%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T10:59:40-04:00
2021-06-24T10:59:39-04:00
2021-06-24T10:59:40-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-17574.a1
uuid:d80a5ee2-a2d5-4081-81c0-b7eec04c3ee7
uuid:2adbb48a-e55a-4fd8-8380-76081a116201
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
16 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-17574.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/02-17574.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:59:40 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: July 24, 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. 02-17574)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
-4.97 -2.2 Td
(Edward W. Loughran, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.748 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.069 -2.2 Td
(Arthur L. Stein, Esq.)Tj
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 April 27,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security conc\
erns raised)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline I \(Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorders\) of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.632 0 Td
(Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2,)Tj
-27.632 -1.125 Td
(1992, as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
12.662 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On January 18, 2006, after the hearing,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.884 0 Td
(Administrative)Tj
-41.013 -1.125 Td
(Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant's request for a security cleara\
nce. )Tj
30.751 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the)Tj
-30.751 -1.125 Td
(Directive \266\266 E3.1.28)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.487 0 Td
(and E3.1.30.)Tj
-8.487 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant was d\
enied liberty and property without due process)Tj
T*
(of law; and whether the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.94 0 Td
(Judge's adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary\
to law.)Tj
-15.94 -2.125 Td
(\(1\) Applicant contends she was denied liberty and property, in the for\
m of her employment, without due process of law)Tj
T*
(in contravention of the U.S.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.359 0 Td
(Constitution because she was not represented by counsel at the hearing. \
)Tj
28.881 0 Td
(In support of that)Tj
-40.24 -1.125 Td
(contention, Applicant argues that if she was as mentally impaired as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.492 0 Td
(the government asserts, then she could not)Tj
-27.492 -1.125 Td
(effectively represent herself. )Tj
11.66 0 Td
(The Board does not find this argument persuasive.)Tj
-11.66 -2.125 Td
(The Supreme Court has acknowledged the inherently discretionary nature o\
f security clearance decisions and concluded)Tj
T*
("[i]t should be obvious that no one has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.684 0 Td
(a 'right' to a security clearance." )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
13.012 0 Td
(Department of Navy v. Egan)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
11.414 0 Td
( 484 U.S. 518, 527-)Tj
-40.11 -1.125 Td
(28 \(1988\). )Tj
(Given the inherently discretionary nature of security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.627 0 Td
(decisions, no applicant has any reasonable)Tj
-29.627 -1.125 Td
(expectation of having a vested interest in or right to a security cleara\
nce. )Tj
29.266 0 Td
(Moreover, the federal courts have)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.771 0 Td
(repeatedly)Tj
-43.038 -1.125 Td
(held there is no property right or interest in a security clearance or a\
job requiring a security clearance. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
41.205 0 Td
(See Jones v.)Tj
-41.205 -1.375 Td
(Navy, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(978 F.2d, 1223 \(Fed. Cir.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1992\); )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(Dorfmont v. Brown, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(913 F.2d 1399, 1403-04 \(9)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 433.6562 155.25 Tm
(th)Tj
12 0 0 12 441.2401 150.75 Tm
( Cir. 1990\), )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(cert. denied, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
10.081 0 Td
(499)Tj
-45.518 -1.125 Td
(U.S. 905 \(1991\); )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(Doe v. Cheney, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
13.331 0 Td
(885 F.2d 898, 909 \(D.C. Cir. 1989\);)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT2 1 Tf
(Chesna v. U.S. Department of Defense,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
30.358 0 Td
( 850 F.)Tj
-43.689 -1.125 Td
(Supp. 110, 118-19 \(D. Conn. 1994\); )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(Williams v. Reilly, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
22.304 0 Td
(743 F. Supp. 168, 172 \(S.D.N.Y. 1990\). )Tj
16.251 0 Td
(DOHA)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.139 0 Td
(proceedings are)Tj
-41.693 -1.125 Td
(civil in nature and applicants are not entitled to the procedural protec\
tions afforded to criminal defendants. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
42.846 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-42.846 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 02-12199)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(at 5-6 \(App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2004\). )Tj
(Therefore, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are of no)Tj
T*
(moment in such proceedings. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
11.97 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 98-0515)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(at 3 \(App. Bd. Mar. 23, 1999\).)Tj
-15.801 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's appellate counsel contested the Administrative Judge's deter\
mination that Applicant had a personality)Tj
T*
(disorder and asserted that Applicant's )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
15.204 0 Td
(pro se)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT0 1 Tf
(representation was ineffective because she did not object to the)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
( 23XWۮ-yV)
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\ϊ0>EتIZ<q
k|ɔ.l@2M2qY*"~a]o[xnvh{3?voE14Pn\x8~c;^aoۛX}Zݹb+BСK^D6Ul/sq ߱30ƀo
|Wm)];(O(yŀ\2g3rƀ2sF,%@|d>fF5%iJ֔)YGYc@|E=(VQR̊uT3٧"{WԻ:1ٳ"k7MMhɛfoiɏf?h*l8]9=C04町 /`
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
H|TT=\
sg,%c,%/јHJMT(%ػb^a/3bQ:}z+9k>g}(0;|SVn34<&,v梢u
TJjTQV`:uoаQg?oҴY-[}6_mC~}N?t.!a-{bzۯ˯CKۈđF'Նx4KN[29\ޮ WcWSWW