen. When she travels to Thailand to visit her mother, she uses her United States passport. Applicant's wife's elderly mother is a citizen and resident of Thailand. (1) Applicant's wife has two brothers who have lived in Vietnam since the 1960s. The wife has seen them three times since the early 1960s, the last time in 2005 at their father's funeral in Thailand. They maintain little or no contact. Applicant has never met them. Applicant's wife's cousin was, in the early 1990s, a Thai military attache stationed in a third country. Applicant has never met him, and the wife last saw him in 1993. Applicant's wife has a close relationship with a former senior officer (SO) in the Thai military and the officer's wife. Since applicant's marriage, he and his wife have visited Thailand together once. During the trip, they stayed at residences owned by the SO and his wife. The SO and his wife recently visited applicant and his wife in the United States and stayed at applicant's home. The women are particularly close, and speak on the phone about once a month (TR at 43). Neither the SO nor his wife have ever showed an interest in applicant's work. Applicant's wife has no intention of returning to Thailand to live (TR at 33-34). The testimony of applicant's supervisor and a performance appraisal establish that applicant is an outstanding employee who is reliable and trustworthy.

CONCLUSION

Applicant's wife's two brothers living in Vietnam are essentially brothers-in-law in name only. Applicant's wife has seen them three times in over 40 years, and applicant has never met them. They pose no security risk. Applicant's wife's mother, cousin, and two close friends are citizens and residents of Thailand, a close United States ally. Because the potential exists for these individuals to pressure or influence applicant's wife, who in turn could pressure applicant, Disqualifying Condition E2.A2.1.2.2 (sharing living quarters with a person, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence or duress exists) applies. One of the close friends referenced above is a retired SO in the Thai military. Given his high rank and recent retirement, he must still be considered "connected" to the Thai government. Accordingly Disqualifying Condition E2.A2.1.2.3 (relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government) also applies. As to applicant's wife's mother, and the SO and his wife, applicant's contacts with them have been casual and infrequent. Accordingly, Mitigating Condition E2.A2.1.3.3 (contact and correspondence with foreign citizens are casual and infrequent) is also applicable. In the case of applicant's wife's cousin, applicant has had no contact with him. Applicant is a native born United States citizen. He and his wife are loyal citizens. None of the wife's relatives has ever shown an interest in what applicant does for a living. Applicant's testimony that if he were ever approached to provide classified information, he would report the matter to his security department (TR at 45), was credible and worthy of belief. Based on these facts, the Guideline B factors, and the Directive's general factors, (2) I conclude that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant applicant access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

GUIDELINE B: FOR THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge 1. Applicant's father-in-law passed away since the SOR was issued. 2. Directive, Paragraphs E2.2.1.1 through E2.2.1.9.

FOOTNOTES

05-02687.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Edward W. Loughran, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-02687.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:44:59 PM] 05-02687.h1