Loading case…

ISCR 09-02907.a1: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2010) · CASE

ISCR Case 09-02907.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02907.a1

deniedMar 31, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Taiwan, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The denial stemmed from her familial ties in Taiwan and an ongoing, contentious inheritance dispute.

Specifically, the applicant failed to mitigate concerns related to her relatives in Taiwan, which included potential influence and threats made against her. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding a rational connection between the evidence presented and the decision to deny trustworthiness.

The applicant's arguments on appeal did not demonstrate that the judge mis-weighed the evidence. The denial was based on Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 6 and AG ¶ 8, which were not sufficiently addressed.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from her relatives in Taiwan.
The judge found a rational connection between the evidence and the decision to deny trustworthiness.
The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the judge mis-weighed the evidence.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 8raisedForeign Preference

Key rule quoted

“The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 24, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 4, 2010
Decision dateMar 31, 2010

Cite for

Trustworthiness Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Impact of Familial Disputes on Security Clearance Decisions
Evaluation of Evidence in Trustworthiness Determinations

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

KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from the presence of her relatives in Taiwan. Disagreement with a Judge’s decision is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-02907.a1 DATE: 03/31/2010 DATE: March 31, 2010 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 09-02907

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On August 24, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 4, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness designation is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following relevant findings: Applicant was born in Taiwan, moving to the U.S. in the mid-1980s. She became a U.S. citizen in the late 1990s. Applicant has five siblings who are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Recently, Applicant’s father died, and she and her siblings embarked upon a protracted disagreement as to the amount of her father’s estate that Applicant should receive. The dispute became contentious, and at least two siblings have threatened Applicant. One of them, B, has a history of financial problems. He left a voice message on Applicant’s telephone threatening to kill her and her husband if she did not relinquish her share of their father’s estate. Taiwan is a multi-party democracy. It engaged in industrial espionage in the 1990s. There have also been more recent efforts by Taiwan to obtain protected information and some evidence that Taiwan has targeted U.S. citizens to that end. The Judge took into account record evidence favorable to Applicant, and resolved several of the allegations in her favor. However, he also noted evidence which was less favorable to Applicant’s goal of receiving a trustworthiness designation. He noted that Applicant has frequent communications with one of her siblings. He also stated that there is a risk that Taiwanese intelligence agencies could attempt to induce cooperation with their efforts to obtain U.S. protected information. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s weighing of the evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 06-14978 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2008). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board