WPC:  4s`LGY噳 Ns41L͈C*^-~Z >/4gjPRR"\x\%{ .R> R05'mM"+$JI>>15o ;H~969 GbQ 1[Bꠟaءɯvk>E0Fj[ ߝt~tJ90}JqpCQJs7^aY7Lm;uh4@'zfrK#<̆H90?CAvYF ΋!0S~Θgm= |?RH(&5 amended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthewrittenrecord.OnMarch232017, +*'6 afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge ,(7 MartinH.MoguldeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealedpursuant -)8 toDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.      Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary,  capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. t _  TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  `     Applicantadmittedthathecommittedsixsecurityviolationsbetween1991and2010. <  Applicantwrotethathetakeshisresponsibilitiesveryseriously,theallegedincidentswerenotthe ( x resultofdisregardofprocedures,hehaslearnedfromhismistakes,andheismuchmorecareful  d today. WhileithasbeenseveralyearssinceApplicantwaslastcitedorinvolvedwithsecurity  P  violations,noindependentevidence,suchascharacterletters,employmentevaluations,or  <  _counselling_Ԁorremedialsecuritytrainingreports,hasbeenintroducedtoestablishthatApplicanthas (  significantlychangedhisconducttoinsurethattheseviolationswillnotoccurinthefuture....   Decisionat5.TheJudgeconcludednomitigatingconditionsappliedinthiscase.     Discussion      ApplicantchallengestheJudgesconclusionthatnoindependentevidencewasintroduced ` toestablishthathesignificantlychangedhisconducttoensuresecurityviolationswillnotoccurin L thefuture.Inthisregard,hepointsoutthat,inhisresponsetoDepartmentCounselsFileof 8 RelevantMaterial,herequestedthattheGovernmentprovidetheJudgewiththeresultsofhis $t coworkersinterviewsthatwereobtainedduringhissecurityinvestigationbecausehebelievedthose ` interviewswouldhavepositivestatementsconcerninghisemphasisonsecurity,overallstability,and L suitabilityforapositionoftrust.Wedonotfindthisargumentpersuasive.BecauseApplicant 8 admittedthesecurityviolationsallegedinthe_SOR_,hewasresponsibleforpresentingwitnessesand $ otherevidenceinrebuttal,explanation,extenuation,ormitigation.Healsohadtheultimateburden  ofpersuasionforobtainingafavorableclearancedecision.DirectiveE31.15.DepartmentCounsel  hadnoobligationtopresentevidenceinmitigation.TherecordpresentedtotheJudgedidnot  containtheresultsofthecoworkersinterviews.Fromourreviewoftherecord,wefindnoerrorin  theJudgeschallengedconc_lusion_. p   Intheappealbrief,Applicantsubmittedcharacterletters,employmentevaluations,training H! records,andotherdocumentsthatwerenotpresentedtotheJudgeforconsideration.Such 4"  documentsconstitutenewevidencethattheAppealBoardcannotconsider.DirectiveE31.29.  #p!     TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe $H # decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay %4!$ begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department & "% oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt ' #& concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor (#' ofthenationalsecurity. )$(  D-(, Ї     ` &%XX@@( #X@X%&#Order &%XX@Ԉ  _#X@X%&#_    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . `    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields  d    `     h   WilliamS.Fields  P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge  <     `     h   Member,AppealBoard (     `     h        `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,AppealBoard L    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy________________________________________________________ L    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board&%XX@#X@X%&I)#___