ISCR Case No. 16-01030.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 16-01030 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 15, 2017

______________

______________

ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) on April 9, 2015. On June 25, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 28, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on September 7, 2016. The case was assigned to me on September 12, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 26, 2017. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted without objection. The Government also requested that I take administrative notice of various facts concerning Taiwan. (Tr. 16- 17.) Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through W, which were also admitted without objection.

At the close of the evidence and closing arguments, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.1 Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written notice on January 31, 2017, that Department Counsel did not object. (Tr. 47-50; Judge Exhibit I.)

Applicant has a mother, two brothers, and a sister who are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant entered the United States in 1994, and became an American citizen in 2001. She has been married to a native-born American citizen since 1993, and has two native-born American children. Applicant has considerable financial assets in the United States and none in Taiwan. Her ties to the United States far outweigh her ties to Taiwan. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline B. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8 (a), 8(b), and 8(c).

The concerns over Applicant’s relatives in Taiwan do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge

1 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.