KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Record evidence established that Applicant’s parents were residing temporarily in the
People’s Republic of China for medical reasons despite permanent resident status in U.S. Record
evidence also established that Applicant visits her brother in China when she visits there and
sends him birthday cards.  The record evidence supports the Judge’s conclusion that the case
raises security concerns that have not been mitigated.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-03771.a1
DATE: 02/18/2009
DATE: February 18, 2009
In Re:
------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03771
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
clearance.  On June 26, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) 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 December 8, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey
Anderson 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.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is unsupported by the
record as a whole.  Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant points out that the Judge found that her parents are citizens and residents of the
People’s Republic of China (China), when in fact there is record evidence that they have permanent
resident status in the U.S.  However, as of the close of the record they were residing temporarily in
China for medical purposes.  Therefore, any error in this finding is harmless.
Applicant also describes her relationship with her brother as “estranged.”  However, as the
Judge notes in her decision, Applicant sees her brother when she visits China, sends him birthday
cards, and brings gifts of toys and clothes to her brother’s son on her visits.  Decision at 7.
Therefore, Applicant has not undermined the Judge’s conclusions as to her brother.
 
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the
Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs
the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of
the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to
demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-05632 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2008).
A review of the record 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 conditions and factors.  She reasonably explained why the evidence which
the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable record evidence cited by
Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  The Judge examined the
relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision, “including a ‘rational
connection between the facts found and the choice 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 the national security.’” Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple       
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board