KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Given evidence of China’s aggressive efforts to obtain U.S. protected information, its
history of monitoring electronic and telephonic communications, and Applicant’s apparently
regular communications with his relatives, we find no reason to disturb the presumption that
there is a nexus between Applicant’s circumstances and a concern that he could be placed in a
conflict of interest. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-04389.a1
DATE: 02/27/2018
DATE: February 27, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04389
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
March 16, 2016, 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 decision on the
written record.  On October 27, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 his circumstances actually raised
security concerns; whether the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record; 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 China, where he earned his undergraduate degree as well as a
master’s.  He came to the U.S. in the mid-1990s and obtained a doctorate a few years later from a
university in this country.  Applicant was originally granted a clearance from another Government
agency, which transferred to his current employer, a Defense contractor, in 2014.  Later that year
he submitted a security clearance application to receive a higher level clearance.
Applicant’s wife was born in China, becoming a naturalized citizen about 12 years after
coming to the U.S. with Applicant.  The couple has two children, both born in the U.S.  Applicant’s
wife traveled to China in 2012 to visit relatives.  Applicant’s parents, as well as his parents-in-law,
are citizens and residents of China.  Applicant last saw his parents in the mid-2000s, when they
visited him in the U.S.  Applicant communicates with his parents and his siblings, who are also
citizens and residents of China, quarterly or annually, by telephone or by email.  One sibling is a
teacher.  Applicant does not know the employer of his other sibling, although this person previously
worked for the Chinese military in some capacity.
Applicant sends his parents and his parents-in-law a few hundred dollars every year to pay
for living expenses.  Applicant has not returned to China since he first came to the U.S.  He states
that he does not intend to return to China because of its human rights violations.  Applicant owns
a home in the U.S. valued at about $418,000.  He has about $65,000 worth in investment accounts
in the U.S.  He has received numerous awards for his work in support of the U.S., and supervisors
and colleagues attest to his work ethic and loyalty to the U.S.
The Judge took administrative notice of facts contained in exhibits submitted by the
Government and by Applicant.  She noted China’s poor human rights record, its role as the most
active and persistent practitioner of economic and military espionage against the U.S., its “hostility
to U.S. interests;” and its surveillance of visitors to China.  She cited to several cases arising from
acts of espionage and illegal export of information to China.
2
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns, the Judge noted
China’s poor human rights record.  She stated that the chances of coercion are greater from a country
with an authoritarian government that is known to conduct intelligence gathering against the U.S.,
or has interests in opposition to those of this country.  Accordingly, given Applicant’s close family
connections in China, the Judge concluded that he could be forced to choose between his loyalties
to them and his ties to the U.S.  Moreover, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the
concerns arising from his family members in China.  She cited to evidence that he sends money each
year both to his parents and to his in-laws and that his wife visited China a few years ago.  She stated
that Applicant maintains regular contact with his relatives through phone calls and electronic
communications.  Though finding his love and concern for his family to be commendable, the Judge
concluded that Applicant did not mitigate the concerns arising from his connections in China.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that his circumstances raised security
concerns.  Among other things, he argues that his circumstances do not pose a risk of a conflict of
interest, contending that the concerns that the Judge identified are merely speculative.  He argues
that in the years during which he has held a clearance no actions have been taken against his
relatives by persons in China.  
However, the Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proved conduct or
circumstances under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06731 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 6, 2017).  In the case before us, Applicant
admitted the allegations in the SOR and the Government presented evidence of them as well, in the
form of Applicant’s answers in his SCA and in his clearance interview.  In addition, factors such as
the obscurity of an applicant’s foreign relatives or failure of foreign authorities to contact them do
not provide a significant measure of whether the applicant’s circumstances pose a risk.  Rather, it
is the nature of the ties themselves that raise a concern.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03112 at 4
(App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2015).  
Given evidence of China’s aggressive efforts to obtain U.S. protected information, its history
of monitoring electronic and telephonic communications (see Item 5, Administrative Notice
Documents, at p. 6), and Applicant’s apparently regular communications with his relatives, either
directly or through his spouse, we find no reason to disturb the presumption that there is a nexus
between Applicant’s circumstances and a concern that he could be placed in a conflict of interest. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00528 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017) for the proposition that there is
a rational connection between an applicant’s family ties in a country whose interests are adverse to
those of the U.S. and the risk that the applicant might fail to protect classified information.  See also 
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528-529 (1988) (“A clearance does not equate with
passing judgment upon an individual’s character.  Instead, it is only an attempt to predict his
possible future behavior and to assess whether, under compulsion of circumstances or for other
reasons, he might compromise sensitive information.  It may be based, to be sure, upon past or
3
present conduct, but it also may be based upon concerns completely unrelated to conduct, such as
having close relatives residing in a country hostile to the United States . . .”)
The balance of Applicant’s brief consists of a detailed presentation of his many academic
and professional accomplishments, his devotion to and support of his family in the U.S., and his
community activities.  He argues that the Judge erred by failing to contact one of his character
references, who he contends would have provided additional significant evidence in support of
Applicant’s clearance.  On this point, a Judge has no obligation to contact witnesses or conduct other
investigation or inquiry into a case.  To do so would be inconsistent with the Judge’s role as an
impartial fact finder.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-05310 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 2017).  The Judge
noted Applicant’s evidence, incorporating her findings about it into the Analysis.  Applicant’s
arguments do not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor do they
show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017).    
       
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in
favor of the national security.”
4
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
 
    
 
5