KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: The Judge found that China has an authoritarian regime and actively collects military ,
economic, proprietary and industrial information about the U.S.   The Judge found that Applicant
sends her parents $1000 to $2000 a year.  Applicant’s unhappiness with China’s conduct is not
necessarily synonymous with ties to the United States, nor is it indicative of a history of
compliance with security procedures and regulations in the context of dangerous high risk
circumstances in which Applicant had made a significant contribution to national security.
CASENO: 06-18097.a1
DATE: 12/04/2007
DATE: December 4, 2007
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18097
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Richard Murray, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 26, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On July 27, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant alleges that the Judge erred by not applying Guideline B Mitigating Condition 8(b)
in Applicant’s case.  Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
A Judge is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,
43(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.
Once there has been a concern articulated regarding an applicant’s security clearance
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance a security clearance.  See,
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After
the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to
establish any appropriate mitigating conditions. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. “The application of
disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding
that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the
exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.” See ISCR Case No. 05-
03635 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006). 
In this case, the Judge wrote that Applicant has not demonstrated a “sufficient relationship
and loyalty to the United States that she can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor
of the U.S.”  In challenging that conclusion, Applicant relies on her (and her husband’s) acquisition
of U.S. citizenship in response to the events in Tianamen Square.
The Judge’s conclusion is sustainable for three reasons: 
The Judge found that China has an authoritarian regime, with a poor human rights record and
practices arbitrary arrest and prisoner mistreatment.  He also found that China aggressively competes
with the United States and actively collects military, economic, proprietary and industrial
information about the U.S.  Given those findings there is a plausible concern that the presence of
Applicant’s family members in China could present a security concern.
Applicant’s sense of obligation to her parents in China is substantiated without need to
consider rebuttable presumptions.  The Judge found that Applicant sends her parents $1000 to $2000
a year.  Applicant’s husband sends his mother in China comparable amounts.
3
Applicant’s unhappiness with China’s conduct in the Tianamen Square events is not
necessarily synonymous with ties to the United States.  Nor is it indicative of a history of compliance
with security procedures and regulations in the context of dangerous, high-risk circumstances in
which the applicant had made a significant contribution to national security.  Cf.  ISCR Case No. 04-
02511 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2007).
Applicant also challenges the Judge’s whole person analysis on analogous grounds.  The
reasoning above applies to that challenge.
 Thus, the Administrative Judge did not err in denying Applicant a clearance. 
Order
The decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                      
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board