FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  The fact that Applicant’s
explanations and mitigating evidence did not lead the Judge to the decision desired by Applicant
does not establish error.  The Judge articulated a reasonable concern that Applicant’s
circumstances could make her vulnerable to foreign influence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24789.a1
DATE: 02/08/2008
DATE: February 8, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24789
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline C is not at issue on appeal.1
2
clearance.  On January 30, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 27, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.1
Applicant argues that the Judge erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that she was
vulnerable to foreign influence because Applicant’s father does not hold a high-level job in the
Taiwanese government.  Rather, he is an ordinary public affairs officer responsible for furthering
Taiwan’s cultural interests.  As part of her brief, Applicant offers new evidence which indicates that
her father intends to immigrate to the United States and retire here, and that she has applied for a visa
on his behalf.  The Board does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive.
The Board may not consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-
23748 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 11, 2007).
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Thus, Applicant had the burden of presenting
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate or mitigate facts that the Department Counsel proved or that
Applicant admitted regarding her foreign family ties.  Applicant also had the ultimate burden of
persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security clearance decision.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The Judge
had to evaluate Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of pertinent provisions of the
Directive, and decide whether Applicant had met her burden of persuasion under Directive ¶ E3.1.15.
The fact that Applicant’s explanations and her mitigating evidence did not lead the Judge to the
decision desired by Applicant does not establish error.  The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.
A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence
offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances, and considered the
possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and factors.  The Judge found in favor of
Applicant under Guideline C, and articulated a rational basis for not favorably applying any
mitigating conditions or factors with respect to the Guideline B allegations.  She reasonably
explained why the evidence which Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to
overcome the government’s security concerns.  The Judge’s decision exhibits a discerning weighing
of a number of variables to reach a commonsense determination. Directive ¶ E2.2.  In some
instances, as noted earlier, this process led to favorable findings for Applicant.  However, the Judge
also articulated a reasonable concern that Applicant's circumstances could potentially make her
vulnerable to foreign influence.  The security concern is based upon close family ties in Taiwan,
considered in the context of the overall political/security profile of that country vis-a-vis the United
States.  Applicant offers an alternative interpretation of the record evidence.  However, that
3
alternative interpretation of the record evidence is insufficient to render the Judge’s interpretation
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-19101 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 13,
2006).  The Judge has articulated a rational explanation for her unfavorable determination under the
disqualifying and mitigating factors and the whole-person concept, and there is sufficient record
evidence to support that determination—given the standard that required the Judge to err on the side
of national security.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-04371 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 18, 2007). 
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael D. Hipple      
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, 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