KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: The Judge concluded that in light of Applicant’s family ties in Taiwan and his years
living there after acquiring U.S. citizenship he had not met his burden of persuasion.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-21247.a1
DATE: 04/07/2008
DATE: April 7, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-21247
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Greg D. McCormack, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 31, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR paragraphs 1(b) and 1(d) and under Guideline C is not at issue in1
this appeal. 
2
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 December 3, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed
a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  1
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in failing to conclude
that the Guideline B security concerns were mitigated.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an electrical engineer
who works for a defense contractor.  He was born in Taiwan and became a U.S. citizen in 1991.  His
father and mother are citizens and residents of Taiwan as are his siblings–two brothers and three
sisters.  The eldest of his sisters is a computer engineer for a cell phone company.  The other two
work for the Taiwanese equivalent of the IRS.  Applicant speaks with his mother two or three times
a year.  In 1998 Applicant returned to Taiwan, living there until 2004 in order to look after his father,
who was ill.  
Taiwan is a multiparty democracy which is a trading partner of the U.S.  In the past, Taiwan
has utilized unlawful methods to obtain U.S. economic and intelligence information.  However, in
recent years Taiwan has taken “dramatic steps” to improve its human rights posture.
The Judge acknowledged Applicant’s appreciation of the U.S. and his sincere desire to
remain here.  However, she concluded that, in light of his family ties to Taiwan and the years he
spent living there after becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion that
it is “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security” for him to have a security
clearance.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive ¶
E3.1.15.  (After the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish any appropriate mitigating conditions.)  The Judge’s decision is not arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board