KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Judge concluded that Applicant’s foreign relatives created a heightened risk of
exploitation which Applicant failed to mitigate.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-09338
DATE: 11/02/2009
DATE: November 2, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-09338
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 February 10, 2009, 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 September 8, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H.
Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis
is erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
People’s Republic of China.1
See Directive ¶ E2.7(a): “[C]ontact with a foreign family member . . . who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign2
country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or
coercion[.]”
The Judge found that Applicant is a systems engineer for a federal contractor.  He earned a
Ph.D. from a U.S. university.  He has been a U.S. citizen since the early 2000s, as has his wife.  His
parents are citizens and residents of China.   Applicant has regular contact with them by means of1
the telephone.  He also has a sister who is a citizen and resident of China.
The Judge noted evidence favorable to Applicant, deciding for him on four of the six SOR
allegations.  However, he reasonably explained why Applicant’s parents and sister created a
“heightened risk”  of exploitation which the record as a whole was not sufficient to mitigate.2
Decision at 9.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant
data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made,’” both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-
person factors.  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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 10.  See also
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance
may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board