=R0 +\Tjp0< ]!;j'F,@ `'Gb'Y;턷}L?Z?ڎ!7!yB}|렱'C
E 76HV ɢV Ԓ:t ]D:?R}[7uyŭOV{B˷/~=bKdīc_gg7~ٟ'2|w + pV굎xCTlZ>v
q{iwv's#+篼4 C92qAԲ2wh`x8i4x!AJַ 1舫|"MTiUjZ5ҵ@/O6Fd0 < t4t!3g7 &/0 1bd{:jRa7uOқ%Hh's $~D%GGGE'QD]uIRqԭRJ*f407xz ŁeQJ.{u4E#犋P
1>Z-W;EΒbq]F(v)kfHbKFkf\$?FD'4G#W9sa(Ubz9mYMWӦiy1~~A҅'(Q/?kﰗX*=n<%ǧ#X0 Cf( 4Ppn'"uT}9Kf@DXl|,zrr[%僯% @?䨴 Mo@%b7^7c kqfy; /fc}+O|o)i0E~x:;:5OP@.3P0]u 9 %Ka=1B8Т. I5#al&.P~^ӚE U#ڲVִmͪhӚF$ח}q٧{}4F{#Nމ.W2%JD s*l0]NU QB]>+yWNߥI^( Ȣ,U5i[JRk71 M
j &Cc 3n0/a ޖȈ^6T<
h&En7鰾7ʩЎL9Qʳ)~^[fL $I+wҲ+W~A-?h&8t :t
Sd)2&jg78@%}mԳ[6|[P]{;@X?{T.} BOU ;5UbU7 2tqK7HJiՈp +^⭑/T ysF
ضPl)5Y*WȢl+fE!JcÅ{O=|X@Yƿ8G*&Eec A$RK E
B(ñ/H D}F (ق>dkkC6!XmP9,dea uPZO*e|!";/}he} *EaD8! kz?m'E--x->lA
CoB"#LD?ǫť
vmƕ˲O$\Rn)VMeOᕢa\x2SeU@+*V-n])jrug"غ" tv_hJZB K?p maP!xC78)=y7 \ƭ]`^Ymq[Pi6Q2P_r*Ox WU]
粫 dƕfrot'G/7wW'r˦jrfrp,Ucfb *!_O*7}xxD-,fc20 l}xl@Q)4 /CeXĘf/vořeec˾g4YԨTШa3 uJ Ԇ0R` )}(5`|t (@VD8.'G-4xLa zN CN.BRFi '0.Fa(U Ld П(Yj] sc
$U[{:?Ì7f
ƺio@Afl4_/ AcVB(lYaʦW[!
chZc[ uZ "JVOQi.&fZ e0 .2"?nSf
|CXu1y0pYj|Ky/W{{ QFɅBfٛfo0p8)28kGoj(K[|)w " G^Ox|VWwlgi .#M;89FR-[Ӌ`Og۹Vt}L+-j0X9/ftRd!r)nH@Z.l5y W5Wn`:SLkovZZ?_lF.g@ H@ z T@?Oфb`<?|5L}JP%>T^}(˵d!HTk^O(Ǩ1͖~å t#䯷^~IaFj_ZYΙLbȲrc)[fc$E&c* ! QbJҫG5Ysҏцhl01*(e`@~=~ ɃI|4hĐxM?(4";sNҺa J[4
6#/]G[mJ%&*j+m ҖTleو:P i-ut眄J{wP\}T\HcLL. /. =BӇ4C_Xp z֣K&I*'rңTom:Kxn4sx
!SE&TqQXVPd*RL jD5v^+h(F&hDFyZ aNQϐKep^ioY r9<20@}짳+FnC\ h6ҝ ]]f EL-F$q \p?ܹcOwR3Gy+?zGn } k}A7pN 8I(Qـ-lK"7Iaȼ`RSyF~:KhPkfXuu`KvjPhDܜp`g⍯NcP fV» fgs S75VOV̖F
>ax@Q &Ƴ$TF֢FC _l?ucBUxO ʣ|?5˿+ǹ߿?vym *
wvV7*8LV E5@aBl$E3CѭB3!Y<U0Gp5n+
:Y }N;
_[vN.ʵ5鏔x{MVdTGړnKuE
)4nb
mމ*1Qű&b32;ʰ|kQ vإR--kskJT)bhD0hXlHN9=ܶg_#e-"P杷j+$G }ґeyJ}'cM⧖_ Kl?MlD}47&鸉}9mGo:CAl k oo Ͱ';0N \`"&R , ư"( MxXGr,0OV-PŮ
d VK-tܦWr-} w9A}Kn9&wcDŽ yJЧ̧䟘/^_V^;j~Ue
L UK3IL^ ka7P*ь
c$bOQE&e>#Tǘ FD!' t%.CoCBz=Sv,]7X{R:W,"HZ#2ؤ
`WuILD6A{tVR^ X1[wO+يff'--awuTUH\ -MAi3O-7tY?=ۨ/ *S)]] "JiZ|OЬCsH)*C nK+FsAM@Ts!WY 0E,4 Ĵ9#IUU5Tk$ mN90uO&&mɥYjOB,
KQ3xL]VPX6bs;{#NH ߺl ބ
Q3 ~ؓ7{ =߈cD]71elJ6HI$a&/&;
>nHżYit4@T!c())MF#LWia^.\Z.5V5pҹ":\;۸LTwݎG #c7*h}TR~nɘ(T Q*q J5\̻J4&Z&b-ӭ^ 0q.^ g
x)_r ўO,ɄM {p(Dk!NQNa`D tJSA|W{l[W ^?}q s ?S;vnT.4}mE< &$hEJ*OPXk]5*4 *A@(:TWj8wu ;{>aZDGiq^d鶡zX6:jOs6c6m,jYL5b: inP})mn >i@ J (g g&(AtTnNhto]ER{xǒdGNőC'?M HyO}RpSo`ȼ1ozn@ &2r .;;44lNw vt)"iJ5ddltHН :EMuRܵDP` )Z
5QiHA'a ́ɤQg3AJZ-H%Èu~6v]"!t"cX-vDΥ!,@2Ļ`Iף|*/3߿~SH,Jg[#dI 0ӯ"Ws$o=ǜ3/Đ/OzMʤ[*_6QS%j
b "J*H Rs*9 oT-Ѱ&|[.;O) &(#[^&nsceƣi "h_j `[0/ K O'%
\%&HM 3k2v[,ݬukT3LI&FF:cdߚקE4[cM72b"24|
>t_{.lZ^h-ʉ :A!x3C*SJEuIMG>ij:FkJP]vP*&e
_" f`S[feDPې>5.v ǐ n"i!r9]^ Eʧܮґm? Zvw~3d_cC/L9Ke#[kglJV _Z4zbYh(q8xlz%w^?ob^Eq\꽭= h. <:Lba}nܳǍtڍLbLJޓ,'x+ca1[JkϟN̨WU-T)JR
/'![W+rni>aMp,X
U3tAk! I I|oy/31إ2{#d)N?a\G&eQ WT9|n=Abs@ڵЍEOf()\uP]btt
mh8]ErӮ;-idP }F 8
̦2!)R@V4X"w*D. L % BW
E
4A)>C0C1g)Vl(.5q5`ATR 86FejܾcaT֯E= s6>:D"ĉB6둓{% ːWE%r -\).|'pBTȓ:%Q9`]jqbHRu{-yt}lg 9۹sSr9N.|c}UkYL+B*J(AhK*"6MmJMtROPJ
$2!hR~9Z`=s/sYa5Z3͘3֔3cri_;ji7 3=i=VSz ?.E3,+K3ڌ>HKҴ s|F Cj ,*."eUTJPPT 7Ϛ ߗreX)[fʲLx%4cR,ˁ2Re^KV*e%%ˊY!SyXEtMEw HS EPW1.E&!":Q,zL llFcDn{UZ+{j r3i8?Zc:/7pF.W{1= +TU`Pv g>ݸ%6n-N ԙG8
;Hamz}xCݭ?ai#if2:'̤23E]MD,B bbTpkl$A
ar#ߪ7d>L9 T' g`FJЖzwK:䲔Fb.QF6l&" 8O(c*Rkd.͖PI s Zhf$h
ÔZbtc)\Lr
MtL@q? I! "AIwE7\Eժ_̠-|QA
D 7}'eU REEvyE"Q#G{+x+ź۱7 ;`G;6m-#ɛpD7UIIo& ԗG:`sz G <:D@`aNȂqj (إ'ds}b;p[&0 툟6-!e
jWO+
D\1Wp%;/$=Hs"9i H.%Aʓ\ Dh0<ZO{]d!IiM{-6홃)ς& .,_/Kס/_c/데Cc>$}rr
OOF#P SF6ӛHf]0n
ʡR4؞][tZz`b]XU_Ѷju~/gs}\[ 6-^__85T.YZ(t I<b.#t8W<9P@:k #} E0']tKn=6Mb߅ov
MS"B AwR=oKQ
c܀4/n '>&X o E$tqH*
]QMGw3vsړۏmj][," }H7@$XT4@+,<]}1\ǐ7yX4Qsmd3K7~w G_5P!>@ub"KO{8ۧɜܳR v|9:r.3sr'd٥|by2햤fc}ixcx<9zxniM8s,h0D w:upo% $Ŀg2z'_k}ʿ4n.О{ OvZӕ?Ҩ_L+hpirWDjj+HsQ7 |zh?[D$k?AF{]`&xE_.r3{ujUghZEHWs /3i49+d=G ݮV㨯D> $z6SPqvZ1k` H_NӠ3Q>I>E
CtB+qꓑB3-,' 'hO~o~g~&LgqӰ?݀r^uw}NtRf_D:J*s~APLxʐ4Y `Tς ϰooh?iu\a sĽ $"hCh #{fbq"~ߓ}*Js"lٷ}U;>̵چ*ޏ'\uT6P \6
n&Ph< GztEXOAEXKVe| u`.GNzVkQ]i6X
F"e۪QF=q0:`{ ~
P! &(_ǫuI hF_]XGw/iu =uU褐WAzO4c:>>?QRiV?/c5[>ET5|Is㶏վ.Z9I}
Ɓ _#8 ;6Z^xFE{ȷw Fβt7<4/hv< p{-%Gr.j-}U0-9f
aNZ!= ro)'csJ^o^rslVy}W#`,O!%*A6/5\cZ_>}W)Ș/P9 Ϫ 2 ^H*t7"F ^V#>y~'cVx`>ueYT̨\-1 *;m[BC( =AG{ cta{om =1Kٿt@h7Z!߰ev!@-?l0bcbx
K E:-`
~MS>Z!O])ѯclG=}NAw$*';p?8wVK4jj+"3M"vw#}#h[]aWm'؏}R<Gsfj[h{'=lbP We#X"o.'Om cw@ZT`ėP5.~Nј/" >ĶW +W샌<(ٳe>ʳ/&of{$ٟʦOy
]ϟxEl;c
PC O@۫q ΧN(.Y?
ǖcVyEA? [%%7 W ?w
p#?$CzW{!}(D ʶB7AqQn#HhJhFoeѵ=Oo/nf=LC w-?}X=H 6Z#G{~q#|~z
E+}k+u%Q=({>UϠhp;%ߣ.k>jIq\q 3_3;yQ߃Un܈>[nj~oݻ7$B$H@ P J:HeJ;PʨhANE6R[tZю/vP =l^rg~9=ߞw}Ğ"ba
定װ?_่\\= 8 ]> r Ǽm|1IISsy9:7Orcemv*I]BtPHj9;N%q9I{/3%RHܝ*z7i؇9ndl /50ᷰ(^k{2["z
>Hh6l\DXm>M\^'+5և6ojXsT屺V~ZK dL6Pm6 sK[Q Uc(R
N :0х=Pk}9ξQ
`L q>iB
uΠ4RΝ?ߍֿ # tHkٚEj{7XUx͏m ݰ9tK_ Kdzp J NʠO=G)])e"| Rʝ!h.G @q5z!XKgɓ̇WX9=o<3ߙ}>p.&՜I諶& j+$ԫ 1VhO?zoE+oJ ms$nǏiI.<ý{:w[K /BW~õ[ӄUpṂ
w^sK>8v
?Dc[ܘoD;lƳc;ѵyʍ;;{k;7~0>\X=p9dL. < )%
ՠX.5S `B+U䤞OG3ĵW X,r} O&Vlʐ ML
=Öwm#I?a+mN% }r-HYO7} ;Dc203@wHG+7%}zO)UOʰ=!߄%ҟ8=>L 9jNkyIio М[F.Ua;Q_.3 ]R N"p T獑pT{ܘUOx2pVF<:cVIB}k;J5u5cc-3 \oLrNx:*iOqLg
CA)3Eh@
Ucx?A(
"
KY e;K)߇g|_ Ѿ'wXٷ"=3W2?>o6zlRi99z8ғ X"=kujYƩZ]}5Iۤ۲mHsxޒ:auv~ rsnoy9Ac Eslf5fLe/O=t)Lv+8}߂ b(dF6;1Z ,7دCEIc|樍a}߄?#\8qcsy1c~ur=sLrҚߺî& Es_GwG|xѢq?^eir%^HD`Ƽ[k,pYj E~(+q{ł^[Ğ`,tzo~Oq^(8sޝ(Ý}m
>9Τ_WϪmጷ69]ʐ]T |mcpZ*@7;d=>\ #yrvp){Vga?mge5Es7K14Q0h:l>DqI o L""Ks;ԡi싳ne ~$_KY~8s1 wh6j)++.)"a-t,ca/iP촨_j
Aɵ+io- ; HZߗk?7͵Mm2+₅hEfg=̕.i[w F?7oSeegӡ nG &)J gZ*%uϒL|!#]'.϶(`S:mK ީ,ָaw БV;us6)^ezԳR@ N{*u_9 -9:Wbvz3`^ILp%Yw* a\ײZr4[p+()sѓo Wz3FI+U-{-m#k}[Jwr} )hH E$@`G!D
mA j;(T0<8T8J `hEC U"#=7^nlS7k}gַZY]k%kyAríVӳo+GpkVl{=*~}eW*w͇~c)}Ku >Љ~F['0m+i-!WRk4X^Q 9h"2rQn;Ѣc'|
B<]_6 U x1`cUw
m6䡾X2pHl]v>!O꾓XG[~JImKZ2I u-iu |z67:M59)5gCafDS-j|{>zjm =Skϑ)fdi"N R9:L.ս6A6)^u{LM
"_;LPo76{fK72jC #l&ֽkm
kM!Ag4n4'?Ft[gNKE#٪ S@U"5 ?/
F[ Y w(pwTe,=$#
e{X;{kxg?/"7ߢgG]u pg?`yN.;zIɶs=]۵{<>qgz]ɮq3
ϻwmc\x#{XNyv7b/:e6a?/w{w3ΡWIgYW Kfg:S>Ak0:ʧw orOvYu悬s+iP
<!JzԴi 洵-it )oFî3R7in 4TW3Mt4༑༷%] DgJyO*I&[e{|1
//զْM>&H`<5d1y7M҅7HP2/Ik9smp+*nz_,@ZG?Ho5 Tסjs@e{KFRt 6F[>#"C6'/U5ϴ.LJ/gJ$G*g#Ί+&1ƺ䥔ѡ-
mr|7dh
[6^*5 ߾ǥԃ[r?5VlG5yR-%6 d#Du32)7 )ηȬ <)7o'_G1b 7嬛c? }]%31Wd"iGr38{b^P 9J \ΦN-m~gɌY2J}F^wֵ*Ux/qI PzЯtjn_ǚ<)@n><7~ YJ<8S!V
ИfINl &W%[7zbNJ:qϝH=4Enz S$i xR2B0:a/c'$thpLߝ2(BlLC9saI]/Z( 4Q
{v+iȔƇntɉS~]钍̒M
(p9 :YIK
{[kj0{(Q. cvz<.c+pVx^Iy{LKHo#ȴ s"5R #3\{gS C=]m s tRo:>b/vx"zgmw0W.bV,)ƶAijk5hTN<r@W\q=n[(Qgap;T2/ҟ36֗LG26$:dJʣeY[fkU,26XJ?DZF 9\BOj-2)ySV[֞3=e#U67}'ǮrdԡǫqCw$gֲ#2}ZNsPz֏PGqG;w\Ǽgel1Ed"9aA(`8e=)~>.Y9d5#v,36W2 Rc+N;+ރAZWoRE<7q3Iyr8 ;x RRiM jq<s Y/rh'į!/o{2lZfq.D=XUm\EL컑} g5 p#ӴJW~ Ϥ
njnF 0n =4[@}Fj̀4g+Tm t?p:D1Kpw?Yx͚[_}⼃B{Ho]naw-<{n6K!u9X=w3ӰW_'lx&FnA7҅5<(Ѧ}Q! B?}h۟v1J]D_ z
g?e X7)\F
}FP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
mb#*o +*";y)@ ?u"7 %dԋhj6Y'˾fߴt
KwBҋh96cVkm|v&,>b- c=Eet8Rn J4mB-]!أE\ ߸ѴwbJ 덁obc Hho,Ÿ5#P*CC)%"z>uhXOrn:z$Gx,o IA9GDO1}Ѹnnԇ;x(}vipikt* 7n P*Qw Nh-v~ӷEua}c1n?yQn 'Rf ٿOUc ;|jY;ƮdYoep mai?r@#/,^h+Az8r'51ȅ
Rfj?L]i`8+=2͖ry%[>XGαTmO]0c&o0S&;ƿ8Sزv*ÏO ;$(9u᧠ 9 &F qȃvaaװ`q!` %{mfA~}U߆eԅoտ)/YQ|>9ԅUƆd%'ys}!tIAic;YL& 2hf=f@HGQDn%
B|lmFfmFDLg\pwq(O3$ʽ`B0XU=Ŷfj}8d?f}ueTǧk% B-muճ%eªg+n N3QK|o/7f ccژCk\m+?QL8l1(]]Wd(
큝͠q6N( 5/85yVRx:)Oh?)<`nXBQsBͅVg`^ t &m ʂoN韔m
k$h::Dmo-be Eyy7ZUi5ZZY&;ޝ}>rؤy ; M{ Ps&@(eHvb2کlWZ55ih@j l]|TV ct_ kJ[}.&sj*w~m`(-
?xD qnI@
~qY`Q<3 0 \ + 9' 2=?>~>w> |m hFxw0 7Uo39SSQިQQ8zJ/3RZsi پbH60(1~qɟ;1fL>6ne
Q[Mȿ%9 Q=BVOgھOZ("2k8A߂AWHi/7Gv74T}K| ^6XzS ?ρ4:x$ EqƖёkW|2?9%h/haO( 51Vx*f݃4p
^F
SSO@v˸J'C95!hxK+ryFUx j)zwI . LGEyT7$mH\@߅ MKd6
(fv`#%-ޤC KPq
CD?n;
TӁC]@_ İN;DQDȉHn2u[S|}kV*jRWkf捍ypk-yz Zʽ_Ni܂/TojTZ7#*H/Y u91o,rC
JYSN+ʲ"PeӘW5X
Gbí65:
.^ p0yI>(/s# <#\iUPªpKXG~Ƅ0+ L+JqKQ_21O* zj 3 ,"uX,-B/|ZA%x?.߇ A8> ## ,-@Z>/y֢44hN}->R#=R ctw?
ڃNUt BШRU kZuDA+'J
U*V1kvQ ͢W S'
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-07651.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/01-07651.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:17:48 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 39.75 591.75 725.999 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge considere\
d all the evidence unless the Judge specifically)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(states otherwise. )Tj
6.859 0 Td
(Furthermore, Administrative Judges have broad latitude and discretion in\
how they write their)Tj
-6.859 -1.125 Td
(decisions, and there is no )Tj
10.331 0 Td
(requirement that a Judge specifically cite and discuss each and every pi\
ece of record evidence.)Tj
-10.331 -1.125 Td
(The ability of an appealing party to point to favorable evidence not cit\
ed or discussed by a Judge, standing alone, is not)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(sufficient to overcome the rebuttable )Tj
14.966 0 Td
(presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.41 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No.)Tj
-40.708 -1.125 Td
(00-0621 \(January 30, 2002\) at p. 3. )Tj
(However, Applicant's appeal contention goes beyond pointing to the Judge\
's failure)Tj
T*
(to cite or discuss the testimony of Applicant's two )Tj
20.205 0 Td
(witnesses and identifies an erroneous characterization of Applicant's)Tj
-20.205 -1.125 Td
(evidence in the decision below. )Tj
12.829 0 Td
(Given the erroneous characterization of Applicant's evidence in the deci\
sion, the Judge's)Tj
-12.829 -1.125 Td
(failure to cite or discuss the testimony of Applicant's two witnesses )Tj
27.147 0 Td
(takes on added significance.)Tj
-27.147 -2.125 Td
(Assuming, solely for the purposes of deciding this appeal, that the Admi\
nistrative Judge erred by failing to cite or)Tj
T*
(discuss the testimony of Applicant's two witnesses, would such error war\
rant remand or reversal? )Tj
39.253 0 Td
(Error is harmless if:)Tj
-39.253 -1.125 Td
(\(1\) there is not a )Tj
6.803 0 Td
(significant chance that, but for the error, the Judge would have reached\
a different result; or \(2\) there is)Tj
-6.803 -1.125 Td
(not a significant chance that the error fatally affects an otherwise sus\
tainable decision. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.709 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 00-0250)Tj
-34.709 -1.125 Td
(\(July 11, 2001\) at p. 6. )Tj
(Under that )Tj
13.803 0 Td
(standard, the Judge's failure to cite or discuss the testimony of Applic\
ant's two)Tj
-13.803 -1.125 Td
(witnesses would be harmless error in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge found that Applicant engaged in deliberate fals\
ifications on six separate occasions: in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(September 1990 \(SOR 1.a\); in October 1995 \(SOR 1.b\); in November 199\
7 \(SOR 1.c\); in April 1998 \(SOR 1.d\); in)Tj
T*
(October 1999 \(SOR 1.e and )Tj
(SOR 1.f\); and March 2000 \(SOR 1.g\). )Tj
(The Judge's findings of falsification on those six)Tj
T*
(occasions reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence and\
are sustainable. )Tj
35.066 0 Td
(To the extent Applicant)Tj
-35.066 -1.125 Td
(challenges some of the Judge's findings of falsification, his )Tj
23.842 0 Td
(appeal arguments are not persuasive.)Tj
-23.842 -2.125 Td
(Given the Administrative Judge's sustainable findings that Applicant eng\
aged in deliberate falsification on six separate)Tj
T*
(occasions during the period 1990-2000, it is highly unlikely that remand\
ing the case to the Judge with instructions to)Tj
T*
(explicitly discuss the testimony of Applicant's wife and the President o\
f Applicant's employer would result in a)Tj
T*
(favorable decision. Even if the Judge were to accept the testimony of bo\
th those witnesses as sincere, credible, and)Tj
T*
(truthful, their testimony did not undercut or )Tj
17.664 0 Td
(undermine the Judge's findings of Applicant's multiple acts of falsifica\
tion.)Tj
-17.664 -1.125 Td
(Furthermore, the testimony of those two witnesses does not really suppor\
t Applicant's contention that the two witnesses)Tj
T*
(helped establish that his "prior misdeeds are remote from all )Tj
24.346 0 Td
(foreseeable future conduct." )Tj
11.514 0 Td
(Applicant's contention is)Tj
-35.859 -1.125 Td
(arguable with respect to his past use of cocaine, but it is not arguable\
with respect to his multiple acts of falsifications,)Tj
T*
(which the Judge found occurred as late as March 2000. )Tj
22.298 0 Td
(Since the Judge based his )Tj
10.47 0 Td
(adverse decision on Applicant's)Tj
-32.769 -1.125 Td
(multiple acts of falsification, not Applicant's past cocaine use, Applic\
ant's contention on this point fails to show harmful)Tj
T*
(error by the Judge. )Tj
(Moreover, to the extent Applicant cites the testimony of the two witness\
es as )Tj
38.796 0 Td
(demonstrating his)Tj
-38.796 -1.125 Td
("moral and religious reformation and his dedication to family and commun\
ity," the favorable nature of their testimony)Tj
T*
(cannot be considered in isolation from the record evidence that Applican\
t engaged in multiple acts of falsification,)Tj
T*
(including acts of falsification during the period of his moral and relig\
ious reformation and his dedication to family and)Tj
T*
(community.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(For all these reasons, no useful purpose would be served by remanding th\
e case to the Judge with instructions to issue a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(new decision in which he specifically discussed the testimony of Applica\
nt's two witnesses.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(I concur with my colleagues' conclusions that Applicant's other appeal a\
rguments fail to demonstrate error below.)Tj
T*
(For all the foregoing reasons, I concur with my colleagues' determinatio\
n to affirm the Administrative Judge's adverse)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(security clearance decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 130.5 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 105.75 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-07651.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/01-07651.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:17:48 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(required the Judge to conclude that Applicant's disqualifying conduct wa\
s mitigated. )Tj
34.061 0 Td
(Nor does the Board have any basis)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(to conclude that Judge weighed the evidence in an arbitrary and )Tj
25.74 0 Td
(capricious manner. )Tj
7.858 0 Td
(Absent such a conclusion, the Board)Tj
-33.598 -1.125 Td
(will not disturb the Judge's weighing of the evidence. )Tj
21.565 0 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate error.)Tj
-21.565 -2.125 Td
(4. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge failed to apply appropriate mitigating \
factors)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 702 cm
0 0 m
382.881 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 410.8809 702.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant argues that, setting aside)Tj
-32.907 -1.125 Td
(the conclusion that his answers concerning the circumstances of the term\
ination of his Navy employment and his 1997)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(cocaine involvement )Tj
8.552 0 Td
(were false, then his giving of false answers on security clearance quest\
ionnaires at other times was)Tj
-8.552 -1.125 Td
(remote in time, there was evidence of rehabilitation and there is an ove\
rwhelming probability that the conduct will not)Tj
T*
(recur. )Tj
(In the alternative, Applicant argues )Tj
16.881 0 Td
(that, even when his failure to disclose the circumstances of his employm\
ent)Tj
-16.881 -1.125 Td
(termination and his1997 drug use are viewed negatively, the "elements in\
the Directive which mitigate against an)Tj
T*
(adverse decision are met." )Tj
10.765 0 Td
(The Board construes this argument as )Tj
15.33 0 Td
(raising the issue of whether the Judge properly)Tj
-26.094 -1.125 Td
(considered mitigating factors.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge is required to weigh the evidence of record, bo\
th favorable and unfavorable, before reaching)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(his ultimate security clearance decision. )Tj
16.216 0 Td
(Absent a showing by Applicant that the Judge weighed the evidence in a)Tj
-16.216 -1.125 Td
(manner that was arbitrary, )Tj
10.746 0 Td
(capricious or contrary to law, the Judge's evaluation will not be distur\
bed on appeal. )Tj
33.893 0 Td
(A)Tj
-44.639 -1.125 Td
(review of the totality of the record evidence indicates that the Judge's\
conclusion that the various mitigating factors did)Tj
T*
(not operate to overcome the government's case is )Tj
19.896 0 Td
(sustainable. )Tj
4.943 0 Td
(Moreover, the Judge listed the applicable mitigating)Tj
-24.839 -1.125 Td
(factors in his decision and discussed in some detail why they did not ap\
ply. )Tj
30.356 0 Td
(Applicant has failed to proffer an argument)Tj
-30.356 -1.125 Td
(on appeal that cites with specificity why the Judge erred in his )Tj
25.16 0 Td
(consideration of the mitigating factors.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-3.393 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to meet his burden on appeal of demonstrating harmf\
ul error. )Tj
32.99 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge's decision)Tj
-32.99 -1.125 Td
(is affirmed.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 411 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 386.25 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 309 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 284.25 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.531 -2.125 Td
(Separate Opinion of Chairman Emilio Jaksetic, concurring)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-11.531 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, Applicant contends the Administrative Judge ignored certain r\
ecord evidence, specifically the testimony of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(two witnesses who appeared on his behalf at the hearing. )Tj
23.021 0 Td
(Applicant's claim is not frivolous. )Tj
13.79 0 Td
(However, I conclude that)Tj
-36.811 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's appeal )Tj
7.622 0 Td
(arguments demonstrate, at most, harmless error by the Judge that does no\
t warrant remand or)Tj
-7.622 -1.125 Td
(reversal.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge did not properly apply the w\
hole person concept because he failed to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consider important evidence favorable to Applicant. )Tj
21.076 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant notes that the decision)Tj
-21.076 -1.125 Td
(below states "The Applicant )Tj
11.572 0 Td
(relied on his own testimony and three exhibits" \(Decision at p. 2\), an\
d that the decision)Tj
-11.572 -1.125 Td
(below does not refer to or cite the testimony of either of the two witne\
sses who testified on Applicant's behalf.)Tj
T*
(Applicant's arguments raise a nonfrivolous issue.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-07651.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/01-07651.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:17:48 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 754.5 Tm
(adequate to support a conclusion in )Tj
14.385 0 Td
(light of all the contrary evidence in the same record. )Tj
21.13 0 Td
(In making this review, the)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of t\
he Administrative Judge." )Tj
39.174 0 Td
(Directive, Additional)Tj
-39.174 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
15.356 0 Td
(The Board must )Tj
6.693 0 Td
(consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting a)Tj
-22.05 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detract\
s from the weight of the evidence supporting those)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(findings. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0205 \(October 19, 2000\) at p. 2.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When a challenge to an Administrative Judge's rulings or conclusions rai\
ses a question of law, the Board's scope of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(review is plenary. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.386 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 87-2107 \(September 29, 1992\) at pp. 4-5 \(citing feder\
al cases\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
13.839 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. Whether the Judge failed to consider all the record evidence. )Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 609.75 cm
0 0 m
306.205 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 322.2051 610.5 Tm
(Applicant argues on appeal that the Administrative)Tj
-25.517 -1.125 Td
(Judge failed to consider all the record evidence. )Tj
19.353 0 Td
(Specifically, Applicant points to the testimony of two witnesses which)Tj
-19.353 -1.125 Td
(was never referred to in )Tj
9.745 0 Td
(the Judge's decision. )Tj
8.457 0 Td
(Applicant notes that in the Judge's statement of the case he wrote "The)Tj
-18.202 -1.125 Td
(Applicant relied on his own testimony and three exhibits." )Tj
23.57 0 Td
(Applicant interprets the Judge's language to mean that the)Tj
-23.57 -1.125 Td
(Judge did not consider the testimony of the two )Tj
19.247 0 Td
(witnesses. )Tj
(There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge considered all)Tj
-19.247 -1.125 Td
(the evidence. )Tj
5.525 0 Td
(Additionally, an Administrative Judge is not required to mention every p\
iece of evidence in his decision.)Tj
-5.525 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's appeal argument points to language which, when )Tj
24.59 0 Td
(viewed in isolation, may rebut the presumption. )Tj
19.357 0 Td
(However,)Tj
-43.948 -1.125 Td
(the Board has reviewed the testimony of the two witnesses and the whole \
of the Judge's decision. )Tj
39.116 0 Td
(Some of the)Tj
-39.116 -1.125 Td
(background evidence concerning Applicant that is discussed in the Judge'\
s decision )Tj
33.644 0 Td
(derives in part from the testimony of)Tj
-33.644 -1.125 Td
(the two witnesses Applicant claims the Judge ignored. )Tj
21.968 0 Td
(On balance, the Board concludes that Applicant has failed to)Tj
-21.968 -1.125 Td
(overcome the presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all th\
e record evidence. )Tj
37.126 0 Td
(Even if the )Tj
4.637 0 Td
(Board accepts)Tj
-41.764 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's assertion that the Judge ignored the witnesses' testimony, t\
he Board concludes that the witnesses' testimony)Tj
T*
(is not of sufficient weight to diminish the magnitude of Applicant's mul\
tiple false official statements on security)Tj
T*
(clearance )Tj
4.024 0 Td
(forms over several years beginning in 1990. )Tj
17.829 0 Td
(Therefore the Board concludes that any failure to consider the)Tj
-21.853 -1.125 Td
(testimony on the part of the Administrative Judge would constitute harml\
ess error.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Judge erroneously found that Applicant had falsified securit\
y clearance questionnaires regarding)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 395.25 cm
0 0 m
525.135 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 382.5 Tm
(circumstances of an employment termination and an instance of 1997 drug \
use)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 381.75 cm
0 0 m
377.555 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 393.5547 382.5 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant argues on appeal that his)Tj
-31.463 -1.125 Td
(responses on security clearance )Tj
12.828 0 Td
(questionnaires concerning the circumstances of his termination from the \
Navy and the)Tj
-12.828 -1.125 Td
(circumstances of his contact with cocaine in 1997 were not false, and th\
ere was no basis for the Administrative Judge to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(conclude that Applicant had engaged in falsification )Tj
21.131 0 Td
(when answering the questions. )Tj
12.525 0 Td
(Applicant answered "no" to a)Tj
-33.657 -1.125 Td
(question requiring him to disclose instances when he left employment und\
er less than favorable circumstances.)Tj
T*
(Applicant also failed to disclose a 1997 contact with cocaine when answe\
ring a )Tj
31.962 0 Td
(question about illegal drug use. )Tj
12.775 0 Td
(The)Tj
-44.737 -1.125 Td
(record evidence showed that because of illegal drug use while on active \
duty, Applicant was facing a show cause)Tj
T*
(hearing that could have resulted in his involuntary discharge from the N\
avy. )Tj
30.741 0 Td
(Applicant accepted a general )Tj
11.827 0 Td
(discharge)Tj
-42.568 -1.125 Td
(from the Navy in lieu of proceeding through the hearing process. )Tj
26.214 0 Td
(In 1997, Applicant was at a social gathering where his)Tj
-26.214 -1.125 Td
(hosts, a couple, offered him cocaine. )Tj
14.911 0 Td
(Applicant did not "snort" the cocaine with his hosts, but at one point r\
an his finger)Tj
-14.911 -1.125 Td
(through )Tj
(some cocaine residue on a mirror and then touched his finger to his tong\
ue. )Tj
33.713 0 Td
(On appeal, Applicant argues that)Tj
-33.713 -1.125 Td
(the fact that he was discharged from the Navy with a general discharge d\
oes not mean that the discharge was granted)Tj
T*
(based on misconduct, and that )Tj
12.331 0 Td
(acceptance of the discharge was done in order to expedite his longstandi\
ng request to get)Tj
-12.331 -1.125 Td
(out of the service. )Tj
7.414 0 Td
(He also argues that the amount of the substance he ingested during the 1\
997 incident was too small to)Tj
-7.414 -1.125 Td
(be considered "use.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board concludes Applicant's arguments lack merit. )Tj
22.451 0 Td
(The Judge's adverse findings and conclusions on both events are)Tj
-22.451 -1.125 Td
(sustainable interpretations of the record evidence. )Tj
20.131 0 Td
(The ability of an appealing party to argue for an alternative)Tj
-20.131 -1.125 Td
(interpretation of the record )Tj
10.995 0 Td
(evidence does not establish arbitrary or capricious reasoning on the par\
t of the)Tj
-10.995 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge. )Tj
9.082 0 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate error.)Tj
-9.082 -2.125 Td
(3. Whether the Judge gave Applicant's testimony adequate weight.)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 101.25 cm
0 0 m
319.4 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 335.4004 102 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant cites an extensive passage of his testimony)Tj
-26.617 -1.125 Td
(from the hearing which the Board construes as an argument that the quote\
d passage should have been given great weight)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(in support of )Tj
(mitigating Applicant's falsifications. )Tj
20.149 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge did not conclude that Applicant's)Tj
-20.149 -1.125 Td
(falsifications were mitigated. )Tj
11.885 0 Td
(The Judge did cite Applicant's faith and family in the decision, both of\
which are)Tj
-11.885 -1.125 Td
(discussed in the quoted passage. )Tj
13.164 0 Td
(The Board )Tj
4.499 0 Td
(cannot conclude that the quoted passage is of sufficient weight to have)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
44 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-07651.a1.html)
endobj
43 0 obj
<>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 46
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003645 00000 n
0000141272 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003578 00000 n
0000003718 00000 n
0000003745 00000 n
0000140828 00000 n
0000140869 00000 n
0000140638 00000 n
0000004381 00000 n
0000132424 00000 n
0000127018 00000 n
0000120468 00000 n
0000003848 00000 n
0000003894 00000 n
0000003943 00000 n
0000004134 00000 n
0000004006 00000 n
0000004038 00000 n
0000004070 00000 n
0000004102 00000 n
0000004592 00000 n
0000009590 00000 n
0000009639 00000 n
0000009675 00000 n
0000010183 00000 n
0000010632 00000 n
0000067596 00000 n
0000067863 00000 n
0000032185 00000 n
0000032458 00000 n
0000011019 00000 n
0000011295 00000 n
0000011655 00000 n
0000032943 00000 n
0000068473 00000 n
0000120668 00000 n
0000127218 00000 n
0000132635 00000 n
0000140723 00000 n
0000141077 00000 n
0000140911 00000 n
0000141219 00000 n
trailer
<<34B52F6FDC9E7E4DBDB31E0C58E26095>]>>
startxref
141445
%%EOF