1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  ) ISCR Case No. 11-13760    
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny his eligibility for a 
security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant failed to mitigate the 
foreign influence concerns raised by his relationships with wife and her parents, all of 
whom are citizens of the People’s Republic of China (China). Applicant also failed to 
mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct. He did not report 
suspicious contacts with two women during his December 2009 trip to China. He also 
gave his wife, a Chinese national, access to sensitive work-related documents. 
Clearance denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On August 22, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the foreign influence guideline. 1 DOD 
                                                          
1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended; as well as DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as 
amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to 
Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply to this 
 
9 
 
with Chinese nationals. He also failed to disclose pertinent information regarding his 
wife’s imminent arrival to the United States during his subject interview. His 
understanding of security risks seems to be limited to overt acts of attempted espionage 
and does not encompass the subtle risks that can be present in seemingly banal 
activities. Furthermore, Applicant does not appreciate that his off-duty conduct and 
relationships are relevant to assessment of his security worthiness. Applicant has 
demonstrated that he does not possess the sound judgment required of those given 
access to classified information. Accordingly, his access must be revoked.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:  
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline B:     AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.d:   Against Applicant  
 
Subparagraphs 1.b – 1.c.:    For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:     AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a -2.b.:     Against Applicant  
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
Nichole L. Noel 
Administrative Judge