KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: The Judge considered non-alleged conduct on the issues of credibility, mitigation, and
the whole-person analysis.  Disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not
enough to show that the Judge erred.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-05294.a1
DATE: 11/17/2016
DATE: November 17, 2016
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-05294
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
23, 2015, 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 C (Foreign
Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On August 23, 2016, after considering the
record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Nicole L. Noel
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 considered matters that
were not raised in the SOR and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was born in Taiwan.  He came to the U.S. as a child and became a naturalized
citizen upon reaching his majority, in the mid-1980s.  He received undergraduate and graduate
degrees from U.S. universities.  Applicant’s wife was born in Taiwan and is a naturalized citizen of
the U.S.  His in-laws are citizens and residents of Taiwan.  Applicant’s wife maintains weekly
contact with her parents.  The couple traveled to Taiwan four times between 2010 and 2014.  
In his Response to the SOR, Applicant stated that, in completing a prior security clearance
application (SCA) in 2003,  he had disclosed his possession of a Taiwanese passport that had been
issued in 1996.  In fact, Applicant did not disclose this passport in the 2003 SCA.  Applicant claims
that he did not intentionally provide false information.  He stated that he did not disclose the
passport because he did not use it.  He did disclose the passport on his 2014 SCA.  Applicant
renewed his Taiwanese passport in order to facilitate trips to Taiwan.  He stated that he did so in
order to avoid possible mistaken identity.
Taiwan has a strong relationship with the U.S.  That country has an interest in information
from the U.S. that would aid in its defense.  The Peoples Republic of China maintains intelligence
operations in Taiwan.  In addition, Taiwan itself has a history of espionage against the U.S.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to evidence that Taiwan engages in espionage against the U.S. in an effort
to obtain economic and proprietary information.  Moreover, she stated that there is evidence that
Taiwan’s intelligence bureau “specifically targets U.S. citizens with connections to Taiwan.” 
Decision at 6.  She stated that Applicant’s evidence was not enough to mitigate concerns arising
from his Taiwanese in-laws.  She also noted evidence that Applicant has held a Taiwanese passport
and has used it to enter that country several times recently.  He provided no evidence that his use
of the foreign passport was approved by an appropriate security authority.  Moreover, Applicant
continues to possess the Taiwanese passport.  She concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the
concerns alleged under Guideline B or C.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence that Applicant had not disclosed
his foreign passport when completing the 2003 SCA.  She noted that non-alleged conduct may not
serve as an independent basis for denying a clearance.  However, she stated that such conduct may
be considered for things such as evaluating an applicant’s credibility, his case for mitigation, or for
performing a whole-person analysis.  She stated that Applicant’s omission called his credibility into
question.  Noting Applicant’s contention that he had not knowingly or willfully provided false
information, she stated that his age and educational level at the time undermined that argument.  
2
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s treatment of the non-alleged SCA omission.  He contends
that the Judge erred in finding that it was deliberate.  Prior to the closure of the record, the Judge
queried both parties about Applicant’s contention that he had disclosed his Taiwanese passport in
2003.  She gave them an opportunity to provide information about the prior clearance and whether
Applicant had received approval for his possession of a foreign passport at the time the clearance
was approved.  In response, Department Counsel submitted a supplement to the File of Relevant
Material (FORM).  This supplement included a copy of the 2003 SCA, in which Applicant denied
that he had a foreign passport.  The Judge gave Applicant an opportunity to respond to this
supplement.  Decision at 3.  He provided a response, which the Judge included in the record.  As
stated above, the Judge considered the non-alleged omission on the questions of credibility,
mitigation, and the whole-person, which was permissible.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3,
Note 1 (App. Bd. Sept. 12, 2014).
Under the circumstances, we find no error in the Judge’s consideration of Applicant’s
omission.  Although Applicant challenges her finding that it was deliberate, we conclude that it was
consistent with the record that was before her.  Moreover, we have considered the totality of
Applicant’s appeal arguments and conclude that they consist principally of a disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to demonstrate error.  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.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan               
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4