CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-10843.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-10843.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-10843.a1

deniedNov 20, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a U.S. citizen originally from South Korea, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to trustworthiness concerns. The appeal board affirmed this adverse determination, citing the applicant's failure to provide sufficient information regarding foreign contacts and relationships.

Specifically, the applicant did not adequately demonstrate the extent of his financial assets in the U.S., Taiwan, or South Korea. This lack of clarity regarding both family ties and financial holdings, both domestically and abroad, contributed to the unfavorable outcome.

Furthermore, the applicant's appeal brief introduced new evidence that could not be considered during the appeal process. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding foreign contacts and relationships.
The applicant did not demonstrate the extent of his financial assets in the U.S., Taiwan, or South Korea.
The applicant's brief relied on new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts to the Applicant to establish any appropriate mitigating conditions.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 29, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 28, 2007Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 20, 2007Appeal board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Burden of Persuasion for Trustworthiness Determinations
Insufficient Evidence Regarding Foreign Contacts
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline B DIGEST: Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts to the Applicant to establish any appropriate mitigating conditions. In this case the Judge noted that Applicant had presented no information several aspects of his foreign contacts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-10843.a1 DATE: 11/20/2007 DATE: November 20, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 05-10843

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness determination. On December 29, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 June 28, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness determination. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal as raising the following issue: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error we affirm. The Judge made the following findings: Applicant was born in South Korea. He subsequently emigrated to the U.S. and became a U.S. citizen in 1999. His mother is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Taiwan. He has two brothers, both of whom are U.S. citizens. One brother works in South Korea, the other in Taiwan. His parents-in-law, sisters-in-law, and brothers-in-law are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant has traveled to Taiwan on eight occasions since moving to South Korea in 2004. In analyzing the case, the Judge noted that Applicant presented no information (1) concerning his relationship with his in-laws or what positions they hold in Taiwan; (2) when Applicant came to the U.S.; (3) the extent of any close relatives or relationship in the U.S.; or (4) the extent of his financial assets in the U.S., Taiwan, or South Korea. The Judge stated that he was not able to conclude that Applicant had met his burden of persuasion for a favorable trustworthiness determination. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. (Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish any appropriate mitigating conditions.) Applicant’s brief relies on new evidence. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board