%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T10:56:12-04:00
2021-06-24T10:56:11-04:00
2021-06-24T10:56:12-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-12528.a1
uuid:f8d67e78-6a44-4c51-a0b3-307129fb9db0
uuid:314d6b4f-2216-4171-b08c-262523e156a6
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
18 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
25 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
26 0 obj
[21 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
<><><><><><><>]/P 19 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-12528.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-12528.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:56:12 AM])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: April 22, 2004)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. 02-12528)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 \(DOHA\) issued the Applicant\
a Statement of Reasons \(SOR\), dated March)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(28, 2003, which stated the reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.997 0 Td
(why DOHA proposed to deny or revoke Applicant's access to classified inf\
ormation.)Tj
-13.997 -1.125 Td
(The SOR was based upon Guidelines F \(Financial Considerations\) and E)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.412 0 Td
(\(Personal Conduct\). )Tj
8.249 0 Td
(Administrative Judge)Tj
-37.661 -1.125 Td
(Joan Caton Anthony issued an unfavorable security clearance decision, da\
ted January 29, 2004.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. )Tj
27.728 0 Td
(The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under)Tj
-27.728 -1.125 Td
(Executive Order 10865 and Department of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.327 0 Td
(Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992, as amende\
d.)Tj
-17.327 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: \(1\) whether the Admi\
nistrative Judge erred by not concluding that the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(security concerns raised by Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.87 0 Td
(indebtedness had been mitigated, and \(2\) whether the Administrative Ju\
dge)Tj
-15.87 -1.125 Td
(erred by concluding that the Applicant had deliberately falsified her se\
curity)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.794 0 Td
(clearance application. )Tj
8.967 0 Td
(For the reasons that)Tj
-39.761 -1.125 Td
(follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.685 -2.125 Td
(Scope of Review)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.685 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, the Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
17.993 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the)Tj
-17.993 -1.125 Td
(parties to determine whether there is factual)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.798 0 Td
(or legal error. )Tj
5.719 0 Td
(There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing)Tj
-23.517 -1.125 Td
(party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the A\
dministrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.963 0 Td
(Judge committed factual or legal)Tj
-33.963 -1.125 Td
(error. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
25.797 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 00-0050 \(July 23, 2001\) at pp.)Tj
-25.797 -1.125 Td
(2-3)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specifici\
ty\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenge\
d, the Board must consider whether they are:)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(1\) arbitrary or capricious; or \(2\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.328 0 Td
(contrary to law. )Tj
6.553 0 Td
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. )Tj
24.104 0 Td
(In)Tj
-43.985 -1.125 Td
(deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or cap\
ricious,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.726 0 Td
(the Board will review the Judge's)Tj
-31.726 -1.125 Td
(decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it\
fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for)Tj
T*
(its)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and\
the choice made; it does not consider)Tj
T*
(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
-16.879 -1.125 Td
(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
/TT3 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
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
(?aE^ )
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
CqY9e{V:='ۥlYGoΚ Ϫ 2_B8XVV
SipSp.Ύ39W<[Fo6_m_ m4epÄSخ7aQߋ!T\Q
`/dAy0syT߃gq||$?&&!1&Eq~y\G9E)"늨+NYWg:j"HުetSuڙF;h,ާf7` (+
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
<>stream
H| TnC*)@4q.(c
dyID@QAAAw4ˠ""*ˌ{S]>{FA_UA"_1p X 6MWK7XgFƎ]@$ #'Eeg{ZNTDh)Kf|mG#*&>!#wt5E
q<~븘9lH11I\ iJulW,"bZy РutAWz? Rp@QD"vl!a(b_3u]V5 ʼn-_?76f XrwMbiаmc;{G&M]5oMVkZiC:vŧk7=zȿw &M)S%NeFY礤Ν6?}E,]|d\:+;guu6Ѧ[o۾c{`ѡGJ;~dg*.^W
/j
V00XLHi\ʦ35bb{1X-cC(ѮG\\ܦv{*7] y͕Y1^Y$íBY}PSQsUz :;\L.&oS'SGSS{Ӈv֦V&O7TV.5.5S-;8c0:FCCk1x:Z'&]-[R}ώ}z^wYd1oFaD.\9ZW˭3l섧Z`^ bS1\}U|soԭ?)Cڨ*Pygb6F\鿇B3>6gA/n/`
$L,{0 VXv!̀EP
Oa,d(} ȁMpJa30Hp(8'4r8!-0