KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: The Judge’s material finding are based on substantial evidence.  The extent to which
Taiwan engages in economic or industrial espionage against the U.S. is a proper subject of
official notice by a DOHA Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-11564.a1
DATE: 06/21/2010
DATE: June 21, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11564
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 July 6, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 decision
on the written record.  On March 30, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge David
M. White 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 certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge erred in his application
of the pertinent mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor.  He served as an
officer in the Taiwanese armed forces from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.  He was born and raised
in Taiwan but attended a post-graduate school in the U.S.  After retiring from the military, he moved
to the U.S. and worked for a series of private companies.
Applicant married his current wife in Taiwan.  They both became U.S. citizens in the mid-
2000s.  Applicant’s parents, his mother-in-law, his siblings, and one of his offspring are citizens of
Taiwan.  Additionally, with the exception of one of the siblings, who resides in the U.S., they are
all residents of Taiwan.  One sibling was an officer in the Taiwanese armed forces for 20 years.
Applicant denies receiving a pension from Taiwan, despite his 22 years of military service.  
Taiwan is among the most active collectors of U.S. economic and proprietary information.
Moreover, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “maintains substantial intelligence collection
activities in Taiwan.”  Decision at 4.
In holding against Applicant, the Judge stated
Applicant offered no evidence of professional, social, or financial ties to the United
States that might weigh in favor of a whole-person finding of exceptional allegiance
to U.S. interests.  He also provided no evidence, beyond his successful Taiwanese
[military] service, tending to establish his responsibility, trustworthiness, or
reliability.  His claim that he has no ongoing financial ties with Taiwan are doubtful
given his status as a retired . . .  officer and his absence of delinquent debt after
supporting a family of four during a five-year period of unemployment and self-
employment as a software consultant [in the early 2000s].”  Decision at 8 
Applicant challenges certain the Judge’s findings of fact.  For example, he claims the Judge
erred in his finding regarding Applicant’s field of specialization in the Taiwanese military.
Examining the Judge’s finding in light of the record, particularly Applicant’s Response to DOHA
Interrogatories dated March 18, 2009, we conclude that the Judge’s finding is sustainable.  After
reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based on substantial
evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the
record.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case.
3
Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are
sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07528 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009); ISCR Case No. 06-
21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).  
Applicant appears to challenge the Judge’s having taken official notice of the extent to which
Taiwan engages in economic and industrial espionage against the U.S.  However, these matters are
a proper subject of official notice by a DOHA Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-04786 at n.6
(App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2003).
Furthermore, a substantial portion of Applicant’s challenges to the Judge’s decision involves
the presentation of evidence not contained in the record, which we cannot consider.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR
Case No. 08-06875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009); ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3,
2009).
After reviewing the record, we conclude 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.  “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).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan 
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board