1
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of:                                              )
       )
        ) ISCR Case No. 08-03647 
                   )
       )
Applicant for Security Clearance                    )
                        Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                        ________________
                        Decision
                       ________________
O’BRIEN, Rita C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude
that Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under the guideline for
personal conduct. Accordingly, his request for a security clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant requested a security clearance by submitting an Electronic Questionnaire
for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on February 23, 2007. After reviewing the results of
the ensuing background investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and
Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended. 1
Adjudication of this case is controlled by the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, approved by the President on2 
December 29, 2005, which were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. The
Revised Adjudicative Guidelines supersede the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the Directive, and they apply
to all adjudications or trustworthiness determinations in which an SOR was issued on or after September 1,
2006.
2
Appeals (DOHA) were unable to make a preliminary affirmative finding  that it is clearly1
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s request. 
On August 29, 2008, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) that
specified as the basis for its decision security concerns addressed in the Directive under
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG).  The SOR2
contained three allegations under Guideline E. In his Answer, signed and notarized on
September 16, 2008, Applicant admitted to allegation 1a and denied allegations 1b and 1c.
He also requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The government amended the
SOR on October 20, 2008 by adding one allegation under Guideline E. In his response of
November 10, 2008, Applicant denied the additional allegation.
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on November 13, 2008, and the case
was assigned to me on November 17, 2008. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
November 25, 2008 and I convened the hearing as scheduled on December 17, 2008.
During the hearing, the government offered three exhibits, marked as Government
Exhibits (GE) 1 through 3, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified and
offered six exhibits, which were marked as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through F and
admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript on December 24, 2008.
Administrative Notice 
I take administrative notice of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, §1324, which concerns the
felony of harboring illegal aliens. The pertinent federal statutory language follows:
§1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(A) Any person who – 
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has
come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of
law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to
conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any
place, including any building or any means of transportation; 
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). 
Applicant has not legally adopted his wife’s children (Tr 97).3 
On his security clearance application, in response to the question that asks for his spouse’s Social Security4 
number, Applicant provided a number with the same format as a Social Security number. It does not have the
format of a tax ID number (also called an Employer Identification Number or EIN). The evidence is silent as
3
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to
whom such a violation occurs— 
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined
under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Findings of Fact
Applicant’s admissions in response to the SOR are admitted as fact. After a thorough
review of the pleadings, Applicant’s response to the Statement of Reasons, and the record
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant, 63 years old, completed one year of college, specializing in accounting
(AE C). He joined the federal government in 1966, and worked as a civilian for the
Department of Defense for more than four decades. When he retired in 2004, he was
employed as an information management specialist. During his federal service, Applicant
received more than 50 letters, awards and certificates for his superior job performance and
contributions (AE B; AE E). Applicant is currently employed as a senior manager for a
defense contractor.
Applicant married in 1966. He has five adult children from the marriage, and seven
grandchildren. He and his first wife grew apart because of his long work hours and frequent
travel. They started living apart in 1989, and obtained a legal separation in 1993 (Tr 54; AE
F). Their divorce became final in 2004. That year, he met his current wife, whom he married
in December 2005 (GE 2). Applicant has two step-children, 13 and 15 years old, who are
the children of his current wife.  They also have an 8-month old son together.3
Applicant’s wife was born in a foreign country. She entered the United States illegally
in the late 1990s with her first husband (GE 3; Tr 70). After their divorce, she worked at a
hair salon doing general cleaning. When Applicant met her in 2004, and married her in
2005, he did not know of her illegal status (Tr 49). He first learned of her status in April
2006, when he was preparing their joint 2005 federal tax return and discovered she did not
have a Social Security number. She provided him with a number he referred to as a “tax ID
number,” which appeared on her previous tax returns, W-2 forms, and bank statements. His
wife told him that the IRS had notified her of a problem with the tax ID number on a previous
return she had filed (Tr 71). Despite having this information, Applicant filed their 2005, and
subsequent tax returns, using the tax ID number.  He believed that her tax ID number was4
to whether the number on the security clearance application is the “tax ID number” Applicant used on the
federal tax returns.
4
valid to use on the return, although it could not be used to claim tax benefits (Tr 72). 
Between mid-2006 and 2007, Applicant’s mother-in-law came to the United States
for a heart operation. His father-in-law, who had been in the United States for several
months, living with another family member, moved in with Applicant as well. Both family
members were in the United States on visas (GE 3). Applicant’s in-laws lived with him for
approximately six months. They had little interaction, as neither spoke the other’s language
(Tr 92-97).
In June 2006, Applicant accepted a new job. Shortly after he started, he approached
the security manager and inquired whether or not he needed a security clearance. He was
instructed to complete a security clearance application, on which he disclosed his wife’s
foreign citizenship, but not her illegal status. He also failed to list his foreign in-laws (GE 1).
Applicant believed that disclosing his wife’s foreign citizenship was sufficient, and it did not
occur to him that he also should disclose her illegal status (Tr 90-92).  “This -- this is how
I was telling the Government.  Okay?  It wasn't on my mind after we got married or after I
told -- found out that -- to run to my security office, which I wasn't even sure who it was or
what to say or –“ (Tr 91). He also failed to inform his security officer of his wife’s illegal
status because “I wasn’t – you know, I wasn’t – didn’t know I had to for one thing, because
I wasn’t familiar with the industrial security regulation personnel thing.” (Tr 88). During his
security clearance interview in November 2007, he did disclose his wife’s illegal status to
the investigator (GE 3).
At the hearing, when asked if he was aware that contact with foreign nationals must
be reported to his security officer, he replied that he was aware, because of his experiences
with traveling while holding a clearance. However, he did not think such concerns were
relevant to his case: “I just didn't know it would apply that once I found out my wife was
illegal or a foreign national that I had to say that.  Okay?  I mean, she's my wife.” He also
did not believe his marriage to a foreign national was a security concern: “It wasn't a
concern to me because I knew that I wasn't a risk. I could not be influenced or coerced or
any of that stuff into doing anything wrong towards -- to jeopardize my clearance.” (Tr 89).
In 2006, Applicant contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and
obtained citizenship paperwork for his wife. He also researched web sites to obtain
information about applying for citizenship (Tr 76). Subsequently, however, he “...heard that
the government was using citizenship applications to find illegal immigrants and deport
them.” (GE 3). Based on this understanding, and his belief that an illegal immigrant must
be outside the United States in order to file a citizenship application (Tr 73-74), he decided
not to submit the paperwork, and wait to see if immigration laws would be reformed (GE 3).
Directive. 6.3.
5 
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
5
Applicant has not consulted an immigration attorney, although his current salary
would appear to allow him to do so(Tr 77). He seemed uncertain about the information his
wife has obtained about her options. He believes she has talked with relatives and friends
and may have received free legal advice through a service at her church (Tr 75). He does
not know if she has any rights based on her status as the spouse of an American citizen (Tr
80). He thinks that in order to obtain legal status, his wife and her children must return to
her native country and remain there for five years before she can seek U.S. citizenship.
Because Applicant wants his stepchildren “to have a future” in the United States, he
decided, within the past six months, that she should return to her native country (Tr 39-40;
78-79). As of the date of the hearing, no further steps had been taken.
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and common sense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information, and
consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the Revised Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG).  Decisions must also reflect consideration of the  “whole person” factors5
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the Guidelines.
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an Applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information.
In this case, the pleadings and the information presented by the parties require
consideration of the security concerns and adjudicative factors addressed under Guideline
E (Personal Conduct).  
A security clearance decision is intended to determine  whether it is clearly consistent
with the national interest  for an Applicant to be granted access to classified information.6
The government must produce admissible information on which it based the preliminary
decision to deny or revoke a security clearance. Additionally, the government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it then
falls to the Applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case. Because no
one has a “right” to a security clearance, an Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.7
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability
 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).8
6
and trustworthiness to protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly
consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt
about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.8
Analysis
Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern about personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations
can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness
and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is
any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the
security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with
the security clearance process.
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(c) are relevant to the facts:
AG ¶ 16(a) - deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification
of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire,
personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
AG ¶ 16(c) - credible adverse information in several
adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse
determination under any other single guideline, but which,
when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules
and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information.
The government alleges that, when he completed his security clearance
application, Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his in-laws, who are citizens and
residents of a foreign country. Falsification of a security clearance application implicates
AG ¶ 16(a); however, application of this disqualifying condition requires deliberate
concealment. Although Applicant failed to report his foreign in-laws on his security
clearance application, he did report numerous other family members, including his former
8 U.S.C. §1324 (A) (iii).9 
7
wife, his five children, and his three siblings. More to the point, he disclosed several
foreign relatives. If he intended to mislead the government about foreign contacts, it is
unlikely that he would have disclosed the foreign nationality of his current wife and two
stepchildren and provided their country of citizenship. Reporting his close foreign family
members provided the government with notice that a security issue existed. I find
Applicant’s statement credible that omission of his in-laws was inadvertent. 
However, Applicant’s conduct raises other security concerns. In 2006, he became
aware that his spouse and her children had been in the United States illegally for more
than 5 years, and that they remained in an illegal status. Nevertheless, he failed to take
steps to correct the situation. Most significantly, he engaged in felony conduct by violating
the federal immigration statute that prohibits harboring illegal aliens.  9
Applicant also demonstrated untrustworthy behavior by failing to disclose on his
security clearance application that his spouse was an illegal alien. At the time he
completed his security clearance application in February 2007, he had known of his wife’s
status for 10 months. He should have indicated this significant fact in his application. He
also should have informed his security officer. His statement that he “...wasn’t even sure
who it was” (Tr 91) is not credible, since he previously had sought out his security
manager to find out whether or not he needed to submit a new security clearance
application (Tr 88). Applicant’s harboring of an illegal immigrant, and his concealment of
her status from the government, have continued since 2006. Based on his violation of
federal law, and his failure to comply with security requirements, AG ¶ 16(c) applies. 
The personal conduct guideline also includes factors that can mitigate disqualifying
conditions. The following mitigating conditions are relevant to the facts: 
AG ¶ 17(c) - the offense is so minor, or so much time has
passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under
such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does
not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
AG ¶ 17(d) - the individual has acknowledged the behavior
and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken
other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
Applicant’s conduct can hardly be considered minor. After he became aware that
8
his spouse and her children were in the United States illegally, he failed to take steps to
correct the situation, and violated federal law by harboring them. Applicant’s conduct is
not in the past, but is ongoing and casts serious doubt on his trustworthiness and good
judgment. AG ¶17(c) does not apply.
Nor can AG 17(d) be applied. Although Applicant obtained information through INS
and related web sites about applying for citizenship, he ultimately decided not to pursue
that option. Since then, he has taken no steps to consult or retain an immigration attorney
to advise him on a plan of action, even though it appears that such a step would be
financially within his means. He is unclear as to what information his wife has obtained.
As of the date of the hearing, Applicant had not resolved the situation: he was living with
an illegal alien, had not sought professional advice, and had no plan other than an
uninformed opinion that his wife and children might need to return to their native country.
His inaction raises doubts about whether or not he is committed to resolving this ongoing
security concern. I find against Applicant on Guideline E.
Whole Person Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate the
Applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all
the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency
and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the
conduct; (5) extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the
conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
AG ¶ 2(c) requires that the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance
must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole person concept. Under the cited guideline, I considered the
potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances
surrounding this case. 
In April 2006, when Applicant learned that he was married to and living with an
illegal alien, he was a mature and experienced adult with a long history of holding a
security clearance. Based on his familiarity with the security clearance process, he knew
or should have known that those who hold security clearances are required to inform their
security departments of significant life changes that could affect their security worthiness.
9
He often traveled while he held a security clearance, and admitted that this experience
made him aware of the concerns related to contacts with foreign nationals. Yet, when he
completed the security clearance application, Applicant failed to inform the government of
a highly pertinent fact – that his wife was an illegal alien. Given his background and
experience, his claim that he was unaware of the need to inform his security manager of
his spouse’s illegal status is not credible. His claim that he did not even know his security
officer’s identity is undermined by the fact that he previously sought out his security officer
to determine if he needed to complete a security clearance application. Finally, Applicant
did not report his wife’s status because “it wasn’t a concern to me because I knew I wasn’t
a risk.” It is most troubling that Applicant decided, on his own, that the situation did not
constitute a security risk. The government requires those who hold security clearances to
disclose pertinent facts so that authorized security personnel can decide where security
risks lie. Applicant’s ongoing violation of federal law, his failure to disclose his wife’s illegal
status for more than one-and-a-half years, and his willingness to disregard security
requirements, raise serious doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability.
Overall, the record evidence fails to satisfy the doubts raised about Applicant’s
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns arising from the cited adjudicative guidelines.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1, Guideline E AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a - 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to allow Applicant access to
classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is denied.
RITA C. O’BRIEN
Administrative Judge