*e_ٚ/A% {9F b.VL_ ŽVA;
5g8g/RtZ2>
}֦^meW;
jǥ~\~=?ګ'[)G{/
:cZꧥ >/r/qݖ3 ЕqV4?s9\3hÝ"ff3MøO2¶o?7)U ٱ
xصyލ9; o67c|˱7[b] Wy> x Q>'vs\7R {?ɀp D
S28[-ҫp
F4'M P7E9;䛨 "NO,|F"|gξ4ZS҇7p4VToa˥ UR m< qR͐bsSu ~c9DC9'EÚ5b)sVToM6yG+6i]sے5;%7)^4 YcSW>>oD Uf ߩG= [/E$RӁoqf7C
odHT2J^yr ? \Uu9
%@$6@ Ia 0^PJ(
t`kb3U;(hJ ksM5|w}Y{o} TѮj,+Bq~ WxSBOnsnOS3:NQIDWQWax ػVҲ;V4wk8Kk, rjz
Q! Rժ|ǥ/WprBx 7;arzT(oy h9GnujPkжS r%Fń*=Nc"#?krTo!<9_!WMN*t`+=~#MuQΪJJB
Ozy$Ig9C̷c[p=s|sO֟4XzʗP?ґr;?SX$cbxjH̄6 -/= S A L;\:G߳*|/=:2̮e[9giwN'NǙk0' w7߽ip]i;3g-:{ ١(8ˌ٘۳kFGt=Suϔ:z_+
旛0g_u,ALN m0P(&NJy<{L,J>=@v(,l0e^)O2P t
Q3@[][vgUo?kMejɜNy5r.v)
ήYw4F5Zh7-Y . .x[ޥjtTTareh;
ϗ2Rmi/#o)od &RCwzx3+{TOiΊ
73kfh5 mc~{Qc[d:_h9~uoh3X5[N>^#@dkݧodxp䕲V63xUB/E{6z8}RjcL @^JЦWX{Cv iѠdemRL K~\pKƊ-& pTGKM'fI
uw`qh?k
? @&
'?kGN&k~)9yܵCv,;6_Ryyv mݿt6X ^$]5.vh#2Qv1bp ?sS1;
Q9$\5g I`WYCR:m|ޱ-@p%, VH" }W jh/}?֩O'CQYQ9fϓw|Xa827TGs[/g~oP~9PO"̙5Mm| L9:̹4T)5um8_ h.x
NRu'wA};Y6 f̅t_wn(3Cw֯?92x~oǸԞ GL~Rw'xu D^|u[/^>'ڱx]w+9lb(7wһ6.ots6~-e{8 娹 oԛd#s? kkOǾj>1홓{-j@O_%f?
f
HPǞtNiwȚZi48w{d= 9;
g4Eޤ%YeX$Agw;ąj߿ cob*#[gt3p/:wTiԗW.t:O㺳[q9UYK/>c3eX1^xT O f2Z-R $q So"嗽"2)#S22SyMEwLdƗDfgDfUdnA|" (r
+_
1Gʴ}.y_GwlCYҹtsnMxd> ^ xHߕ"gEA>.CȮ9"0g"bۋ+i*Ca샴up8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8.HCg,_I^dHП$L^V~D@Mj
J.` J&ozG_
QI@>C׃RI>!}=~יO8yTDUBn)ICAIZˡ4=ikP.)Ŷۜ4akf bYc{O38}}Џ }&% GR GξU -9v1zRW3nqL q$Ք0蚌 v ΧBK͔kz5+vJv&C߃Y s~`N;I.m}{m3t¦ڟH]my, [)/0$-x߶Ѳ_Z[O+fgiDϮ9Ohӝt-%\6tnOB^^nh55˽9oPznfUl[fS-ɸgr6ݷ.3X8Gzy, DތݛtGrs*?"u2 \Cc9O^N:VtUɸ{7iHx *[usɬY #bTc^~76 KwX5h,ښ̜c%XOgz.Pmqw Ũ ^bu춻٧J.+ "iOګ[L&guI.F6= VOPM-OpBR m1dK. Qo% rv櫣?1WDN É)xW Ϛ=^;T i.nniP@@<AiS13y _Q/db%Q:|Q=-
,)rKҞW{u pBQ?~ !#myXc1=ב =Ϥu\I/}2U+"'#0y#o"M'"OAOȯj+)
m >\ϜҀKHO"];Ӧ=1|t߁v hhP\5D! Qgċ*xy˒փ؟ =GnɩAx5!2|}[tsW˧F媪ADl7\5XS˒Z}*.!(IgG`)T8c^ӳjWJ[mN33 j]hx^ER8
j,6.
,@=jI! AnĮ؈_62
TQ0:Qk :BjJ`dhHS)(Z*O1$WC\
g@YI`HGZMgl66~?X&;ޝ}>rظy $=GX(9C{u v0ǕVM
hbDj l]|TV c&?֖](Lٟ}{wϑ]k={|6x"f*@@\f%s3q2l hl /TѨ|k_b?#+ / 2ŭ xEq@P egIG GϨ{ .9os X?(p @g+nfl+"/}v `F6x)LEG=Y+ /:8'9G7`~Ǡ<,?HkW7]
|!k%56r*Y$U]T z% r&r}f| 1AmPl#'dwWr,_%Cŝ*
=ȃf3 {z=!v6O&]lEQ]"'"qOEpQvs?G>9,r{4 Mb;FI{@O7<GzGa l~*Xp/ Ih;ۓy;76",M6Hk- NSҴ֒j$qz$WQ2?xuNjmQ [ yͅKve u&z6r_ n`ެ&OZ0u[Tf*U xdؼѴ}x6l#eE+Z
݅EWY-k+flwvWZ;芪Q- ]th,LMcƬ1g,+iTYeNYPV:箚ƂwJ3p,6*(|isJ'Ru^
yw. >,_x}Eɖ֤%-
wHLaD(
ia^(xyWBRdJ#x0U U#XDjY+Z^^s û|/z 7 w.C uj{TY^NA>V vSGǛzF"um ct
w?
c|%6`*:i!hP3XLLEݮ Tb+UT X] ĬڭJ 4_ {mg
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-21030.a2)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/01-21030.a2.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:26:05 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 461.25 591.75 304.5 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 747.75 Tm
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 721.5 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 696.75 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge found in favor of the Applicant with respect to\
SOR paragraphs 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Those favorable formal findings are not at)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.133 0 Td
(issue on appeal.)Tj
-17.133 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
("The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the pe\
rson's control \(e.g., loss of employment, a)Tj
T*
(business downturn, unexpected medical)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.19 0 Td
(emergency, or a death, divorce or separation\)" \(Directive, Enclosure 2\
, Item)Tj
-16.19 -1.125 Td
(E2.A6.1.3.3\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
("The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and \
there are clear indications that the problem is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(being resolved or is under control")Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.127 0 Td
(\(Directive, Enclosure 2, Item E2.A6.1.3.4\).)Tj
-14.127 -2.125 Td
(4. )Tj
("The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors\
or otherwise resolve debts" \(Directive,)Tj
T*
(Enclosure 2, Item E2.A6.1.3.6\).)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-21030.a2)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/01-21030.a2.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:26:05 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 16 751.5 Tm
(Similarly, because the debts at issue had been incurred years earlier an\
d had not been resolved until right before or just)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(after the hearing, or were still in dispute,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.495 0 Td
(it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to conclude that there \
was)Tj
-16.495 -1.125 Td
(insufficient evidence to show clear indications that Applicant's financi\
al problems)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.059 0 Td
(were under control. )Tj
8.052 0 Td
(Given the record)Tj
-41.111 -1.125 Td
(evidence in this case, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applican\
t's eleventh hour resolution of her financial)Tj
T*
(problems was not a substitute for a consistent record of timely remedial\
action. )Tj
31.825 0 Td
(Therefore, the Judge was not required to)Tj
-31.825 -1.125 Td
(conclude Applicant's belated efforts to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.647 0 Td
(address her financial difficulties warranted application of Financial)Tj
-15.647 -1.125 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 4.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Likewise, the Board has previously discussed what constitutes a "good-fa\
ith" effort to repay overdue creditors or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(otherwise resolve debts:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In order to qualify for application of Financial Considerations Mitigati\
ng Condition 6, an applicant must present)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence showing either a good-faith effort to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.577 0 Td
(repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at)Tj
-18.577 -1.125 Td
(resolving the applicant's debts. )Tj
12.539 0 Td
(The Directive does not define the term 'good-faith.' However,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.879 0 Td
(the Board has indicated)Tj
-37.418 -1.125 Td
(that the concept of good-faith 'requires a showing that a person acts in\
a way that shows reasonableness, prudence,)Tj
T*
(honesty, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(adherence to duty or obligation.' )Tj
18.481 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-9020 \(June 4, 2001\) at pp. 5-6 \(citation omitted\))Tj
-18.481 -2.125 Td
(Given Applicant's history of financial problems, the sizable nature of t\
he indebtedness, and the fact that the debts at)Tj
T*
(issue had been incurred years earlier, but)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.604 0 Td
(virtually no effort had been made to resolve them until the eve of heari\
ng or)Tj
-16.604 -1.125 Td
(just after the hearing--well after the invocation of the security cleara\
nce process)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.152 0 Td
(and the issuance of the SOR--it was not)Tj
-32.152 -1.125 Td
(arbitrary or capricious for the Administrative Judge to decide that the \
evidence was insufficient for him to conclude)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
46.484 0 Td
(that)Tj
-46.484 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's efforts to otherwise resolve her debts warranted application\
of Financial Considerations Mitigating)Tj
T*
(Condition 6.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Finally, the favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not suffici\
ent to demonstrate the Judge's decision is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. )Tj
16.188 0 Td
(As the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(trier of fact, the Judge had to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide\
)Tj
-16.188 -1.125 Td
(whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
29.07 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(whether Applicant had satisfied)Tj
-33.095 -1.125 Td
(her burden of persuasion under Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance\
, Item E3.1.15. )Tj
36.044 0 Td
(Applicant's disagreement with)Tj
-36.044 -1.125 Td
(the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's weighing of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate\
the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner)Tj
T*
(that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.911 0 Td
(law. )Tj
(There is sufficient record evidence to support the Judge's adverse)Tj
-16.911 -1.125 Td
(conclusions under Guideline F.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Judge made findings of fact and reached conclusions about Applicant'\
s history of financial difficulties that reflect a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(plausible, legally permissible)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.942 0 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence. )Tj
15.048 0 Td
(Given the Judge's findings and conclusions, he had a)Tj
-26.99 -1.125 Td
(rational basis to conclude Applicant's overall history of financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.089 0 Td
(difficulties raised security concerns under Guideline F,)Tj
-26.089 -1.125 Td
(and to conclude that Applicant had failed to present sufficient evidence\
to overcome those security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.736 0 Td
(concerns.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-17.969 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate error below. )Tj
19.604 0 Td
(Therefore, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's adverse)Tj
-19.604 -1.125 Td
(security clearance remand decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 195.75 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 171 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 93.75 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 69 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
[48 0 R 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R]
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-21030.a2)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/01-21030.a2.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:26:05 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
(relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.879 0 Td
(judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offer\
s an)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; \
or it is so)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.018 0 Td
(implausible that it cannot be ascribed to)Tj
-32.018 -1.125 Td
(a mere difference of opinion. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.883 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 97-0435 \(July 14, 1998\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.72 0 Td
(decision\).)Tj
-43.935 -1.125 Td
(In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to l\
aw, the Board will consider whether they are)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(contrary to provisions of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.109 0 Td
(Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. )Tj
28.238 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
-38.347 -1.125 Td
(or local law is not required because security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.851 0 Td
(adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
-21.851 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to federal law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.691 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 \(Supremacy Clause\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.828 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(ISCR Case No. 00-)Tj
-35.519 -1.125 Td
(0423 \(June 8, 2001\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court decisions\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(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, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpre\
tation of the record)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.112 0 Td
(evidence as a whole.)Tj
-36.112 -1.125 Td
(Although a Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, \
the party challenging a Judge's credibility)Tj
T*
(determination has a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.081 0 Td
(heavy burden on appeal.)Tj
-8.081 -2.125 Td
(When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of revi\
ew is plenary. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.558 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 87-2107)Tj
-34.558 -1.125 Td
(\(September 29, 1992\) at pp. 4-5 \(citing)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.857 0 Td
(federal cases\).)Tj
-15.857 -2.125 Td
(If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Boar\
d must consider the following questions:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Is the error harmful or harmless? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.384 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 00-0250 \(July 11, 2001\) at p. 6 \(discussing harmless \
error)Tj
-16.715 -1.125 Td
(doctrine\);)Tj
T*
(Has the nonappealing party made a persuasive argument for how the Admini\
strative Judge's decision can be affirmed on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(alternate grounds? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.608 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 99-0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at p. 6 \(citing federal cases\); \
and)Tj
-10.939 -2.125 Td
(If the Administrative Judge's decision cannot be affirmed, should the ca\
se be reversed or remanded? )Tj
40.333 0 Td
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.912 0 Td
(E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
4.932 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issue)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 331.8137 321.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 331.8137 321 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 291.75 Tm
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by failing to give sufficient wei\
ght to applicable mitigating conditions)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 291 cm
0 0 m
531.861 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 547.8613 291.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(On)Tj
-44.322 -1.125 Td
(appeal, Applicant contends the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.162 0 Td
(should have concluded that the security concerns raised by her debts wer\
e)Tj
-15.162 -1.375 Td
(mitigated by application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditio\
ns 3,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 389.623 266.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 389.623 265.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 403.4292 261.75 Tm
( 4,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 415.4292 266.25 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 415.4292 265.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
/Span<>> BDC
12 0 0 12 429.2354 261.75 Tm
( )Tj
EMC
(and 6.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 461.5615 266.25 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 461.5615 265.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 475.3677 261.75 Tm
( )Tj
(In support of that)Tj
-38.281 -1.125 Td
(contention, she also argues that the Judge erred in making formal findin\
gs against her with respect to debts which she)Tj
T*
(disputed, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(which she had paid off or settled, either right before the hearing, or a\
fter the hearing \(during the period of)Tj
T*
(time that the Judge had left the record open for her to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.548 0 Td
(submit additional evidence\). )Tj
11.608 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, we affirm)Tj
-33.156 -1.125 Td
(the Judge's remand decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The application of Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating \
conditions does not turn simply on whether)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(there is record evidence that might support)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.355 0 Td
(their application in a particular case. )Tj
14.799 0 Td
(Rather, the application of a)Tj
-32.154 -1.125 Td
(disqualifying or mitigating condition requires the exercise of sound dis\
cretion in light of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.048 0 Td
(record evidence as a whole.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-37.048 -1.125 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 01-14740 \(January 15, 2003\) at p. 7. )Tj
(Accordingly, even if Applicant's financial difficulties)Tj
-3.332 -1.125 Td
(initially arose)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.721 0 Td
(due to circumstances outside her control, the Administrative Judge reaso\
nably could consider whether)Tj
-5.721 -1.125 Td
(Applicant acted in a reasonable manner when dealing)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.658 0 Td
(with those financial difficulties. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.969 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0462)Tj
-37.958 -1.125 Td
(\(May 25, 2000\) at p. 4; ISCR Case No. 99-0012 \(December 1, 1999\) at \
p. 4. )Tj
30.717 0 Td
(In this case, it)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.804 0 Td
(was not arbitrary or)Tj
-36.521 -1.125 Td
(capricious for the Judge to it consider Applicant's failure to resolve t\
he debts after the conditions which had contributed)Tj
T*
(to the debts)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.86 0 Td
(becoming delinquent had passed and her financial situation had significa\
ntly improved. )Tj
35.213 0 Td
(Therefore, the)Tj
-40.073 -1.125 Td
(Judge was not required to conclude Applicant's history)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.175 0 Td
(of financial difficulties was mitigated under Financial)Tj
-22.175 -1.125 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 3.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<F'<fDN_1_)/S/GoTo>>/BS<