ÿWPCg ¯N>è°;$p„Dg(ï÷‰Õ(ô ÎŒèÞYób_®vÐâ<{+XÆIXGM¦ÏÜó7W=5Ï‚Ð…×c÷,Þß'=¬<Ø§ÔB•‡xÙ3É•SóW×~¬ÓÃ»ˆ—¼=qQšvÁU_Ï©-S\ÍEAÍÕUJx]†ZåðbÆ¹¬s^kù+e!Xy(:“€ýa"Æ¨FæÑò ƒS¦_<;f£Ç¥J›ÖKÇ±" Å’ÚrûJ{É*²n#ìú4XŸŒ7¤í[Õ>t¤FÍUÍe_ÔË…nè<Ô·YBual„‰jùÂ]ÆãG+ô¨õXO…OâtÏ²ÿ&T’²ö4¿¹QÀ¼8Ù@»¦‹y,àŽõ ÒOþ2ŠZ#ÉìUNµ % 0: ^C wO 4S g v mx àZ àZé 0©CCEì¸î0D¦ àZê NDNFFNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BJ˜Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 SeriesÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ôñ€ºJ;E•J3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2Ï$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝÝÔ€ôðòXXÔÓÓààòòÚÚ0Ú Úóó ®Ý ƒ Ï$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôðòXXÔÓÓààòòÚÚ1Ú ÚóóÝÝÔ_ÔApplicantððs€hearing€testimony€and€his€submissions€upon€remand€state€that€this€device€was€not€a€laptopÐ ° Ðcomputer,€but€a€personal€data€assistant€(PDA).€€Tr.€at€99;€Applicant€Response,€dated€November€8,€2016,€at€6.€€This€isÐ tÄ Ða€hand„held€computer.€€(#Ã$òòÚÚ0Ú Úóó8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEdÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€Guideline€BÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€In€the€case€before€us,€the€Judge€discusses€why€he€concluded€that€the€security€concernÐ ˆØ Ðarising€from€the€presence€of€Applicantððs€in„laws€in€Taiwan€was€mitigated.€In€that€context,€heÐ tÄ Ðspells€out€in€some€detail€the€specific€circumstances€of€Applicantððs€Taiwanese€in„laws.€FavorableÐ `° Ðdecision€affirmed.Ð L œ ÐÌÔ_ÔCASENOÔ_Ô:€14„05986.a2Ð $t ÐÌDATE:€05/26/2017Ð üL ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôààà` àà¸ààààhààÀààààpàDATE:€May€26,€2017Ð Ô$ ÐÌÌÌÒ.Ø‰ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€Y) °°xdE°ƒgAßÐ „Ô ÐÌIn€Re:Ð Ï ÐÌàà„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìàà€Ð C“ ÐÌApplicant€for€Security€ClearanceÐ k ÐÌßA€Y) °°xdE°ògAßÐ óC Ð)Ð „Ô Ð)Ð pÀ Ð)Ð \¬ Ð)Ð H˜ Ð)Ð 4„ Ð)Ð p Ð)Ð \ Ð)Ð øH ÐÐ ä4 ÐÓp°œXÓÌÌÌàpàÔ_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€14„05986Ð H˜# ÐÐ 4„$ ÐÒ.Ø‰ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓÐ ¼$ ÐòòÓÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ ¨ø% ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ l¼( ÐóóÌÔ‡&ö%XXÔòòFOR€GOVERNMENTóóÐ D!”* ÐJohn€Ô_ÔBayardÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGlendonÔ_Ô,€Deputy€Chief€Department€CounselÐ "l+ ÐÌòòFOR€APPLICANTóóÐ Ì#- ÐòòòòPro€seóóóóÔ#†XùdX%&ö#ÔÐ ¤$ô. ÐÌÓÓÌààThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€security€clearance.€€On€MayÐ R'¢"1 Ð21,€2015,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€for€thatÐ >(Ž#2 Ðdecisionð!ðsecurity€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€B€(Foreign€Influence)€of€Department€of€DefenseÐ *)z$3 ÐDirective€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€€On€JuneÐ *f%4 Ð30,€2016,€after€the€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)€Administrative€JudgeÐ +R&5 ÐRoger€C.€Wesley€granted€Applicantððs€request€for€a€security€clearance.€€Department€Counsel€appealedÐ î+>'6 Ðpursuant€to€Directive€ðððð€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.€€On€October€14,€2016,€the€Appeal€Board€remandedÐ Ú,*(7 Ðthe€case€to€the€Judge€to€correct€certain€identified€errors.€€On€January€19,€2017,€the€Judge€issued€hisÐ Æ-)8 ÐDecision€on€Remand.€€Department€Counsel€appealed€this€Decision€pursuant€to€the€Directive.Ð ° ÐÌÔ_ÔààDepartment€Counsel€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€whether€the€Judgeððs€mitigationÐ ˆØ Ðanalysis€was€unsupported€by€the€record€evidence€and€whether€the€Judgeððs€whole„person€analysis€wasÐ tÄ Ðerroneous.€€Consistent€with€the€following,€we€affirm.€Ð `° Ð€ÌààòòThe€Judgeððs€Findings€of€FactóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌààApplicant€married€his€wife€in€Taiwan€in€the€mid„1990s.€€Applicantððs€mother„in„law€and€twoÐ ` Ðsiblings„in„law€are€citizens€and€residents€of€Taiwan.€€Both€siblings€performed€mandatory€service€inÐ üL Ðthe€Taiwanese€military.€€Applicant€has€little€contact€with€his€Taiwanese€in„laws.€€His€wife€maintainsÐ è 8 Ðbi„monthly€contact€with€them,€which€is€less€frequent€than€in€the€past.€€Ð Ô$ ÐÌààBetween€2003€and€2009,€Applicant€worked€on€a€Government„funded€program€that€requiredÐ ¬ü Ðhim€to€travel€to€the€Peopleððs€Republic€of€China€(PRC).€€This€travel€was€fully€authorized€by€hisÐ ˜è Ðemployer.€€During€one€of€these€visits€his€laptop×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚÚ1Ú ÚóóÝÝ× ×€was€stolen€from€his€hotel€room.€€The€laptopÐ „Ô Ðcontained€only€open„source€information€and€no€classified€information.Ð pÀ ÐÌààApplicant€committed€two€security€violations€in€2010.€€He€received€a€verbal€warning€forÐ H˜ Ðpossessing€ð ðunmarked€media€or€a€DVD€containing€classified€information.ðð€€Remand€Decision€at€5.€Ð 4„ ÐA€month€later,€he€failed€to€secure€a€safe€containing€classified€information.€€The€safe€was€in€hisÐ p Ðsupervisorððs€office,€and€Applicant€mistakenly€believed€that€the€supervisor€was€still€in€the€building.€Ð \ ÐHe€received€a€ð ðwrite„upðð€for€this€infraction€and€was€required€to€receive€remedial€training.€€òòIdóó.Ð øH ÐÌààIn€2013,€another€Government€agency€denied€Applicant€access€to€sensitive€compartmentedÐ Ð Ðinformation€and€revoked€his€security€clearance.€€This€action€was€based€upon€Applicantððs€familyÐ ¼ Ðconnections€in€Taiwan€and€his€travels€in€the€PRC.€€It€is€not€clear€if€his€security€infractions€were€alsoÐ ¨ø Ðcited€as€a€basis€for€the€revocation.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌààTaiwan€is€a€multi„party€democracy.€€However,€the€PRC€does€not€recognize€TaiwanððsÐ l¼ Ðindependence,€insisting€instead€upon€ð ðone€China.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€9.€€The€PRC€is€Taiwanððs€largest€tradingÐ X ¨ Ðpartner.€€Taiwan€is€an€active€collector€of€U.S.€economic€and€proprietary€information,€as€is€the€PRC.€Ð D!” ÐThese€activities€on€behalf€of€Taiwan€have€resulted€in€criminal€and€civil€charges.€€The€PRC€seeks€toÐ 0"€ Ðacquire€intelligence€through€multiple€sources,€including€through€illegal€means.€€Ð #l! ÐÌààòòThe€Judgeððs€AnalysisóóÐ ô$D # ÐÌààThe€Judge€concluded€that€Applicant€had€effectively€rebutted€the€presumption€that€he€has€tiesÐ Ì&"% Ðof€affection€or€obligation€to€his€Taiwanese€in„laws.€€He€found€that€Applicant€had€no€opportunity€toÐ ¸'#& Ðdevelop€bonds€of€affection€for€them€through€his€wife.€€He€stated€that€Applicant€had€ð ðdemonstratedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconvincingly€that€he€has€no€emotional€attachments,€feelings€of€obligation,€or€regular€or€even€casualÐ )à$( Ðcontact€with€his€wifeððs€relatives€in€Taiwan.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€16.€€He€found€that€over€the€years€Applicant€hasÐ ° Ðacquired€no€ties€or€obligations€to€any€foreign€person€or€entity€ð ðthat€could€possibly€compromise€hisÐ œì Ðloyalties€or€commitments€to€the€United€States.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€17.€He€also€noted€that€Applicantððs€wife€is€nowÐ ˆØ Ða€naturalized€U.S.€citizen€and€that€Applicant€is€considered€highly€reliable€on€the€job.€€The€JudgeÐ tÄ Ðstated€that€Applicant€has€no€further€security€infractions€since€2010€and€that€whoever€took€hisÐ `° Ðcomputer€has€not€tried€to€contact€him€in€the€years€since€the€theft.€€The€Judge€concluded€thatÐ L œ ÐApplicant€had€effectively€mitigated€any€security€concerns€arising€from€his€relatives€in€Taiwan.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌààòòDiscussionóóÐ ` ÐÌààThere€is€a€strong€presumption€against€the€grant€or€maintenance€of€a€security€clearance.€€òòSeeóóÐ è 8 ÐòòDorfmont€v.€Brownóó,€913€F.€2d€1399,€1401€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€denied,€óó499€U.S.€905€(1991).€€TheÐ Ô$ Ðapplicant€is€responsible€for€presenting€evidence€to€rebut,€explain,€extenuate,€or€mitigate€admitted€orÐ À Ðproven€facts.€€The€applicant€has€the€burden€of€persuasion€as€to€obtaining€a€favorable€decision.€Ð ¬ü ÐDirective€ðð€E3.1.15.€€The€standard€applicable€in€security€clearance€decisions€ð ðis€that€a€clearance€mayÐ ˜è Ðbe€granted€onlyòò€óówhen€ððclearly€consistent€with€the€interests€of€the€national€security.ðððð€òòDepartment€ofÐ „Ô Ðthe€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988).€€ð ðAny€doubt€concerning€personnel€being€considered€forÐ pÀ Ðaccess€to€classified€information€will€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€national€security.ðð€€Directive,Ð \¬ ÐEnclosure€2€ðð€2(b).€Ð H˜ ÐÌààIn€deciding€whether€the€Judgeððs€rulings€or€conclusions€are€erroneous,€we€will€review€theÐ p ÐJudgeððs€decision€to€determine€whether:€€it€does€not€examine€relevant€evidence;€it€fails€to€articulateÐ \ Ða€satisfactory€explanation€for€its€conclusions,€including€a€rational€connection€between€the€facts€foundÐ øH Ðand€the€choice€made;€it€does€not€consider€relevant€factors;€it€reflects€a€clear€error€of€judgment;€it€failsÐ ä4 Ðto€consider€an€important€aspect€of€the€case;€it€offers€an€explanation€for€the€decision€that€runs€contraryÐ Ð Ðto€the€record€evidence;€or€it€is€so€implausible€that€it€cannot€be€ascribed€to€a€mere€difference€ofÐ ¼ Ðopinion.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„02563€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Aug.€28,€2015).Ð ¨ø ÐÌààDepartment€Counsel€argues€that€the€Judgeððs€decision€does€not€address€a€fundamentalÐ €Ð Ðdifficulty€sometimes€posed€by€foreign€in„laws.€€That€is,€while€an€applicant€may€not€be€close€to€aÐ l¼ Ðspouseððs€parents€or€siblings,€a€sense€of€obligation€to€them€can€arise€from€the€òòspouseððsóó€affections€andÐ X ¨ Ðfamilial€loyaltiesð!ðconcern€for€oneððs€spouse€may€well€result€in€a€derivative€concern€for€the€spouseððsÐ D!” Ðfamily.€€We€have€long€held€that€there€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€person€has€obligations€to€theÐ 0"€ Ðimmediate€family€members€of€his€or€her€spouse.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„03112€at€3,€n.1€(App.Ð #l! ÐBd.€Nov.€3,€2015).€€Department€Counsel€further€argues€little€is€known€about€Applicantððs€in„laws.Ð $X" ÐIn€the€case€before€us,€the€Judge€discusses€why€he€concluded€that€the€security€concern€arising€fromÐ ô$D # Ðthe€presence€of€Applicantððs€in„laws€in€Taiwan€was€mitigated.€€In€that€context€,€he€spells€out€in€someÐ à%0!$ Ðdetail€the€specific€circumstances€of€Applicantððs€Taiwanese€in„laws€(òòe.g.,óó€they€had€served€in€theÐ Ì&"% ÐTaiwanese€military€but€that€service€was€thirty„five€years€ago€and€Applicantððs€inability€toÐ ¸'#& Ðcommunicate€with€in„laws€due€to€language€differences,€etc.).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌààDepartment€Counsel€argues€that€the€Judgeððs€whole„person€analysis€runs€contrary€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðweight€of€the€record€evidence.€€He€argues€that€the€analysis€is€essentially€conclusory€and€does€notÐ h+¸&* Ðsufficiently€address€the€evidence€viewed€as€a€whole.€€However,€we€conclude€that€the€Judge€followedÐ T,¤'+ Ðthe€remand€instructions€regarding€the€whole„person€analysis.€€The€Judge€considered€non„allegedÐ @-(, Ðconduct€for€the€permitted€limited€purposes.€€To€the€extent€any€argument€suggests€that€the€JudgeÐ ° Ðshould€have€founded€an€adverse€decision€primarily€on€non„alleged€conduct,€the€Board€declines€toÐ œì Ðcontravene€the€Directive€ðð€4.3.1.€or€Executive€Order€10865,€SECTION€3€(1).€€We€find€no€harmfulÐ ˆØ Ðerror€in€the€Judgeððs€analysis€or€conclusions.Ð tÄ ÐÌààGiven€the€record€before€him,€the€Judge€articulated€a€ration€explanation€for€his€favorableÐ L œ Ðdecision.€€An€appealing€partyððs€disagreement€with€a€Judgeððs€decision€is€not€sufficient€basis€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablish€that€the€Judge€erred.€€ISCR€Case€No.14„05013€at€4€(App.€Bd.€Sep.€27,€2016).€€The€BoardÐ $t Ðconcludes€that€the€Judgeððs€favorable€security€clearance€decision€is€not€arbitrary,€capricious,€orÐ ` Ðcontrary€to€law,€given€the€record€before€him.€€òòSeeóó€Directive€ðð€E3.1.32.3.Ð üL ÐÌÌà@ââ(ìàòòOrderóóˆÐ À ÐÌààThe€Decision€is€òòAffirmed€óó€àhààÀààààpàÐ ˜è Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàÌÌÌààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàòòSigned:€Michael€Raððanan€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Lœ Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàMichael€RaððananÐ 8ˆ Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàAdministrative€JudgeÐ $t Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ ` ÐÌÌÌààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàòòSee€Dissenting€Opinion€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ À Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàJames€E.€MoodyÐ ¬ü Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàAdministrative€JudgeÐ ˜è Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ „Ô ÐÌÌÌààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàòòSigned:€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ 4"„ Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàJames€F.€DuffyÐ #p! Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàAdministrative€JudgeÐ $\" Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ ø$H # ÐÌòòÌà@¸ ¸ ìàDissenting€Opinion€of€Administrative€Judge€James€E.€MoodyóóˆÐ ¼'#& ÐÌààI€respectfully€disagree€with€my€colleaguesðð€resolution€of€this€case.€€The€record,€viewed€as€aÐ ”)ä$( Ðwhole,€does€not€support€a€favorable€whole„person€analysis.€€A€proper€whole„person€analysis€requiresÐ €*Ð%) Ða€Judge€to€consider€an€applicantððs€circumstances€in€light€of€the€evidence€as€a€cumulative€whole.€€ItÐ l+¼&* Ðcan€include€consideration€of€conduct€that€is€not€alleged€in€the€SOR.€€€€Ð X,¨'+ ÐÐ D-”(, ÐààThe€Judgeððs€comments€about€the€paucity€of€evidence€concerning€Applicantððs€foreign€relativesÐ ° Ðdraw€attention€to€the€insufficiency€of€Applicantððs€case€for€mitigation.€€When€viewed€in€light€ofÐ œì ÐApplicantððs€two€security€infractions€and€evidence€that€he€was€denied€a€clearance€by€another€agencyÐ ˆØ Ðbased€on€his€foreign€relatives€and€travels,€the€record€does€not€support€a€whole„person€assessment€thatÐ tÄ Ðall€doubt€about€Applicantððs€eligibility€for€a€clearance€has€been€resolved€in€favor€of€national€security.€Ð `° ÐDirective,€Enclosure€2€ðð€2(b).€€Department€Counsel€argues€that€the€totality€of€the€evidence€weighsÐ L œ Ðheavily€against€a€favorable€decision,€and€I€find€this€to€be€persuasive.€€I€would€reverse.€€€€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðààà` àà¸ààààhàÌÌÌààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàòòSigned:€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ è 8 Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàJames€E.€MoodyÐ Ô$ Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàAdministrative€JudgeÐ À Ðààà` àà¸ààààhààÀàMember,€Appeal€Board