KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from the presence of her
relatives in Taiwan.  Disagreement with a Judge’s decision is not sufficient to demonstrate that
the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 09-02907.a1
DATE: 03/31/2010
DATE: March 31, 2010
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 09-02907
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
trustworthiness designation.  On August 24, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline
C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 4, 2010,
after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a
trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge mis-weighed the record
evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness designation is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following relevant findings:  Applicant was born in Taiwan, moving to
the U.S. in the mid-1980s.  She became a U.S. citizen in the late 1990s.  Applicant has five siblings
who are citizens and residents of Taiwan.  Recently, Applicant’s father died, and she and her siblings
embarked upon a protracted disagreement as to the amount of her father’s estate that Applicant
should receive.  The dispute became contentious, and at least two siblings have threatened Applicant.
One of them, B, has a history of financial problems.  He left a voice message on Applicant’s
telephone threatening to kill her and her husband if she did not relinquish her share of their father’s
estate.  
Taiwan is a multi-party democracy.  It engaged in industrial espionage in the 1990s.  There
have also been more recent efforts by Taiwan to obtain protected information and some evidence that
Taiwan has targeted U.S. citizens to that end.
The Judge took into account record evidence favorable to Applicant, and resolved several
of the allegations in her favor.  However, he also noted evidence which was less favorable to
Applicant’s goal of receiving a trustworthiness designation.  He noted that Applicant has frequent
communications with one of her siblings.  He also stated that there is a risk that Taiwanese
intelligence agencies could attempt to induce cooperation with their efforts to obtain U.S. protected
information.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s weighing of the evidence was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 06-14978 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 18,
2008).  
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.’”  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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record.   
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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