%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T14:27:43-04:00
2021-07-02T14:27:43-04:00
2021-07-02T14:27:43-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
01-23362.a1
uuid:62318eed-72fc-4b7b-863f-7ab92ebc2ded
uuid:72f49474-0148-4194-87aa-dfe78dc9b661
Acrobat Web Capture 15.0
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
[17 0 R 17 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
[17 0 R 17 0 R]
endobj
17 0 obj
<><>]/P 15 0 R/Pg 12 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(01-23362.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/01-23362.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 2:27:43 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 734.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 733.5 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 732.7503 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.75 l
0 1.499 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 733.5 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 618.75 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.751 l
579 -0.751 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 617.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.751 l
0 1.5 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.751 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(DATE: June 5, 2006)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(------------)Tj
T*
(SSN: -------------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(ISCR Case No. 01-23362)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
2.806 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 543 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-7.539 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.317 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
2.722 -2.2 Td
(Pro Se)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On June 10,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2004, DOHA issued a statement of reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns rai\
sed)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline J \(Criminal Conduct\) and Guideline G \(Alcohol Consump\
tion\), of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.439 0 Td
(Department of Defense Directive)Tj
-33.439 -1.125 Td
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\)\(Directive\). )Tj
18.578 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On January 5, 2006, after the hearing,)Tj
-31.045 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant's request for a secur\
ity clearance. )Tj
35.113 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed)Tj
-35.113 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.375 0 Td
(E3.1.30.)Tj
-16.375 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's adverse clearance decision under)Tj
T*
(Guidelines G and J is arbitrary, capricious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.106 0 Td
(or contrary to law.)Tj
-17.106 -2.125 Td
(Applicant argues that the Administrative Judge's adverse clearance decis\
ion should be reversed because the Judge made)Tj
T*
(errors with respect to his findings. )Tj
13.914 0 Td
(Applicant also argues that the Judge should have concluded that the secu\
rity concerns)Tj
-13.914 -1.125 Td
(raised under Guidelines G and J had been mitigated, as a matter of law,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.769 0 Td
(because Applicant's last criminal incident)Tj
-28.769 -1.125 Td
(occurred in 2001, his conduct does not indicate a pattern, he has demons\
trated he is now rehabilitated, and he has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
45.569 0 Td
(held a)Tj
-45.569 -1.125 Td
(clearance for many years without a problem. The Board does not find Appl\
icant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The findings which Applicant challenges are either permissible character\
izations by the Administrative Judge or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(harmless error, in that they would not be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.468 0 Td
(reasonably likely to change the outcome of the case. )Tj
21.159 0 Td
(Applicant has not met his)Tj
-37.627 -1.125 Td
(burden of demonstrating that the Administrative Judge's material finding\
s with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.785 0 Td
(respect Applicant's conduct of security)Tj
-31.785 -1.125 Td
(concern do not reflect a reasonable or plausible interpretation of the r\
ecord evidence. )Tj
34.207 0 Td
(The Board does not review a case)Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
-34.207 -1.125 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's material finding\
s of security concern are sustainable.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn\
simply on a finding that one or more of them)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applies to the particular facts of a case. )Tj
15.798 0 Td
(Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in l\
ight of the)Tj
-15.798 -1.125 Td
(record evidence as a whole. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
11.328 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 \(App. Bd.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Jan.15, 2003\). )Tj
(Thus, the presence of)Tj
-14.659 -1.125 Td
(some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favor\
able security clearance decision. )Tj
43.234 0 Td
(As the trier)Tj
-43.234 -1.125 Td
(of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether \
the favorable evidence outweighs the)Tj
T*
(unfavorable evidence or )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
9.912 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
(An)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence, or a\
n ability)Tj
-13.937 -1.125 Td
(to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficie\
nt to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.044 0 Td
(demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
21 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
(b'B&&j)
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
Cq5 (Y9 t1{OK3$!K;=w7=(|sWmX^w/2N~]