Item 5.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07709
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant falsely denied, and failed to disclose, the existence of his foreign-citizen
wife and daughter on his security clearance application and during his first security
interview. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on November 8,
2009.  On August 8, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued1
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under
Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,2
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Item 4.3
The Government submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Item 5.5
Item 4. 6
Items 6 and 7.7
Items 6 and 7.8
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 29, 2011, and requested that
his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.3
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on September 19, 2011.
A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant,4
and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on October 3, 2011, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on December 9, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he started
working as a mechanic in May 2005. He works in support of U.S. forces in a Middle
East country. He is a high school graduate and earned an associate’s degree in 1985.
He and his first wife divorced in 1998, after nine years of marriage during which his 20-
year-old daughter was born. He served in the Army for more than 12 years before
receiving an Honorable discharge in May 1998. He held a security clearance during his
Army service.  5
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of the factual allegations
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.c, with amplifying comments explaining those admissions.6
Applicant’s admissions, including those made in response to DOHA interrogatories,  are7
incorporated into the following findings of fact.
Applicant is married to a citizen of a Southeast Asian country. They had a child
together in September 2008, and were married a year later during a visit to her home
country in September 2009. Their child was also born in, and is a citizen of, that
Southeast Asian country. Applicant, his wife, and their child reside together in the
Middle East country where he works.   8
Item 5.9
Items 6 and 7.10
Items 6 and 7.11
Items 6 and 7.12
3
When Applicant completed his SF 86 in November 2009, he claimed in § 17 that
his marital status was, “Divorced.” He marked both §§ 17A (Current Spouse) and 17C
(Cohabitant) as, “Not Applicable,” despite the fact that he had recently married and lived
with his wife and child. He listed only his then 18-year-old daughter as a child in § 18
(Relatives), not listing his 1-year-old, and listed his first wife’s parents as his mother-in-
law and father-in-law, not listing his current in-laws. In § 19 he was asked to disclose if
he had, “any close and/or continuing contact with foreign nationals within the last 7
years with whom you, your spouse, or your cohabitant are bound by affection, influence,
and/or obligation?” He answered, “No.”  9
Applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on May 18, 2010, during a visit to the United States. He admitted
traveling to the Southeast Asian country in September 2009 for eight to ten days, but
said the visit was to tour the country for rest and relaxation and that he traveled there
alone. He told the OPM investigator that he had, “no foreign ties, friendships, loyalty,
affection, or obligation to anyone from any foreign country. . . . [and] no continuing or
personal contacts or foreign relatives residing outside or inside the United States.”10
On May 23, 2010, a Sunday evening before the morning that he returned to the
Middle East country where he works, Applicant contacted the OPM investigator by
telephone and volunteered that he had a wife and child who were foreign citizens and
lived with him. He said he and his wife were planning to divorce soon because they
were not able to get along. He apologized and said the reason he concealed the
existence of his wife and child during his prior interview was due to their pending divorce
and his not wanting her to cause any problems with his security clearance. Since they
were not getting along, he did not know what she would say or do. His wife was
planning to return to her home country with the child to live with her mother.  11
On July 8 and 9, 2010, the investigator and Applicant again spoke by telephone
to discuss his foreign family members. Applicant described his wife’s parents, two
brothers, and sister, all of whom are citizens of the same Southeast Asian country.
Applicant said that he did not list his foreign marriage or other foreign relatives on his
SF 86, “due to feeling it was [sic] necessary.” He said he was trying to keep the
marriage going, but was not sure what the future may bring. He also said that, among
his American relatives, only his aunt knew about his foreign marriage because he was
not sure what problems his ex-spouse would cause and he wanted to wait until his elder
daughter turned 19 to tell her.  12
Item 7.13
Item 4.14
4
On July 11, 2011, Applicant confirmed the accuracy of the OPM investigator’s
summary of his interview statements. He further added that he and his wife were
“getting along and making it work.” He said that he told his ex-wife and elder daughter of
the existence of his marriage and younger daughter, and everyone was getting along
well.  13
In his written response to the SOR, Applicant amplified his admissions to the
truth of the SOR allegations. He, for the first time, claimed that he completed his SF 86
with a group of people in a classroom, and he told the people “instructing” them that he
had a foreign wife and child but had not yet been to the embassy to apply for green
cards. He said that he was told if he could not claim them on his taxes not to put them
down, so he did not. He said that this explanation might sound crazy, and he might have
misunderstood, but this was his recollection.   14
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
5
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The potentially disqualifying conditions established by the evidence in this
case are:
(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; and
6
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative.
In November 2009, Applicant falsified his marital status on his SF 86 by claiming
that his marital status was divorced, and that he did not have a current spouse, two
months after marrying his foreign-national wife. He also falsely omitted the existence of
his then one-year-old daughter on that security clearance application. He subsequently
admitted that the falsifications were deliberate, and intended to conceal their existence,
because he was having marital problems and did not know what his foreign wife would
say or do to cause problems with his security clearance. His other answers on the SF
86, affirmatively denying that he had a cohabitant or any close or continuing contact
with a foreign national during the last 7 years, confirm that his intention was to deceive
the Government about his foreign family members. Even if he believed that his foreign
marriage did not technically qualify his wife as a current spouse, their relationship
should clearly have been disclosed in response to those questions. DC 16(a) is fully
supported by his false denials and omissions concerning his wife and daughter on the
SF 86. 
Security concerns under DC 16(b) are also established. On May 18, 2010,
Applicant lied to the OPM investigator by stating that he had, “no foreign ties,
friendships, loyalty, affection, or obligation to anyone from any foreign country. . . . [and]
no continuing or personal contacts or foreign relatives residing outside or inside the
United States.”  
Other than a self-serving statement in his SOR response that his falsifications
were just “following directions,” Applicant offered no evidence that would tend to support
any mitigating condition under Guideline E. After careful review of the record, I find that
none of them apply. His correction of the concealment and falsification was neither
prompt nor made in good faith, particularly in view of his recent attempt to justify his
actions. His assertion that “instructors” told him not to disclose his foreign family
members is not credible, and is contradicted by his earlier explanation that he was
concerned his wife would cause problems with his clearance. Moreover, his other
answers on the SF 86 denying foreign contacts, and during the interview claiming that
he visited his wife’s country for tourism traveling by himself, evidence his intent to
deceive on both occasions. These are not minor offenses, and they are recent. His
“following directions” excuse precludes findings that he acknowledges the behavior, that
recurrence is unlikely, or that his trustworthiness is no longer in doubt.    
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
7
(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) the 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances. Applicant is an accountable adult, who is responsible
for his voluntary choices and deceitful conduct that underlie the security concerns
expressed in the SOR. His falsifications go to the heart of the security clearance
process, and were made in order to conceal what he knew to be potentially disqualifying
information. He offered no evidence of rehabilitation, or responsible conduct in other
areas of his life. He finally told his first wife and elder daughter about his foreign family,
after concealing it for almost two years, but his susceptibility to falsifying material
information to avoid potential pressure, coercion, or duress remains undiminished.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his personal conduct.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge