KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: The Applicant’s 80 year old brother retired from the Taiwanese navy 25~30 years ago.
Their relationship is not close, as his brother is 26 years older than the Applicant.  The Applicant has
seen his brother only occasionally, when he has visited Taiwan.  The Applicant also visited China
on one occasion in 1999, on behalf of his U.S. company.  His family connections, a spouse, two
children, and a sister, are in the U.S.  His financial interests are also in the U.S.  Those who know
and work with the Applicant think highly of him.  As the Applicant has “longstanding relationships
and loyalties in the U.S.,” it is unlikely that he “will be placed in a position of having to choose
between the interests of . . . [his brother] . . . and the interests of the U.S.”  Mitigation is shown.
Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-12247.h1
DATE: 02/21/2007
DATE: February 21, 2007
In Re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12247
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant’s 80 year old brother retired from the Taiwanese navy 25~30 years ago.  Their
relationship is not close, as his brother is 26 years older than the Applicant.  The Applicant has seen
his brother only occasionally, when he has visited Taiwan.  The Applicant also visited China on one
occasion in 1999, on behalf of his U.S. company.  His family connections, a spouse, two children,
and a sister, are in the U.S.  His financial interests are also in the U.S.  Those who know and work
with the Applicant think highly of him.  As the Applicant has “longstanding relationships and
loyalties in the U.S.,” it is unlikely that he “will be placed in a position of having to choose between
the interests of . . . [his brother] . . . and the interests of the U.S.”  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance
is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 23, 2006, 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 November 13, 2006.
The case was received by the undersigned on January 10, 2007.  A notice of hearing was
issued on January 19, 2007, and the case was heard on February 7, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary
evidence.  The transcript (TR) was received on February 16, 2007.  The issues raised here are
whether the Applicant's alleged Foreign Influence militates against the granting of a security
clearance.  [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis of the three 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, 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
The Applicant’s family fled China in 1949 to escape the Communists (TR at page 16 lines
7~20).  He was born in Taiwan in 1952, but immigrated to the U.S. in 1986, more than 20 years ago
(TR at page 1~23).  The Applicant’s spouse, two children, and a sister are all Americans, and live
in the U.S. (TR at page 17 lines 13~18, and at page 24 lines 1~23).  The Applicant’s financial
interests are all in the U.S. (TR at page 25 lines 3~20).
3
1.a. and 1.b.  The Applicant’s 80 year old brother is a citizen of and resides in Taiwan (TR
at page 17 line 24 to page 18 line 4).  His brother retired from the Taiwanese navy as a Captain
25~30 years ago (TR at page 18 line 4 to page 19 line 3).  Their relationship is not close, as the
Applicant’s brother is 26 years older than the Applicant (TR at page 20 lines 7~17).  The Applicant
visited Taiwan, twice in 2003, three times in 2004, twice in 2005, and once in 2006 (Answer).  He
only visits his brother occasionally, when he is in Taiwan (TR at page 19 line 14 to page 20 line 6).
1.c.  The Applicant also visited China on one occasion in 1999, on behalf of his U.S.
company (TR at page 27 line 4 to page 28 line 1).  He has no intention on visiting China other than
on business (Id).
Taiwan has an elected democratic government.  It has the 17  largest economy in the worldth
that is a leading producer of high-technology goods.  It engages in industrial and economic
espionage.  Proprietary information technology is high on the Taiwanese list of targeted information
to be acquired by their agents from foreign governments and business.  Although the U.S. now
recognizes Taiwan as part of China as “one-China,” it continues to maintain strong unofficial
relations with Taiwan.
China, on the other hand, is run by the Communist Party, which controls all aspects of the
Chinese government.  China engages in espionage against the U.S. through an extensive network of
businesses, personnel, and specific programs designed to acquire advanced U.S. military technology.
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
4
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.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant's elderly brother is citizen of and resides in Taiwan.  He also has occasional
contact with this brother.  The first and second disqualifying conditions are arguably applicable as
this contact “creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure,
or coercion," and creates “a potential conflict of interests between the individual’s obligation to
protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person . .
. by providing that information.”  Under the facts of this particular case, however, these are clearly
countered by the first and second mitigating conditions.  The nature of the Applicant’s relationship
with his brother in Taiwan is “such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of
having to choose between the interests of . . . [his brother] and the interests of the U.S.”  Also, the
Applicant “has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual
can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest.”
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Here, those who know the
Applicant best, speak most highly of his character, credibility and trustworthiness (Applicant’s
Exhibit A).  The totality of the Applicant’s conduct and circumstances, as set forth at length above,
clearly warrants a favorable recommendation under the “whole person concept.”  Mitigation is
shown.  Guideline B is thus 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
5
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.
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