KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to offer any evidence concerning his numerous in-laws who are
citizens and residents of Taiwan precludes the required affirmative finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems
Position. Determination of Trustworthiness is denied.
CASENO: 05-10843.h1
DATE: 06/28/2007
DATE: June 28, 2007
In Re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 05-10843
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOSEPH TESTAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s failure to offer any evidence concerning his numerous in-laws who are citizens
and residents of Taiwan precludes the required affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with
2
the national interest for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position. Determination
of Trustworthiness is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care System Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASDC3I), entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement which gave DOHA the responsibility to provide trustworthiness determinations for
contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation
5200.2R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987.
On December 29, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which
detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness,
suitability, and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position (ADP-
I/II/III).
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on January 10, 2007, and elected to have his case
determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's
written case (FORM) on or about February 20, 2007. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on or
about March 26, 2007. The case was assigned to me on May 2, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 31 years of age. He and his wife, a dual citizen of the United States and Taiwan,
have resided in South Korea since 2004. They moved to South Korea so applicant could work on a
United States government contract. When the contract ends, they intend to return to the United
States.
Applicant was born in South Korea. It is not clear when, but at some point he moved to the
United States. He became a United States citizen in 1999.
Applicant’s mother is a dual citizen of the United States and Taiwan. She is recently
widowed and lives with applicant, who supports her, in South Korea. She will move back to the
United States with applicant and his wife.
Applicant’s older brother is a United States citizen residing and working in South Korea.
According to applicant, he too is working on a government contract, and when it ends, he will return
to the United States. His other brother is a United States citizen residing and working in Taiwan.
Applicant’s mother-in-law, father-in-law, two sisters-in-law, and two brothers-in-law are
There is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to,1
immediate family members of his spouse. ISCR Case No. 01-03120  (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2002).
3
citizens and residents of Taiwan.
Applicant has traveled to Taiwan on at least eight occasions since moving to South Korea
in 2004. His most recent trip was in July 2006. In his response to the SOR, he stated he travels to
Taiwan to visit his brother and his spouse’s family.
In his response to the FORM, applicant stated he is “a loyal American citizen who would
never compromise sensitive information to anyone.”
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence establishes that applicant’s (1) mother and spouse are citizens of Taiwan
currently residing in South Korea with applicant, (2)  mother-in-law, father-in-law, two sisters-in-
law, and two brothers-in-law are citizens and residents of Taiwan, (3) older brother resides in South
Korea, and (4) other brother resides in Taiwan. The evidence further establishes that since moving
to South Korea in 2004, applicant has made at least eight trips to Taiwan to visit his brother and his
spouse’s family. Applicant’s contacts with these family members, particularly when he travels to
Taiwan, create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation. Accordingly, Disqualifying Conditions 7.a
(contact with a foreign family member . . . who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that
contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or
coercion), and 7.i (conduct, especially while traveling outside the U.S., which may make the
individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government,
or country) are applicable.
The foreign influence concerns raised by the foreign citizenship and/or residency of an
applicant's family member may be mitigated when it can be determined that “the nature of the
relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions
or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed
in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization,
or government and the interests of the United States” (Mitigation Condition 8.a). Applicant has the
burden to produce evidence sufficient to make this determination. He did not meet his burden.
Even if it is assumed he mitigated the concerns raised by his immediate family members (i.e.,
mother, spouse, brothers), applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his in-laws,  and thus1
does not qualify for Mitigating Condition 8.a, because (1) he presented no information about the
nature of the relationships he has with them, (2) Taiwan, although an ally of the United States, is an
active collector of United States technology secrets, and (3) he presented no information about the
positions and activities of his in-laws. 
I have considered applicant’s statement that he is “a loyal American who would never
compromise sensitive information to anyone.” This may very well be a sincere statement. However,
without the information discussed above, and without other information that would enable me to
determine, among other things, (1) when exactly applicant came to the United States, (2) if he has
Pages 18-19.2
4
any current long-standing, close relationships with anyone in the United States, (3) whether he has
any close relatives currently living in the United States, and (4) whether he currently has any assets
in the United States, I cannot make the required affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position.
Based on the foregoing, and after consideration of the factors set forth in Enclosure 2,
Paragraph 2 of the Directive.  of Guideline B is found against applicant.2
FORMAL FINDINGS
PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability and
eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position.
____________________________
Joseph Testan
Administrative Judge