KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: In the case before us, the Judge discusses why he concluded that the security concern
arising from the presence of Applicant’s in-laws in Taiwan was mitigated. In that context, he
spells out in some detail the specific circumstances of Applicant’s Taiwanese in-laws. Favorable
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05986.a2
DATE: 05/26/2017
DATE: May 26, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05986
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John Bayard Glendon, Deputy Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On May
21, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the 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 hearing.  On June
30, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Roger C. Wesley granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  On October 14, 2016, the Appeal Board
remanded the case to the Judge to correct certain identified errors.  On January 19, 2017, the Judge
issued his Decision on Remand.  Department Counsel appealed this Decision pursuant to the
Directive.
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s mitigation
analysis was unsupported by the record evidence and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was
erroneous.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant married his wife in Taiwan in the mid-1990s.  Applicant’s mother-in-law and two
siblings-in-law are citizens and residents of Taiwan.  Both siblings performed mandatory service in
the Taiwanese military.  Applicant has little contact with his Taiwanese in-laws.  His wife maintains
bi-monthly contact with them, which is less frequent than in the past.  
Between 2003 and 2009, Applicant worked on a Government-funded program that required
him to travel to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  This travel was fully authorized by his
employer.  During one of these visits his laptop1 was stolen from his hotel room.  The laptop
contained only open-source information and no classified information.
Applicant committed two security violations in 2010.  He received a verbal warning for
possessing “unmarked media or a DVD containing classified information.”  Remand Decision at 5. 
A month later, he failed to secure a safe containing classified information.  The safe was in his
supervisor’s office, and Applicant mistakenly believed that the supervisor was still in the building. 
He received a “write-up” for this infraction and was required to receive remedial training.  Id.
In 2013, another Government agency denied Applicant access to sensitive compartmented
information and revoked his security clearance.  This action was based upon Applicant’s family
connections in Taiwan and his travels in the PRC.  It is not clear if his security infractions were also
cited as a basis for the revocation.  
Taiwan is a multi-party democracy.  However, the PRC does not recognize Taiwan’s
independence, insisting instead upon “one China.”  Id. at 9.  The PRC is Taiwan’s largest trading
partner.  Taiwan is an active collector of U.S. economic and proprietary information, as is the PRC. 
These activities on behalf of Taiwan have resulted in criminal and civil charges.  The PRC seeks to
acquire intelligence through multiple sources, including through illegal means.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant had effectively rebutted the presumption that he has ties
of affection or obligation to his Taiwanese in-laws.  He found that Applicant had no opportunity to
develop bonds of affection for them through his wife.  He stated that Applicant had “demonstrated
convincingly that he has no emotional attachments, feelings of obligation, or regular or even casual
1Applicant’s hearing testimony and his submissions upon remand state that this device was not a laptop
computer, but a personal data assistant (PDA).  Tr. at 99; Applicant Response, dated November 8, 2016, at 6.  This is
a hand-held computer.  
contact with his wife’s relatives in Taiwan.”  Id. at 16.  He found that over the years Applicant has
acquired no ties or obligations to any foreign person or entity “that could possibly compromise his
loyalties or commitments to the United States.”  Id. at 17. He also noted that Applicant’s wife is now
a naturalized U.S. citizen and that Applicant is considered highly reliable on the job.  The Judge
stated that Applicant has no further security infractions since 2010 and that whoever took his
computer has not tried to contact him in the years since the theft.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant had effectively mitigated any security concerns arising from his relatives in Taiwan. 
Discussion
There is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  The
applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate admitted
or proven facts.  The applicant has the burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable decision. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The standard applicable in security clearance decisions “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).  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  Directive,
Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). 
In deciding whether the Judge’s rulings or conclusions are erroneous, we will review the
Judge’s decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate
a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment;
it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs
contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference
of opinion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02563 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015).
Department Counsel argues that the Judge’s decision does not address a fundamental
difficulty sometimes posed by foreign in-laws.  That is, while an applicant may not be close to a
spouse’s parents or siblings, a sense of obligation to them can arise from the spouse’s affections and
familial loyalties–concern for one’s spouse may well result in a derivative concern for the spouse’s
family.  We have long held that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has obligations to the
immediate family members of his or her spouse.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03112 at 3, n.1 (App.
Bd. Nov. 3, 2015).  Department Counsel further argues little is known about Applicant’s in-laws.
In the case before us, the Judge discusses why he concluded that the security concern arising from
the presence of Applicant’s in-laws in Taiwan was mitigated.  In that context , he spells out in some
detail the specific circumstances of Applicant’s Taiwanese in-laws (e.g., they had served in the
Taiwanese military but that service was thirty-five years ago and Applicant’s inability to
communicate with in-laws due to language differences, etc.). 
Department Counsel argues that the Judge’s whole-person analysis runs contrary to the
weight of the record evidence.  He argues that the analysis is essentially conclusory and does not
sufficiently address the evidence viewed as a whole.  However, we conclude that the Judge followed
the remand instructions regarding the whole-person analysis.  The Judge considered non-alleged
conduct for the permitted limited purposes.  To the extent any argument suggests that the Judge
should have founded an adverse decision primarily on non-alleged conduct, the Board declines to
contravene the Directive ¶ 4.3.1. or Executive Order 10865, SECTION 3 (1).  We find no harmful
error in the Judge’s analysis or conclusions.
Given the record before him, the Judge articulated a ration explanation for his favorable
decision.  An appealing party’s disagreement with a Judge’s decision is not sufficient basis to
establish that the Judge erred.  ISCR Case No.14-05013 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2016).  The Board
concludes that the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law, given the record before him.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3.
Order
The Decision is Affirmed  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
See Dissenting Opinion                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                   
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Dissenting Opinion of Administrative Judge James E. Moody
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ resolution of this case.  The record, viewed as
a whole, does not support a favorable whole-person analysis.  A proper whole-person analysis
requires a Judge to consider an applicant’s circumstances in light of the evidence as a cumulative
whole.  It can include consideration of conduct that is not alleged in the SOR.    
The Judge’s comments about the paucity of evidence concerning Applicant’s foreign
relatives draw attention to the insufficiency of Applicant’s case for mitigation.  When viewed in
light of Applicant’s two security infractions and evidence that he was denied a clearance by another
agency based on his foreign relatives and travels, the record does not support a whole-person
assessment that all doubt about Applicant’s eligibility for a clearance has been resolved in favor of
national security.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  Department Counsel argues that the totality of the
evidence weighs heavily against a favorable decision, and I find this to be persuasive.  I would
reverse.     
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board