KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: An SOR is not held to the strict requirements of a criminal indictment.  The SOR was
sufficient to place Applicant on notice that his relation with his ex-wife in China was of security
concern.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03200.a1
DATE: 07/16/2015
DATE: July 16, 2015
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03200
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On July
18, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 28, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 Applicant was denied due process
and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s
favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following,
we affirm.  
The Judge’s findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.  A U.S.
citizen by birth, Applicant served in the U.S. military, in which he achieved the grade of E-5.  He
was honorably discharged in the early 2000s and has since worked as a Federal contractor in Japan
for several years.  
It was in that country that he met his future wife, a citizen of China who was away from
home attending school.  The two married in the late 2000s, and they had a child.  At some point after
the birth of their child, Applicant and his wife experienced marital problems.  They divorced,
sharing joint custody of their child.  However, Applicant’s now ex-wife moved to China, taking their
child with her.  Applicant has visited China in an effort to get the child back.  Applicant has weekly
contact with his ex-wife and his child over the internet.  
China has an authoritarian government that is dominated by the Communist Party.  China
has a poor record regarding human rights.  China aggressively targets sensitive and protected U.S.
technology and economic intelligence.  It has targeted the U.S. with active intelligence gathering
programs.  Chinese authorities have monitored telephone conversations, fax transmissions, e-mail,
text messaging, and internet communications.  Authorities have opened and censored mail, and
security services routinely enter residences and offices to gain access to computers, telephones, and
fax machines.    
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the Guideline E allegation in Applicant’s favor, as he did with most of
the allegations under Guideline B.  However, concerning the single allegation pertaining to
Applicant’s wife, the Judge concluded that the circumstances raised a concern that Applicant is
subject to a heightened risk of coercion.  He cited to evidence that (1) the now ex-wife has moved
back to China, along with the couple’s child; (2) Applicant has weekly communication with the ex-
wife and child through the internet; and (3) China has a poor human rights record and actively seeks
U.S. protected information.  
In further concluding that Applicant has not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation,
the Judge acknowledged that Applicant is in a difficult position.  However, he stated that Applicant
may well have to choose between the interests of his ex-wife and those of U.S. security.  “Because
of Applicant’s continuing ties to his ex-wife and the nature of the government of China,” the Judge
concluded that Applicant’s mitigation evidence was “insufficient to overcome the significant
security concerns generated by Applicant’s ex-wife[.]” Decision at 7.
Discussion
Applicant contends that he was denied due process.  He states that the SOR alleged his then
wife as a concern but not his child.  He states that, had he known that the status of his child was at
issue, he could have prepared his mitigation case accordingly.  
An SOR is an administrative pleading that is not held to the strict requirements of a criminal
indictment.  An SOR does not have to allege every relevant fact that might arise at a hearing.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-12461 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 14, 2013).  Moreover, conduct or circumstances
not alleged in an SOR may be considered in evaluating an applicant’s evidence for extenuation or
mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-06770 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 2010).  In the case before us,
the allegation stated the following: “Your spouse is a citizen of China currently residing in the
United States.”  SOR ¶ 1.a.  In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegation, adding that
he and his wife had divorced and that she had returned to China.  Evidence concerning his child was
developed at the hearing.
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the SOR was sufficient to place Applicant on
notice that his relationship with his now ex-wife raised security concerns.  The Judge’s analysis of
these concerns focused principally on this relationship, addressing the child as a significant reason
that the ex-wife posed a heightened risk that Applicant could be subjected to duress or coercion.  We
conclude that the Judge’s findings about the child did not raise matters beyond the scope of the SOR. 
Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant received adequate notice of the concerns raised in his case
and that his ability to prepare a case for mitigation was not impaired.  Applicant was not denied due
process.1
Applicant cites to evidence of his military service, his having held a clearance for many years
without incident or concern, and to evidence of the circumstances surrounding his relationship with
his ex-wife.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  Applicant’s
argument on appeal is not enough to rebut that presumption or to demonstrate that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 08-09626 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 5, 2009).   
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The 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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”
1Even if one concluded that the Judge erred by not amending the SOR to allege independent concerns about
Applicant’s child, Applicant has cited to no evidence that he would have presented in mitigation of those concerns. 
Under the circumstances, it is unlikely that amending the SOR would have led to a different result.  We also note that,
at the beginning of the hearing, the Judge advised Applicant that if he had “any questions or concerns at any point” to
let the Judge know and he would address them.  Tr. at 7.  A bit later, Department Counsel stated that the security concern
involving Applicant’s spouse required consideration of the circumstances regarding the child.  Tr. at 14.  Applicant did
not object or otherwise convey to the Judge a belief that this might impair his ability to present his case in mitigation. 
A reasonable person could conclude that Applicant forfeited this issue by failing to raise it at the appropriate time.  Even
pro se applicant’s are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00270 at 3
(App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014).  
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan                
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board