CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-02957.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-02957.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-02957.h1

grantedAug 23, 2006· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old defense contractor with a Ph.D. and a net worth exceeding $600,000 was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons noted that the Applicant's father is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong, a retired chef who worked for the British Royal Navy for 20 years. The Applicant sends approximately $2,000 annually to his father on special occasions and visited him twice in Hong Kong in 2002.

The Government raised a disqualifying condition under Guideline B1, but the Applicant successfully rebutted concerns regarding foreign influence. He demonstrated that he would not be subject to coercion or blackmail due to his father's presence abroad.

The clearance was granted based on the totality of circumstances. Mitigating conditions under B1 were applied, as there was no evidence of potential exploitation of the father by a foreign power. The Applicant's substantial net worth and financial independence, coupled with only nominal support sent to his father, were noted. Additionally, the Applicant's strong personal and professional character, highly regarded by his supervisors, contributed to the decision.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant's father is a retired chef living in Hong Kong, but there was no evidence of potential exploitation by a foreign power.
The Applicant has a substantial net worth and demonstrated financial independence, sending only nominal support to his father.
The Applicant's character and professional reputation were highly regarded by his supervisors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B1raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

B1appliedForeign InfluenceThe Applicant's father cannot be exploited by a foreign power to force loyalty away from the U.S.

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 16, 2005
Answer filedOct 24, 2005
Hearing heldMay 23, 2006
Decision dateAug 23, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Rebuttal of Government Concerns Regarding Foreign Family Ties
Consideration of Personal Character and Professional Reputation in Clearance Decisions

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 Applicant's father is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong. The Applicant sends financial support to his father but has demonstrated that he would not be subject to coercion or blackmail due to this relationship. The judge found that the Applicant met the mitigating conditions under Guideline B, leading to a favorable decision for the Applicant.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Financial Assets Predominant

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant's father is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Hong Kong	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	Claimed Other
1.b	The Applicant's father is a retired chef, having worked for the British Royal Navy for 20 years.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Hong Kong	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	Claimed Other
1.c	The Applicant sends about $2,000 annually to his father on special occasions.	For Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Immediate Family	Hong Kong	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	Claimed Other
1.d	The Applicant would not submit to blackmail or coercion vis-a-vis his father's presence in Hong Kong.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Hong Kong	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	Claimed Other
1.e	In 2002, the Applicant visited his father twice in Hong Kong.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Hong Kong	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	Claimed Other

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: August 23, 2006

In Re:

---------------

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 05-02957

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

RICHARD A. CEFOLA

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant's father is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong. He is a retired chef, having worked for the British Royal Navy for 20 years. His father received a "lump sum" pension payment when he retired in about 1980, 26 years ago. The Applicant, whose net worth in the U.S. is in excess of $600,000, annually sends about $2,000 to his father on special occasions. The Applicant would not submit to blackmail or coercion vis-a-vis his father's presence in Hong Kong. In 2002, the Applicant visited his father twice in Hong Kong. In 2002, during a brief period of unemployment, the Applicant also traveled to the People's Republic of China (PRC) to look into possible business options, and to Taiwan to explore employment opportunities. Nothing resulted from these exploratory trips. The Applicant last visited his father in February of 2006. 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 the Applicant, which detailed the 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 the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on or about October 24, 2005.

The case was originally assigned to another Judge, but was reassigned to the undersigned on May 1, 2006. A notice of hearing was issued on May 4, 2006, and the case was heard on May 23, 2006. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary evidence. The transcript (TR) was received on June 1, 2006. The issue raised here is whether the Applicant's alleged Foreign Influence militates against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis for all of the allegations.]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony. The Applicant is 54 years of age, has a Ph.D., and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Guideline B - Foreign Influence

1.a.~1.e. The Applicant's 80 year old father is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong (TR at page 20 line 3 to page 22 line 17, and at page 31 line 18 to page 32 line 20). He is a retired chef, who worked for the British Royal Navy for 20 years (Id). When he retired in about 1980, 26 years ago, the Applicant's father received a "lump sum" pension payment from the Royal Navy (Ibid). The Applicant, whose net worth in the U.S. is in excess of $600,000, sends about $2,000, annually, to his father on special occasions (TR at page 22 lines 18–22, and Applicant's Exhibit (AppX) A at page 2). The Applicant would not submit to blackmail or coercion vis-a-vis his father's presence in Hong Kong (TR at page 27 line 17 to page 30 line 6, and at page 35 1ine 19 to page 37 line 20).

In 2002, the Applicant visited his father twice in Hong Kong (TR at page 23 line 23 to page 27 line 4, and at page 33 line 15 to page 35 line 18). In 2002, during a brief period of unemployment, the Applicant also traveled to the PRC to look into possible business options, and to Taiwan to explore employment opportunities (Id). Nothing resulted from these exploratory trips (Ibid). The Applicant last visited his father in February of 2006, to celebrate his father's 80th birthday (TR at page 26 line 10 to page 27 line 4).

Mitigation

Those who supervise and/or work with the Applicant think most highly of him (AppXs B and C). They would recommend his for a position of trust (Id).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:

a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding circumstances.

b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.

c. Age and maturity of the applicant.

d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved.

e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.

f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future."

The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.

The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (Foreign Influence); which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required. Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.

An individual who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant's father is citizen of and resides in Hong Kong. The first disqualifying condition is therefore applicable as "[a]nimmediate family member . . . is a citizen of a foreign country." This is countered, however, by the first mitigating condition, as there is no evidence that his presence in Hong Kong can "be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States." In addition, I conclude that it would be unlikely that the Applicant would even consider any such attempt at exploitation. Furthermore, the totality of the Applicant's conduct and the circumstances, as set forth above, still warrants a favorable finding under the whole person standard. Mitigation is again shown. Guideline B is found for the Applicant.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his Foreign Influence. The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline B, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guideline B.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: Financial FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant.

b. For the Applicant.

c. For the Applicant.

d. For the Applicant.

e. For the Applicant.

Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of 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 the Applicant.

Richard A. Cefola

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

05-02957.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-02957.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:45:15 PM] 05-02957.h1