KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence nor shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Refusal to provide truthful
answers normally results in an unfavorable decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 13-00502.a1
DATE: 03/07/2017
DATE: March 7, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 13-00502
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
April 4, 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). 
Department Counsel requested a hearing.  Tr. at 9.  On December 2, 2016, after the hearing, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: 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 has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2005.  Born in the U.S., her
father worked for the Taiwanese government in a job that entailed foreign travel.  In 2006, Applicant
applied for a security clearance.  After conducting a hearing, a DOHA Judge denied Applicant’s
application due to Guideline B concerns arising from her father’s citizenship and employment. 
Applicant held a Taiwanese passport until its expiration in 2012.  She used it for travel to Taiwan
in 2012.  She had obtained a foreign passport because her mother advised her that it would be easier
to travel within Asia if she had one.  Applicant denied an intent to renew her Taiwanese passport. 
Applicant continued to work for her employer, but her lack of a clearance prohibited her from
participating in certain military projects.  At her supervisor’s request, Applicant reapplied for a
clearance in 2012.  In her SF-86, Applicant disclosed that she had previously been investigated for
a clearance and that it had been denied.
In 2013, Applicant completed another SF-86.  In this one, however, she answered “no” to
the question about whether she had previously been investigated and/or denied a clearance.  When
questioned about this in her subsequent clearance interview, Applicant stated that she did not
understand the questions clearly.  During her hearing, she testified that she probably misread the
questions through haste.  She stated that she had no reason to hide her earlier clearance denial,
insofar as it was already a matter of record.
The U.S. no longer recognizes Taiwan to be a sovereign nation.  It recognizes the People’s
Republic of China as the sole government of China, although it does not recognize the PRC’s claim
over Taiwan.  Taiwan is a significant trading partner with the U.S., although it has resumed dialogue
with the PRC, resulting in closer economic ties between the two countries.  Taiwan is of strategic
significance to the U.S.  However, it has an extensive history of economic and technological
espionage against the U.S.  There have been several cases recently in which Taiwanese nationals
have been convicted of seeking illegally to export U.S. technology.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant’s father had worked for the Taiwanese
government for many years.  She stated that the record is silent as to whether he receives a pension
from that government and concluded that his retirement is too recent to rule out the potential for a
conflict of interest.  She also stated that Applicant’s use of a Taiwanese passport at a time in which
she also held one from the U.S. impugned her effort to show that she was not subject to a possible
conflict of interest.  The Judge cited to apparent inconsistent statements by Applicant concerning
her father’s contacts with the Taiwanese government, which impugned Applicant’s credibility.
Regarding Guideline E, the Judge found Applicant’s explanations for her omissions to be
lacking credibility.  She noted that Applicant had disclosed her prior clearance denial when she
2
completed her 2012 SF-86.  She also stated that Applicant’s claim that she hurried through her 2013
application was belied by her testimony that she had fifteen days in which to complete it.  The Judge
found that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that she believes is favorable to her, for example that her father
is retired, that she is careful with her employer’s protected information, that she has had no ethics
violations, etc.  She also reiterated her claims that her omissions on the 2013 SF-86 were due to
carelessness.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).   Neither
has she shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Refusal to provide truthful answers during the security clearance process “will normally
result in an unfavorable clearance action[.]” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15(b).  See also ISCR Case No.
14-03069 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2015).  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