NyѢZbTc.B_QW[ wB1Q ӌ e#S}(9 ~d(
E-7!
Gu -11
~އ.q-%ug [~[р?6y#]Ŀ/߰Zag7B0in;ó|fn3 mn
N;鷵߁K;\
I8)x KyP. {|9arcda`&
.'-W'z:?.O_?% w= OXI!1/=;ÔwM$VE(J:M ?ʅҏ6nɺ ~RO,.ٿ&/F%)Cd m6&}c7JWZ+~ h
ԖbW5
@*юB)ğR9R#<,Nsebo{윪E菁ic L p
t,K̓|'e4KVo1
5ZމPGi
Isc,3|4XoT0鞨!ZwZ~Vz/̕9_r2%9MJ3rOstAt.۠
oO|7zM
2ٞIGض߅g aǿ9h}\gNemuiz}lTfaȤ4= V,}q=ktjY)1Xl}5Q۠3ٌ5՟z}ݼD7l9[vn]5hh!OrM~e/Og\o
qoB
pNKxdL%1o٭CEI8c}3ROozh o)@Ƅ c.{~yz|O36img9uz a 4Eu8feиΟ{wi}샔\g gh$"yr sޯ5xف倢#s?R{4JvWXKcK3^n9Vmyy?K;218s'{[nyjs W8e2(-5Vo2~ _zD
&f C@/0L^IU?YMks\c4Ά2i7ifCgiԹx$s_GpR.rf_'/㽕[yBGz Sv
m
2
`
; \ahN V`m针1<bKa$t?limnhh\"As/Ö/Gce;]:Mޒ+ec6z
2Sc܃09g{I0@r#m @ )MB<
!@TDieЂkϷe38_ye!udGڙR5c$ $ιqk%9/)gJNp(bvl: Mg-iLYR#Z^cz'Vcm~K٧֏-}`θ ~z
u/JuǜVsg'j;6xu6G~EF]>zamβ$ 7HW8,N8d)T8]ڏIJj+!5*}N>}
:FS,D~09~!<5z_
!WCNsvc+~#M[uq{%eI_#]m 7ߠ#sބ[t!qU
|t '}i#-]I"%*;
kkX#_b2 T_{*쾓 A L; g ,~ùw*v.c 0'YX=Fo湇X>yX{M^?{ݷip]iN9;; f.:k ݡX8̋٘۳sFFT=Suͤ:z_'
1w_%,AL[ mA)wO}8=.%| ~&gy^6
'@ t7w؎>mKuV[X9kUՇOZ`Z#AǡS^tήYvRњ_-4Ь WK )1oK 9Ȉw6<_DLn*~?GRrd$L, fH/3^zP|)9io!gn nE \kI"hע4CT㑷8uj5pr4ޒ*3L
5[^Pdk'e@ddpUN63+$%ܳwKo9 %:Ǽ)䥔d
kon tMX4@v^N y?CzzpK 0x/O\qKl:KyD*h eμ.5 3l|{܃ɣ%[0Ѧgb=bYpb ~4ɪȴ}\`_oDF<;Hܫ%oYu _#wv?J;`ֶׇyyeދ;n0K?eNXڹ
2
+r+yhOQv.#M2єH;uytT)4-__/
pl}o':qH4UnzS$ixR2B0>a`''thpLҞ#/ateP fhHC1c/`I]/Z=+,4I9c-ie-lUʳƇnG@֩c LAP`byDVSHs8ْ*'뽦5ur XĀQSSY-cpx>YYYleG^TdK} yL$2# Htԇ o ̖KVc >qJ08sԹ = @& $ 9^ gݩw+} Eޠ <`jK=˶ 8Ir"F* P_x.|L9Ƚ5ڂlozlR(]1]z
O)gV軨PܟgyqgE:/H> |/2U<aY/"Ō]N}߹+Ӱ:/U?9(^x#nFN0Fd
QxX/qBmxgsO`>۟p._Q7X)-hV `2Klcw{'b8s̫;agU 5{PN|yoʼl~
Sen߱f_;UWqgỠ̄ u\^XJ*2rqZ^*Vkwٯ5ow 5ψ~*}{牪1)xWNBB\YoL&MwޔsN5V :c;2nIg8]))IŽX}fKx3\ĝҢ߿;mw}g fVSI 3*g< ueR>nvs$'oud q= /{ I0.hrNyǔp19B 7
(a/d
+~FwULW `c9̻$j u+uX,7l~,KS VZ87v v= 6=@8O냼+
68}sa;S`0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0p%M?G(Z +?4P)3S9͔K*pstik~}_q Xc .V; CGQ? O 5XEل8b$=іuL%g.Q͜ZDhuʢXz7a]hGVza۽lG8ی D=Dy~kZXj91BJd?Ur "z ;]B6(kP{s̶wf*u/
T;c݄TX{N> NDi߮-]B7TtF4ZVjM_
C'9kBZ#řK vkO+GDXA͢KϷOGfrdS<Ox'þK3i˶p,(hVcxoRF {$T Y&+XH=! C]nwdCoV=:#N{1-7mp fV?$?q_s0A/ B{֍ :?t~x%`
D-<<wy؎h=X*.oiiiPݒ> 0 ·
?@B fgVlJ [:B-3"陾}7\>D;ܾ|K ] i 3˃?2a6 .i tk@?qY0ŸNxǥ2pٟcy`N|q%_ӟ~~0Fcc y`pQ $q(1$>Zů"NJ;`Y^:嘣En!Hbҍ5VuȢ\2?9> A/Ydon*Ը~_ci#[UTn*}qmh%z-N⫞3[[NǮi#b{YeUvbB{َ
J;r,^fO6 Sv>lUi'ВLzF!Y` 0ǐ
endstream
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-12452.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/01-12452.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:21:13 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 317.25 591.75 448.5 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
(any recommendation about whether Applicant's case should be considered f\
or a waiver under 10 U.S.C. \247986\(d\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
/TT1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 277.1992 729.75 Tm
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate the Administrative Judge's decision \
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Furthermore, under the terms of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.523 0 Td
(Operating Instruction for adjudicating cases under 10 U.S.C. \247986, th\
ere is no need)Tj
-14.523 -1.125 Td
(for the Board to make any recommendation about whether Applicant's case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.364 0 Td
(should be considered for a waiver under 10)Tj
-30.364 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. \247986\(d\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 637.5 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 612.75 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 535.5 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 510.75 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 16 433.5 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 408.75 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
("A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.")Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-12452.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/01-12452.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:21:13 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 16 753 Tm
(For the reasons discussed earlier in this decision, the Board concludes \
Applicant is not entitled to \(a\) or \(b\). )Tj
43.239 0 Td
(Resolution)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 739.5 Tm
(of the last item of relief requested by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.995 0 Td
(Applicant warrants a discussion of the adjudication of cases under 10 U.\
S.C. \247986.)Tj
-14.995 -2.125 Td
(Under 10 U.S.C. \247986, the Department of Defense may not grant or rene\
w a security clearance for a defense contractor)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(official or employee that falls under any of four statutory categories [\
10 U.S.C. \247986\(c\)\(1\) through \(c\)\(4\)]. Pursuant to)Tj
T*
(10 U.S.C. \247986\(d\), the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the\
military department concerned may authorize an)Tj
T*
(exception to the statutory prohibition against granting or renewing a se\
curity clearance for cases covered by 10 U.S.C.)Tj
T*
(\247986\(c\)\(1\) or 10 U.S.C. \247986\(c\)\(4\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In a June 7, 2001 memorandum implementing the provisions of 10 U.S.C. \247\
986, the Deputy Secretary of Defense)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(indicated: "The decision as to whether a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.264 0 Td
(particular case involves a meritorious case that would justify pursuing \
a request)Tj
-16.264 -1.125 Td
(for waiver shall be the province of the DoD Component concerned \(i.e. a\
ll)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.018 0 Td
(Components authorized to grant, deny or)Tj
-30.018 -1.125 Td
(revoke access to classified information\) beginning with the Director of\
the Component Central Adjudication Facility)Tj
T*
(\(CAF\), the Component appellate authority or other appropriate senior C\
omponent official." )Tj
36.815 0 Td
(For purposes of the June 7,)Tj
-36.815 -1.125 Td
(2001 memorandum, the Director,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.607 0 Td
(DOHA is the Director of the Component Central Adjudication Facility for \
industrial)Tj
-13.607 -1.125 Td
(security clearance cases.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To implement the June 7, 2001 memorandum, the Director, DOHA issued an o\
perating instruction \(dated July 10, 2001\))Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(which indicates the following:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("Administrative Judges are responsible for initial resolution as to whet\
her or not 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the facts of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(the case." )Tj
(\(Operating Instruction,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.515 0 Td
(paragraph 2.e.\))Tj
-13.515 -2.125 Td
("In the event of an appeal raising an issue as to the applicability of 1\
0 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal Board is responsible for)Tj
T*
(final resolution of the issue." )Tj
11.795 0 Td
(\(Operating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.582 0 Td
(Instruction, paragraph 2.f.\))Tj
-16.376 -2.125 Td
("In the event of a final determination that 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the\
facts of a case, the Director is solely responsible)Tj
T*
(for the discretionary decision as to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.051 0 Td
(whether to recommend to the Deputy General Counsel \(Legal Counsel\) tha\
t 10)Tj
-14.051 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986 should be waived by the Secretary of Defense." )Tj
23.958 0 Td
(\(Operating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.582 0 Td
(Instruction, paragraph 2.g.\))Tj
-28.54 -2.125 Td
("If an Administrative Judge issues a decision denying or revoking a clea\
rance solely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge shall include)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.164 0 Td
(without explanation either the statement 'I recommend further considerat\
ion of this)Tj
-14.164 -1.125 Td
(case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or 'I do not recommend further)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.825 0 Td
(consideration of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C.)Tj
-26.825 -1.125 Td
(986.'" )Tj
(\(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.e.\))Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("If the Appeal Board issues a decision denying or revoking a clearance s\
olely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Board shall include without explanation)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.247 0 Td
(either the statement 'The Appeal Board recommends consideration of this \
case)Tj
-16.247 -1.125 Td
(for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or 'The Appeal Board does not recommend)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.77 0 Td
(consideration of this case for a waiver of 10)Tj
-29.77 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986.'" \(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.f.\))Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("In any case in which the Administrative Judge, or the Appeal Board in t\
he event of an appeal, recommends)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consideration of a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.135 0 Td
(Director shall within his sole discretion determine whether or not to)Tj
-19.135 -1.125 Td
(forward the case to the Deputy General Counsel \(Legal Counsel\) for fur\
ther consideration)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.237 0 Td
(of a possible waiver of 10)Tj
-36.237 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986 by the Secretary of Defense together with such rationale as m\
ay be requested by the Deputy General)Tj
T*
(Counsel \(Legal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.387 0 Td
(Counsel\)." )Tj
(\(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.g.\))Tj
-6.387 -2.125 Td
(Under paragraph 2.f. of the Operating Instruction, the Board is responsi\
ble for resolving any appeal as to the)Tj
T*
(applicability of 10 U.S.C. \247986. )Tj
13.027 0 Td
(In this case,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.999 0 Td
(Applicant does not dispute that his 1983 conviction falls under 10 U.S.C\
.)Tj
-18.025 -1.125 Td
(\247986. )Tj
(All that remains for the Board to do is consider Applicant's request tha\
t it)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.063 0 Td
(recommend further consideration of his)Tj
-32.063 -1.125 Td
(case for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. \247986\(d\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Under paragraph 3.f. of the Operating Instruction, the Board must make a\
recommendation for or against a waiver under)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(10 U.S.C. \247986 "[i]f the Appeal Board)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(issues a decision denying or revoking a clearance solely as a result of \
10 U.S.C.)Tj
T*
(986." )Tj
(Since the Board concludes that is not arbitrary or capricious for the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.511 0 Td
(Administrative Judge to base his adverse)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 40.5 Tm
(decision on Guidelines E and J in addition to his application of 10 U.S.\
C. \247986, there is no need for the Board to make)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-12452.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/01-12452.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:21:13 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
(1993 incidents \(which resulted in convictions\) are relevant; and \(c\)\
Applicant's 1983 conviction for burglary is mitigated)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(by his youth at the time, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.609 0 Td
(the positive evidence of his personal and professional life since the 19\
83 conviction.)Tj
-11.609 -2.125 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, it was not arbitrary or capriciou\
s for the Administrative Judge to consider the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence concerning the facts and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.799 0 Td
(circumstances surrounding Applicant's 1989 and 1999 arrests. )Tj
25.063 0 Td
(Since the Judge could)Tj
-38.862 -1.125 Td
(consider Applicant's conduct on those occasions, the Judge could)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.341 0 Td
(consider Applicant's conduct on those occasions for)Tj
-26.341 -1.125 Td
(purposes of deciding whether to apply Personal Conduct Disqualifying Con\
dition 5. )Tj
33.884 0 Td
(Considering the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.61 0 Td
(record as a whole,)Tj
-40.495 -1.125 Td
(it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to apply Personal Condu\
ct Disqualifying Condition 5 in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding an adverse security\
clearance decision is warranted under)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 636 cm
0 0 m
542.449 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 623.25 Tm
(Guidelines E and J, independent of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 622.5 cm
0 0 m
188.619 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 204.6191 623.25 Tm
(application of 10 U.S.C. \247986)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 204.6191 622.5 cm
0 0 m
143.654 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 348.2734 623.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge specifically concluded)Tj
-27.689 -1.125 Td
(that "Applicant's ineligibility to hold a security clearance is not base\
d solely)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.636 0 Td
(on the applicability of 10 U.S.C. 986, but is)Tj
-30.636 -1.125 Td
(based on the totality of the evidence against him, as discussed above." \
)Tj
28.29 0 Td
(Applicant contends the Judge erred in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.384 0 Td
(reaching)Tj
-43.674 -1.125 Td
(that conclusion. )Tj
6.582 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: \(a\) his 1983 burglary\
conviction and his 1993)Tj
-6.582 -1.125 Td
(conviction for driving under the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.024 0 Td
(influence are the only two acts of criminal conduct demonstrated by the \
record)Tj
-13.024 -1.125 Td
(evidence; \(b\) his 1993 conviction for driving under the influence, sta\
nding alone,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.713 0 Td
(should not be a disqualifying)Tj
-32.713 -1.125 Td
(condition under Guideline J; and \(c\) the only rational basis for the J\
udge to render an adverse security clearance)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(decision would be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.526 0 Td
(to apply 10 U.S.C. \247986 to his 1983 burglary conviction. )Tj
22.999 0 Td
(Applicant's arguments fail to demonstrate)Tj
-30.525 -1.125 Td
(the Judge's challenged conclusion is arbitrary, capricious,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.256 0 Td
(or contrary to law.)Tj
-23.256 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's first argument fails to demonstrate the Administrative Judge\
erred. )Tj
31.644 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the)Tj
-31.644 -1.125 Td
(Judge did not act in an arbitrary or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.051 0 Td
(capricious manner by considering under Guideline E the facts and circums\
tances of)Tj
-14.051 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's conduct at the time of the incidents that resulted in the 19\
89)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.979 0 Td
(and 1999 arrests. )Tj
(Even if the Judge concluded)Tj
-28.979 -1.125 Td
(that the 1989 and 1999 incidents did not involve criminal conduct by App\
licant, the Judge was not precluded)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.852 0 Td
(from)Tj
-43.852 -1.125 Td
(considering Applicant's conduct on those occasions, in light of the reco\
rd evidence as a whole, under Guideline E.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's second argument also is not persuasive. )Tj
20.842 0 Td
(Under the whole person concept \(Directive, Section 6.3; Enclosure)Tj
-20.842 -1.125 Td
(2, Items E2.2.1 and E2.2.3\), it would)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.026 0 Td
(be arbitrary and capricious for the Administrative Judge to consider App\
licant's)Tj
-15.026 -1.125 Td
(1993 driving under the influence conviction in isolation from his other \
conduct. )Tj
32.132 0 Td
(Furthermore, even if the 1993)Tj
-32.132 -1.125 Td
(conviction, standing alone, was not sufficient to warrant an adverse sec\
urity clearance decision, the Judge had to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consider)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(whether the totality of the 1983, 1989, 1993 and 1999 incidents raised q\
uestions about Applicant's security)Tj
T*
(eligibility. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.389 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Enclosure 2, Item E2.2.4)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.05 0 Td
(\("Although adverse information concerning a single criterion may)Tj
-20.438 -1.125 Td
(not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may b\
e disqualified if)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.211 0 Td
(available information reflects a)Tj
-35.211 -1.125 Td
(recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, \
or emotionally unstable behavior."\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
42.618 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-42.618 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 00-0365 \(May 16, 2001\) at p. 4 \("Security clearance adjudications\
must be based on an evaluation of the)Tj
T*
(whole person, not a piecemeal analysis of an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.133 0 Td
(applicant's past conduct and present circumstances. )Tj
20.756 0 Td
(Conduct or)Tj
-38.889 -1.125 Td
(circumstances that, if considered in isolation, might not warrant an adv\
erse security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.68 0 Td
(decision still can be)Tj
-37.68 -1.125 Td
(evidence of poor judgment, unreliability, or untrustworthiness that supp\
orts an overall adverse security clearance)Tj
T*
(decision in light of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.249 0 Td
(totality of the record evidence."\).)Tj
-9.249 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's third argument also fails to demonstrate the Administrative \
Judge erred. )Tj
33.783 0 Td
(That argument is premised on)Tj
-33.783 -1.125 Td
(Applicant first and second arguments. )Tj
15.44 0 Td
(As)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(discussed in the preceding paragraphs, those two arguments are not)Tj
-15.44 -1.125 Td
(persuasive. )Tj
(Whether viewed individually or collectively, Applicant's three arguments\
do)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.558 0 Td
(not persuade the Board that the)Tj
-35.558 -1.125 Td
(only rational basis for the Judge to render an adverse security clearanc\
e decision was to apply 10 U.S.C. \247986 to)Tj
T*
(Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1983 burglary conviction. )Tj
15.372 0 Td
(Even if 10 U.S.C. \247986 had not been enacted, the Judge's findings and\
)Tj
-15.372 -1.125 Td
(conclusions under Guidelines E and J provide a sufficient)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.3 0 Td
(basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's)Tj
-23.3 -1.125 Td
(security eligibility.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
(Whether the Board should recommend Applicant's case be considered for a \
waiver under 10 U.S.C. )Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 115.5 cm
0 0 m
480.68 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 508.6797 116.25 Tm
(\247986)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 508.6797 115.5 cm
0 0 m
24 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 532.6797 116.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant)Tj
-43.057 -1.125 Td
(asks the Board to give him the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.415 0 Td
(following relief: \(a\) reverse the Administrative Judge's decision "ins\
ofar as it concludes)Tj
-12.415 -1.125 Td
(that [Applicant] is disqualified from a security clearance under)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.351 0 Td
(Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) and Guideline J)Tj
-25.351 -1.125 Td
(\(Criminal Conduct\) for reasons other than the requirements of 10 U.S.C\
. \247986"; \(b\) render a Board decision)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.397 0 Td
(that)Tj
-43.397 -1.125 Td
(concludes the only basis for an adverse security clearance decision in A\
pplicant's case would be the application of 10)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(U.S.C. \247986; and \(c\) recommend)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.497 0 Td
(Applicant for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
45 0 obj
[47 0 R]
endobj
46 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-12452.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/01-12452.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:21:13 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm
(When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Boar\
d must determine whether "[t]he)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.425 0 Td
(by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as)Tj
-21.425 -1.125 Td
(adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence i\
n the same record. )Tj
35.516 0 Td
(In)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(making this review, the)Tj
-35.516 -1.125 Td
(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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.582 0 Td
(Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
10.775 0 Td
(The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence suppor\
ting a)Tj
-15.356 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.758 0 Td
(that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those)Tj
-20.758 -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.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(87-2107 \(September 29, 1992\) at pp. 4-5 \(citing federal cases\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
13.839 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by giving undue weight to two arr\
ests for which the charges were dismissed)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 570.75 cm
0 0 m
560.18 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 558 Tm
(later)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 557.25 cm
0 0 m
21.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 37.3164 558 Tm
(. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge found)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.72 0 Td
(that Applicant was arrested on four occasions \(in 1983, 1989, 1993, and\
1999\))Tj
-15.496 -1.125 Td
(and that Applicant was convicted after the arrests in 1983 and 1993. )Tj
27.464 0 Td
(Even)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(though the Judge found the charges against)Tj
-27.464 -1.125 Td
(Applicant were dismissed on two occasions \(in 1989 and in 1999\), the J\
udge concluded the facts and circumstances)Tj
T*
(underlying those arrests reflected adversely on Applicant's judgment und\
er Guideline E. )Tj
35.503 0 Td
(Applicant contends the Judge)Tj
-35.503 -1.125 Td
(erred in giving any weight to those)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.191 0 Td
(arrests because: \(a\) they did not result in convictions; \(b\) there i\
s no credible record)Tj
-14.191 -1.125 Td
(evidence that Applicant engaged in criminal conduct on those occasions; \
\(c\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.739 0 Td
(the record evidence does not support the)Tj
-30.739 -1.125 Td
(Judge's conclusion that Applicant's conduct on those occasions demonstra\
ted poor judgment; \(d\) Applicant's exercise)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
47.141 0 Td
(of)Tj
-47.141 -1.125 Td
(his right to a jury trial in connection with the 1999 arrest is not a di\
squalifying condition; and \(e\) the Judge erred by)Tj
T*
(finding that the 1999 charge was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.33 0 Td
(dismissed because the arresting officer did not appear in court. )Tj
25.297 0 Td
(For the reasons that)Tj
-38.626 -1.125 Td
(follow, the Board concludes Applicant's arguments fail to demonstrate th\
e)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.922 0 Td
(Judge committed harmful error.)Tj
-29.922 -2.125 Td
(The fact that an applicant has been arrested, standing alone, does not p\
rove that the applicant engaged in criminal)Tj
T*
(conduct. )Tj
3.666 0 Td
(However, the absence of a criminal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.41 0 Td
(conviction is not dispositive. )Tj
11.75 0 Td
(Even if criminal charges have been dropped)Tj
-29.825 -1.125 Td
(or dismissed, Department Counsel can present evidence to prove an applic\
ant has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.851 0 Td
(engaged in the conduct that was the)Tj
-32.851 -1.125 Td
(basis of the criminal charges. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.94 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0119 \(September 13, 1999\) at p. 2. )Tj
25.718 0 Td
(Dismissal of criminal)Tj
-37.658 -1.125 Td
(charges does not preclude an Administrative Judge from considering wheth\
er there is record evidence that an applicant)Tj
T*
(has engaged in the conduct that formed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.967 0 Td
(the basis of those charges. )Tj
10.719 0 Td
(Furthermore, the absence of a criminal conviction)Tj
-26.686 -1.125 Td
(does not preclude a Judge from considering whether an applicant's conduc\
t)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.254 0 Td
(demonstrates poor judgment under)Tj
-30.254 -1.125 Td
(Guideline E. )Tj
5.304 0 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, the Judge did not act in an arbitrary\
or capricious manner by taking into)Tj
-5.304 -1.125 Td
(account the evidence pertaining to Applicant's conduct on the occasions \
that resulted in his arrests in 1989 and 1999.)Tj
T*
(Furthermore, the Judge's conclusion that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.455 0 Td
(Applicant's conduct on those two occasions reflects adversely on his jud\
gment)Tj
-16.455 -1.125 Td
(for purposes of Guideline E is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to\
law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board does not read the Administrative Judge's decision as holding a\
gainst Applicant the fact that he exercised his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(right to a jury trial in connection with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.274 0 Td
(the 1999 arrest. )Tj
6.442 0 Td
(The Board rejects Applicant's contention to the contrary.)Tj
-21.717 -2.125 Td
(The Administrative Judge did not err by finding that the 1999 charge was\
dismissed because the arresting police officer)Tj
T*
(failed to appear to testify at the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.689 0 Td
(scheduled trial. )Tj
6.359 0 Td
(Applicant is correct that page 70 of the hearing transcript, cited by th\
e)Tj
-19.048 -1.125 Td
(Judge in support of this finding, does not support the finding. )Tj
24.749 0 Td
(However,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge's finding reflects a reasonable)Tj
-24.749 -1.125 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence, including Applicant Exhibit C. )Tj
27.63 0 Td
(The Judge's erroneous reference to page 70 of the)Tj
-27.63 -1.125 Td
(hearing transcript is harmless error. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.439 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 00-0250 \(July 11, 2001\) at p. 6 \(discussing harmless \
error)Tj
-17.771 -1.125 Td
(doctrine\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by applying Personal Conduct Disq\
ualifying Condition 5)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 117.75 cm
0 0 m
469.582 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 497.582 118.5 Tm
(. )Tj
(The)Tj
-40.132 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge concluded Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.954 0 Td
(conduct warranted application of Personal Conduct Disqualifying)Tj
-17.954 -1.375 Td
(Condition 5.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 76.0059 93 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 76.0059 92.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 63 Tm
(Applicant contends the Judge erred by applying Personal Conduct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.688 0 Td
(Disqualifying Condition 5 because: \(a\) the arrests in)Tj
-26.688 -1.125 Td
(1989 and 1999 are not relevant to an analysis of Personal Conduct Disqua\
lifying Condition 5; \(b\) only the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.715 0 Td
(1983 and)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[76.0 90.0 90.0 101.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
48 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
51 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-12452.a1.html)
endobj
50 0 obj
<>
endobj
52 0 obj
<>
endobj
49 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 342.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 53
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000148562 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003738 00000 n
0000003765 00000 n
0000148012 00000 n
0000148068 00000 n
0000148110 00000 n
0000147822 00000 n
0000004502 00000 n
0000138658 00000 n
0000128848 00000 n
0000121293 00000 n
0000119025 00000 n
0000003868 00000 n
0000003914 00000 n
0000003963 00000 n
0000004195 00000 n
0000004035 00000 n
0000004067 00000 n
0000004099 00000 n
0000004131 00000 n
0000004163 00000 n
0000004713 00000 n
0000010179 00000 n
0000010228 00000 n
0000010263 00000 n
0000010861 00000 n
0000011298 00000 n
0000065923 00000 n
0000066190 00000 n
0000032853 00000 n
0000033126 00000 n
0000011685 00000 n
0000011961 00000 n
0000012321 00000 n
0000033590 00000 n
0000066802 00000 n
0000119225 00000 n
0000121482 00000 n
0000129048 00000 n
0000138883 00000 n
0000138908 00000 n
0000147501 00000 n
0000147907 00000 n
0000148520 00000 n
0000148318 00000 n
0000148152 00000 n
0000148467 00000 n
trailer
<<5293E2565FBFDE4E829951729C8008C0>]>>
startxref
148735
%%EOF