Summary
A 42-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from the People's Republic of China and employed as a program manager for a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
The Statement of Reasons cited that the applicant's parents, brother, and parents-in-law are all citizen residents of the People's Republic of China. Additionally, the applicant had traveled to the People's Republic of China in June 2001 and July 2004. A separate concern under Personal Conduct involved the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose travel to Australia, Canada, Austria, and the PRC on his security clearance application.
While the applicant successfully mitigated the concerns related to the incorrect information on his application, he failed to mitigate the risks associated with his immediate family residing in China. The decision noted that he did not rebut the presumption of close ties of affection or obligation to his family, which could lead to coercion or exploitation. Furthermore, he did not demonstrate that his foreign contacts are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant's immediate family members reside in the People's Republic of China, raising foreign influence concerns.
- The applicant did not rebut the presumption of close ties of affection or obligation to his family in China, which could lead to coercion or exploitation.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that his foreign contacts are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1appliedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Members Are Citizens or Residents of a Foreign Country
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts From a Security Clearance Application
- E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedForeign Influence - Foreign Associates Are Neither Agents of a Foreign Power nor in a Position to Be ExploitedThe applicant's family in China poses a risk of coercion.
- E2.A5.1.1notedPersonal Conduct - Conduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
Key Rule Quoted
“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 20, 2005
- Answer filedOct 28, 2005
- Hearing heldApr 5, 2006
- Decision dateMay 24, 2006
Cite For
- Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties in a Foreign Country
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Related to Misinterpretation of Security Clearance Application Questions
- The Impact of Foreign Contacts on Security Clearance Eligibility