͗28ckk8RRBO#]WI ]@ܵ
jF ɕ ?;wnmPށ\v*21QeTqJXN8M. з3h`x]bX2X٭-- ςgj 4w EAtH%5ч+]./ t:4I)h8=-Sg*8ZI˂PN F\!%ZDzd9ѷ'! Hn!DpD(u7$}diBM v̑cAٌy'8+BI;-Z:k AAer z?'](69)Ҩyz j}H(}b.w[t0(~o7:JmVa+N qH3ǜɆt_ٓ՜~f_syIn^V6] 3W. V$
!FZ
=<7
εS8. d6S)9klyAS۩݅_ Q*-߉"5TPpyG/ JNxu+ؙz?
8pU}G}Uq&vÆ6Kv\I<@( /[PS) ؖbe HSRd1Q@aI HKhC!${o BϜw9k9i|G'ϗ T)ͨtt]7ce!FF_SC fjv< >EoFGB!$^^~Dϐ|{+
9 H8.!Cu#^sH!6XƧ|Wx)w~蔗9W;:#َ 'U?ʒ\YgYO-Hʈ IM8fE1k닯#Ϊ}6"q
|,@ZNJa {Wlg y⧃x< ^_:8}xI1l^Q:l̘Cm
ƞ(;\_>cBQvt36or+N/X]0ň!=lJ*0d{`xԣwx e'--jgȭ5PtzBZFDS h{Ƹh#5Zz NʀtT0Arq.oBNՐ3P>I }&Q^"= k3np OQm1o
dŘ9)CC?P \J}?[N`*뗈u?խ r)%b69V+kHiTQ&U7 ҎQ)v0Bc>G[Tv*q(5o_P-MA辀mvsD唩^" U l}F&uSWdcLa0/K蟎 y
xߥX+^F6Bp 1dr l{"?,t0)0
QM
a'ak6lcH^AAD[V #̾cmXqm*Aj1AYRP $Ys-)tadHRyx-iEGޢZu WN!e Xߣ.y ɶ6`/wM͌CkZ r!iZqYk 5҉2ͬc$}SkH]0 aT,#1f{t6ܰAU*a(KFu)RP~+ G%w ώm- i } Œ§Ɵ_E'F̔4c">8Zgߧ|L,G?w]&xlI}sc'qΡ>Yor8i` 9sͱcH`,RзA^3AㅾYb)N#hfϳ S bGSE+ЮX~>Xs/8ѭzhH_r9lT;
SÙ; ] Qb@ Çk6BiVMчxX]}YP<:ynJA
Z׀8Ǜ)A]la2mq_30a-ⱹԿ"l%vE aQ+^Y*Rh>a
/ r`n3/b
7x>X+>u:e4QsQ(0n (=A;{ư"ް>{`o(XC' }L)!g巨\K F۴T!0e+ O#6#OZAw+gA^ w&r.Z\@bԭFv VyMR^6. uA5M~J
j3M~w}]-y#v+tMԓu @?FUɅuzLwR+'3it8ED]b^- cR:6# 8lixlmGu<KgH5.gD _Du$^LeLddˈ!@DiQ~Iy-܋tO+JXǪ;;}5ޝ"4ڱDžBO(մ!܍;s
R': 1ȧZiʿ+ʓB}]^>JK
FD{B~u ߆a`y}69|_ǹ
蟂x wb1/řֵUc[cK@qY Y9'2gm::KjE Ϋ z.`
jR91D=i ?"}#} e͐!qPn ({U Dƈ6~ 6c"f&ϓ ۋY1p c 5/#_kՃt{`1eϷ;09 \ w*w%!>Uqח@PP4D C$ <C(">2uʔv@QZG:NKmkV:8mEʠmgKo7~w9 lF.цXOa>h
ՔUˆgՏMVm
vwIl@Ϊ_!hWw ؚDpisbO 1u? rwkX՟/\B{V`S.OrZ[[Nr. k9ucv昨sY¹ l9 #e m6+i]JtRL k9;%I9M{/3Wsw"xY'>qyseh|>ā3YU |L(R#rv&Lj ;
s3 nQ7Qlmg:vVՇ̙?QC)$kwO~{FD,?)
ة=G
(P&V"2|FvVb룛mq7sӡ4.^Ϡm7r@M9%ZufU
yy`s(Xĸd_F~xHN'28;2Q֏bz_U0Ma
,.gs3ko<,R*= 7=)$oJ |St -x Cz ǥ!wMc;=, ϸ}GAsn H9v\N]R M$-)#461U+h7; C b l)Jdt Ƭ HB}k;5]A^ODGi
I$c$c-3\?{~{q{<ǍU{+}u*s6l̦g3 c=ى:/ֳV&:e*5;/ѽ"muu{]k`wΚ[Z_lni[Xt R7Or8U5hbDr&Ciұ% :BM'nC!;%N興6^`1qN*J跍]6H'.?`wu@3zh@3u-I=d^NMOeˮ|χ3 J[~ Ûpj= =3eEfbirr%YHDƼ]k,pq jE
G~`oו$^c[
Ğ`szo~Oq^88sm(Ýmre=NMqDGǯAo)wz!ɷmP°
2 L.ǀ^`l9% hXس3s!̰bl (Ehzl!qI o L9q 0E |r=~ _ H̽pF?e~/1Уޣ+'`Ů
ث A[ةXǞS)q*:%\n12pg嵹Mv_4ͽ[˾xL e6{`^I~k&'dܭ7+ǻ =
sJ H m @ )@`(!Jm`Q--[ H3 J0hfvP(`K*29־禗jf>`PEeqǹ2\U3O1 =]&Ϲ?IJN19G%]E]k [;}`ZI>4Zޭ,A5쳼{@V *GpKVr Hp_Y2Õ] A4$i{Rj碠1t8 IC1Bʳ{ZO}ȕ
.2WB:8E5Z.ʋc'[taRQyL搣/F~4\u79B U ^4mNeGm^ ;uUwKoԵCMP'Xۚ&L[ysOT%Usqf5_kF5"ƷC]c8%& F>iK-t!MB9;R;bԏnhV8[g'_N;d 6JrcngfT-6 cfc/k |D]ka
7:"茦FsJZ Ŀg[2Ym
by)
T%R S`Th\2uܿH珲t
?A7ӽ'{CesLJ =3{ky/xyﬔ'>߃&q1<{7q"ݹ~oI̞kO8*)
Ѷ7d>{%浓_'c 1f,5o- ~BՇ>Y`Iw)_Z@HGN˽ d>Oac⒌M;;k
#_b2txtNsh13{Zr; }Ϫx p~ݿ09zXobAo?8u: g=Ü|6u9gϸD}g{,2/3^fcnʮ I}L}=S )+_n~|ױd}3]: 0@| +1(&١8˳\
NOx< @!X 5Di_ϰ nvmV_CX5
5R$s :ȹ`.o
@*8fJ߭Ҁj f
v8`$m
zRaޖ
rRɕY|6<_FLnJ~{IE.H
YL͐ ft#ͦ&R=:+6\rD\ ܊
A^/$/яEEi#o 1yj!2ֽ%`)l}rR:xAuWZ˚g̔U Y
٨;sDIMn2u y)mllhKC_a
ڃEMEI2u/qn-+n+O|Q -%6d'5DM2 m ~oސǬ;&8f#yf*9#qSκyv2 .sUVP_,Ͼ&Y/7כz)𦑷׀>謎zv.uj1oJvϒW z#UR{
W"MҩK(SJ/5ROn<7~ YJ<6S!VjИH" |
|Y
kx{J
pl}o'jNdo^Tf}*7=)R }r)!MW:481I ]!3PA`@JuI; Mx"ƞenI]JrZe ;:a["ݨmҏ}ٯ?Sr/y 99$sS2\ Cg$6WRy^:X}#XU.cvz¬qE8oHINsٱ|Ɏ_/J)>ci[U}{uN!^:.cܳXzxwָۡD2 1
pWO4|3GBD rA\¯W[d
co~_q
m+Rj57V~oQ2C/82?w{wI:-V:%#MB&I !Piܽi w) TEjVĪJU(pB :ZaFeV:rvMVƁud~<{>k3}澀4>4cz! WJ)5P~ޱ-]MO~pSB˗_&
=H]P6oK ҪR 䟐 ~o/\̾3n<rǑae\dgnq܅y8:o3( u./SϜ_!OqW;9,sy'siƩ.ЫC7*!w7"p, [ Nu7w>潞lZ&g;W[2&ɬ]kON:>}2) ^z?)o"_7qp.w_gx7B䫔"ztDj36w߱H/8(s;Sn
饷kl\^/銫{ ~&
갍L lrU+p7u
'mcrOL{d^#Ah jٓ{4i`M-
w2_s,ΐ*K(Cy gqZ2c}fp'/&8<-90R|vKף_ sGB]o{Y| N + r!忇'o u 0# #0C"UcLfQEj,RS.aMWD&x^Uf:o ⎉,VtPd_DDɷ\!"E?J>F]xVGxu|> M|e:_*s2]w[ $nC"kXsϣ\_-ܲ|l-r/G"U?틻DvއOf~NJ"p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 C_< /BR'M$|:G *TZB6 ؼ;}]dM_ ^!רS !}= -}=(5+C B#|T'DKTZd,B>+$#i(&Zbr9tư'mfJ$ſ.lh_yHIf5 zz2e=#,M=@?~38z =KYnt =:Y6k4H9!K]11}e_w>t9GdH|z/Xc]cRmG4nkr=Hۜ P+a=RdַI?cO'l֞b uH2m-7knȺbvL$ *6~,X<"6e=8frB2nmJ+urDzrޠ^ݦئ@A2q d7LmoYgh}#g.u@"oFKufr=ٓJc)H |f X鄗zy25:y /SeNxx.5 c$B,7wݶs^fo+ KwZA֠hk2sB.c
:/,#6d`~L W#}H풉ϫ/[9m
o7r:Ҕ_#? /}aF~oT]{UX@Phv]椐*eGzE%\qݣMťqf<mEC#uu! Qg:C&^Ty˛X4(4!8j[Iw^S2f9![7|UkT/nUSGwƙeRojzS%6ըA@:>
K řW7K4n nQ[B[¡%UT:+#Yɵlk 16i da'XZZe-Z]H\ E? ^-jb*_-ic3%p)5XkXIsFeUߘa NPv?ґNs?X&;ޝ}>rؤy ; $=GX(9{u v0ەVM
hbDc_KT59Fic,߄4ڲ1ږ}߳"Ϥ|}w|gҾܿȮ l=xF<3szUȔ2~VwSE/|
G8
J LY@ &- /0 =~?s&ϱ`|q n0
|ٳNY o1 1x0Xqce\.S[ޱY'\;T13{/˻w*qȔM= }ma,Pe4?
wC!|*$%Dmm!s%UÌwC1"9! $ (O, ^ǟ 2a!
1 c c\ 1ΓS~-='|$!mmx-~zt XcoCסs4gh[CVߛNdDU_GV'NX;s ?r"σ9 7 I،O0GcёdZ
=r"E 4EGyh#& ,6Aw!&cTt3E!4Ӊ`s|xw C2*\Y4vNN~ ncY4Dp܌48 E!WJ$2
^ F/yC 'ivș
: -1p#HX&i@1SM / J XJ;Ugq{W͈ {z=Av6O!Mb& DNDbgc㶩#؇b~2}sX`Oi.=vG&=l i[ z+yh ]v`na =r}9i{m
'QIqۭ&h @ZbG@؞_M=ﾻ=c|c*w+UnJ>_NP;~?C
7aȠBHaHuaa^USfx:zl
C 5B¸ (r 4 F3dvĒmA5MFCjԴ^~VpHcu4gu0~ЊDt['RjE/<OO#h;SRoӖ}BǸ{Bjh*u4W2-gHV4;~ֹg l&ҏq{JZiZk\bG8=( <:'(vɭl^B%y]M2z MJ]k/u]\~0oV'-zz-˕2jUTXMl6RY̙_.]XtԒV.-jVvg]q5Ż㋮բEQFɢʎ`4
dsƂb掛ʺ2) ʊ"PUXPUXGbí6+U:2.\xO{y7sܶ&| >AO0(y=\QNK_
J})HnVkTv~`"xPM5Ic=
Љo4utj$bP'ߖ:F׀ #/ n>Xjs˨cFRY` N0];#
]a=A \F@ Y˴[ 4_ "
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
(02-19896.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/02-19896.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:16 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 420.75 591.75 345 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
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(Administrative Judge)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 678 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 653.25 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael D. Hipple)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 576 cm
0 0 m
129.311 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 551.25 Tm
(Michael D. Hipple)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
("The falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the ind\
ividual has subsequently provided correct)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(information voluntarily.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
("The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the falsifica\
tion before being confronted with the facts.")Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
[45 0 R]
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-19896.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/02-19896.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:16 AM])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
(The decision in another DOHA case cited by Applicant on appeal does not \
demonstrate error by the Administrative)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 739.5 Tm
(Judge in this case. )Tj
7.526 0 Td
(A decision by a Hearing)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.969 0 Td
(Office Judge is not legally binding precedent on that Judge's colleagues\
in)Tj
-17.496 -1.125 Td
(other cases, and it is not legally binding precedent on the Board in any\
case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
30.63 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(ISCR Case No. 01-22606 \(June 30,)Tj
-30.63 -1.125 Td
(2003\) at pp. 3-5 \(discussing precedential value of decisions by Hearin\
g Office Administrative Judges\). )Tj
41.322 0 Td
(And, the Board)Tj
-41.322 -1.125 Td
(does)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not find the decision cited by Applicant to be persuasive with respect t\
o its analysis and application of Personal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 2.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Given the particular facts in this case, Applicant's reliance on Persona\
l Conduct Mitigating Condition 2 is misplaced.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(When a case involves a claim that an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.049 0 Td
(applicant made disclosures that )Tj
12.774 0 Td
(correct an earlier falsification, then Personal)Tj
-27.823 -1.375 Td
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 3)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 170.3359 634.5 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 170.3359 633.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 604.5 Tm
(is the proper guideline to consider, not Personal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.357 0 Td
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.361 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0557)Tj
-36.05 -1.125 Td
(\(July 10, 2000\) at p.4 \(discussing difference between Personal Conduc\
t Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.243 0 Td
(Condition 2 and Personal Conduct)Tj
-33.243 -1.125 Td
(Mitigating Condition 3 and citing other Board decisions on point\). )Tj
26.803 0 Td
(Accordingly, the Judge did not err, as a matter of)Tj
-26.803 -1.125 Td
(law, by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not applying Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2 in Applicant's case\
.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(c\) Applicant correctly notes that "[i]t is not in any way the Judge's\
responsibility to help a )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
36.441 0 Td
(pro se)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( party make their)Tj
-36.441 -1.125 Td
(case," but goes on to argue that because of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.235 0 Td
(the nature of the case presented by him at the hearing, "the Judge shoul\
d)Tj
-17.235 -1.125 Td
(have made some attempt to elicit relevant information from the [Applican\
t]." )Tj
31.064 0 Td
(Applicant also argues "the procedure is not)Tj
-31.064 -1.125 Td
(designed to be a one-sided interrogation and argument, but rather a two-\
sided adversarial process, with evidence and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(argument coming from both sides." )Tj
14.406 0 Td
(Applicant's arguments fail to demonstrate the Judge acted in a manner th\
at is)Tj
-14.406 -1.125 Td
(arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(An Administrative Judge must conduct a hearing in a fair and impartial m\
anner. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
32.269 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Section 4.1; Additional)Tj
-32.269 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.10. )Tj
14.606 0 Td
(Each party is obligated to prepare for a hearing and present witnesses a\
nd other)Tj
-14.606 -1.125 Td
(evidence in support of the party's case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.73 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.967 0 Td
(Guidance, Items E3.1.14 and E3.1.15.)Tj
-30.697 -1.125 Td
(Apart from the provisions of the Directive, the "Prehearing Guidance for\
DOHA hearings" informed Applicant that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
46.386 0 Td
(")Tj
-46.386 -1.125 Td
([t]he hearing is an adversarial proceeding in which the parties have the\
responsibility to present their respective cases")Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(and "[e]ach party is expected to be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.096 0 Td
(prepared to present at the hearing whatever evidence \(testimonial or do\
cumentary, or)Tj
-14.096 -1.125 Td
(both\) that party intends to offer." )Tj
13.433 0 Td
(Moreover, at the hearing the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.189 0 Td
(stated that )Tj
4.332 0 Td
("[e]ach party is responsible for)Tj
-31.954 -1.125 Td
(producing evidence that it wants in the record" \(Hearing Transcript at \
p. 4\). )Tj
30.425 0 Td
(Furthermore, the Judge told Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.552 0 Td
(that,)Tj
-45.978 -1.125 Td
(apart from the SOR and Applicant's answer to the SOR, "if you wish for m\
e to consider anything in my determination,)Tj
T*
(you need to present it during this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.415 0 Td
(hearing" \(Hearing Transcript at pp. 5-6\). )Tj
16.458 0 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, the Board)Tj
-29.872 -1.125 Td
(concludes Applicant was on adequate notice that he had the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.103 0 Td
(responsibility to prepare for the hearing and was expected to)Tj
-24.103 -1.125 Td
(present evidence for the Judge to consider in his case. )Tj
21.743 0 Td
(Furthermore, the record below does not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.079 0 Td
(support Applicant's)Tj
-37.821 -1.125 Td
(suggestion that the Judge failed to allow him "an opportunity to explain\
.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board does not find persuasive Applicant's suggestion that the Admin\
istrative Judge is at fault because Applicant)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(received "a completely one-sided)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.569 0 Td
(hearing." )Tj
(Having elected to represent himself, Applicant cannot now fairly complai\
n)Tj
-13.569 -1.125 Td
(about the quality of his self-representation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.412 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No.96-0544 \(May 12. 1997\) at p. 2 \(citing )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.303 0 Td
(Faretta v.)Tj
-43.046 -1.125 Td
(California)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.167 0 Td
(, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 \(1975\)\). )Tj
(The presiding Judge should not be blamed for the failure of a party)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.547 0 Td
(to take)Tj
-44.715 -1.125 Td
(good advantage of the hearing process. )Tj
15.855 0 Td
(Applicant's failure to take better advantage of the hearing process does\
not)Tj
-15.855 -1.125 Td
(translate into a denial of his right to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.497 0 Td
(due process under the Directive. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.162 0 Td
(See, e.g., Dusanek v. Hannon)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 677 F.2d 538, 542-)Tj
-27.658 -1.125 Td
(543 \(7th Cir. 1982\)\("The availability of recourse to a constitutional\
ly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.929 0 Td
(sufficient administrative procedure satisfies due)Tj
-27.929 -1.125 Td
(process requirements if the complainant merely declines or fails to take\
advantage of the administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.624 0 Td
(procedure."\),)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-41.624 -1.125 Td
(cert. denied)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.72 0 Td
(, 459 U.S. 1017 \(1982\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
17.046 -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
(Accordingly, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's adverse)Tj
-19.604 -1.125 Td
(security clearance decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 59.25 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[170.0 632.0 184.0 643.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
[48 0 R]
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-19896.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/02-19896.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:16 AM])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
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or\
contrary to law because the Judge failed to)Tj
ET
Q
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 754.5 cm
0 0 m
549.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(comply with pertinent provisions of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 741 cm
0 0 m
192.639 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 208.6387 741.75 Tm
(Directive)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 208.6387 741 cm
0 0 m
44.643 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 253.2812 741.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant also contends the Administrative Judge: \(a\) did not)Tj
-19.773 -1.125 Td
(evaluate Applicant's case in terms of the whole person concept; \(b\) di\
d not consider)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.725 0 Td
(the applicability of Personal)Tj
-33.725 -1.125 Td
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 2; and \(c\) failed to elicit relevant info\
rmation from Applicant at the hearing. )Tj
43.017 0 Td
(The Board)Tj
-43.017 -1.125 Td
(construes)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(these arguments as raising the issue of whether the Judge's decision is \
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(because the Judge failed to comply with pertinent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.105 0 Td
(provisions of the Directive.)Tj
-20.105 -2.125 Td
(\(a\) Applicant correctly notes that when making a security clearance de\
cision the Administrative Judge )Tj
41.152 0 Td
(should evaluate)Tj
-41.152 -1.125 Td
(an applicant's conduct and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.788 0 Td
(circumstances under the whole person concept. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.132 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Section 6.3; and Enclosure 2,)Tj
-29.919 -1.125 Td
(Items E2.2.1 and E2.2.3. )Tj
10.137 0 Td
(However, Applicant's arguments do not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.121 0 Td
(demonstrate the Administrative Judge failed to apply)Tj
-26.258 -1.125 Td
(the whole person concept.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To the extent Applicant's contention relies on evidence indicative of ex\
tenuation and mitigation with respect to the drug-)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(related incident, it fails to demonstrate)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.634 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge erred. )Tj
12.857 0 Td
(The Judge's adverse decision is not based on the)Tj
-28.491 -1.125 Td
(drug-related incident, but rather the March 2002 falsification concernin\
g that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.016 0 Td
(incident. )Tj
3.721 0 Td
(Accordingly, it is irrelevant)Tj
-34.737 -1.125 Td
(whether Applicant presented evidence in mitigation of the drug-related i\
ncident.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To the extent Applicant's claim of error relies on his contention that t\
he Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(sought to conceal the drug-related)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.856 0 Td
(incident, it is unpersuasive. )Tj
11.165 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the Judge's finding)Tj
-25.021 -1.125 Td
(of falsification is sustainable. )Tj
11.969 0 Td
(Since the Judge's finding of falsification is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.26 0 Td
(sustainable, the Board rejects Applicant's)Tj
-29.229 -1.125 Td
(argument that intentional misrepresentation will not recur because Appli\
cant never intended to falsify the security)Tj
T*
(clearance application in the first instance.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To the extent Applicant's argument relies on his disagreement with the A\
dministrative Judge's adverse credibility)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(determination, it does not show the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.886 0 Td
(failed to comply with the whole person concept. )Tj
19.522 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this)Tj
-36.409 -1.125 Td
(decision, the Judge's credibility determination is entitled to deference\
and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.643 0 Td
(Applicant has failed to show it is)Tj
-29.643 -1.125 Td
(unsustainable. )Tj
5.943 0 Td
(Furthermore, Applicant fails to articulate a cogent argument for why the\
Judge's credibility determination)Tj
-5.943 -1.125 Td
(is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(inconsistent or incompatible with application of the whole person concep\
t.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant also argues the Administrative Judge should have concluded he \
had demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(In support of this argument, Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.581 0 Td
(sets forth an alternate interpretation of the record evidence. )Tj
23.878 0 Td
(However, Applicant's)Tj
-39.459 -1.125 Td
(ability to do so is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge failed to ap\
ply the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.411 0 Td
(whole person concept. )Tj
9.219 0 Td
(Merely because a)Tj
-39.63 -1.125 Td
(Judge makes adverse findings and draws adverse conclusions, it does not \
follow that the Judge is failing to apply the)Tj
T*
(whole person concept. )Tj
9.219 0 Td
(The question is not whether the Judge's findings and conclusions are fav\
orable, unfavorable, or)Tj
-9.219 -1.125 Td
(mixed; rather, the question is whether)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.357 0 Td
(the Judge's findings and conclusions reflect a reasonable interpretation\
of the)Tj
-15.357 -1.125 Td
(record evidence as a whole that adequately takes into account the totali\
ty of an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.709 0 Td
(applicant's conduct and circumstances. )Tj
15.758 0 Td
(In)Tj
-47.467 -1.125 Td
(this case, the Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's falsif\
ication of the security clearance application in)Tj
T*
(arch 2002 reflect an interpretation of the record evidence that is consi\
stent with the whole person concept.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Finally, Applicant's argument concerning the absence of potential for co\
ercion in the future fails to demonstrate the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge erred. )Tj
11.386 0 Td
(If an applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.025 0 Td
(were vulnerable to coercion or blackmail, security concerns would be rai\
sed.)Tj
-17.411 -1.125 Td
(However, the absence of such a vulnerability is not dispositive because \
security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.129 0 Td
(concerns can be raised by conduct or)Tj
-32.129 -1.125 Td
(circumstances unrelated to vulnerability to coercion or blackmail. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
26.518 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-08052 \(June 23, 2003\) at)Tj
-29.85 -1.125 Td
(p. 3. )Tj
(Even if Applicant is not vulnerable to coercion or blackmail, the Judge'\
s finding that Applicant engaged in)Tj
T*
(falsification in March 2002 is sufficient to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.135 0 Td
(support the Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligi\
bility.)Tj
-17.135 -2.375 Td
(\(b\) Applicant contends the Administrative Judge erred by not applying \
Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 557.248 146.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 557.248 145.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 116.25 Tm
(because: \(i\) the March 2002 falsification was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.299 0 Td
(an isolated incident; \(ii\) the March 2002 falsification was not recent\
; \(iii\))Tj
-18.299 -1.125 Td
(Applicant provided correct information voluntarily when he was interview\
ed by an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.462 0 Td
(investigator and when he answered)Tj
-33.462 -1.125 Td
(the SOR in this case; and \(iv\) in another case, a Judge found even an \
intentional falsification mitigated under Personal)Tj
T*
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 2 when it was "an isolated incident of poor\
judgment." )Tj
34.423 0 Td
(Applicant argues, in the)Tj
-34.423 -1.125 Td
(alternative, that the Judge should have at least)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.633 0 Td
(discussed why he decided not to apply Personal Conduct Mitigating)Tj
-18.633 -1.125 Td
(Condition 2 in Applicant's case.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[557.0 144.0 571.0 155.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-19896.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/02-19896.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:16 AM])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
(In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to l\
aw, the Board will consider whether they are)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(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
5.313 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a se\
curity clearance application is not supported)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 334.5 cm
0 0 m
556.658 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 321.75 Tm
(by substantial record evidence)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 321 cm
0 0 m
145.611 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 161.6113 321.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge found that Applicant falsified a security clearance\
application)Tj
-12.134 -1.125 Td
(in March 2002 by failing to disclose a drug-related charge that was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.047 0 Td
(dismissed in 1994. )Tj
(Applicant contends Judge's)Tj
-27.047 -1.125 Td
(finding of falsification is erroneous because: \(a\) Applicant did not i\
ntend to falsify the security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.152 0 Td
(application; \(b\))Tj
-42.152 -1.125 Td
(the Judge erred by relying exclusively on his negative assessment of App\
licant's credibility; and \(c\) the )Tj
41.502 0 Td
(Judge failed to)Tj
-41.502 -1.125 Td
(give sufficient weight to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.998 0 Td
(Applicant's explanation for why he did not disclose the 1993 charge in t\
he security clearance)Tj
-9.998 -1.125 Td
(application.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(There is no dispute that Applicant was charged in a drug-related inciden\
t and that the incident should have been)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(disclosed when Applicant completed the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.468 0 Td
(security clearance application in March 2002. )Tj
18.52 0 Td
(The sole issue before the)Tj
-34.988 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge was whether Applicant's omission of the incident fr\
om the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.424 0 Td
(security clearance application was a)Tj
-32.424 -1.125 Td
(deliberate falsification or a good faith, )Tj
15.577 0 Td
(inadvertent or careless omission. )Tj
13.357 0 Td
(Applicant's statements concerning his intent or)Tj
-28.935 -1.125 Td
(state of mind when he completed the security clearance application in Ma\
rch 2002 are relevant and material evidence)Tj
T*
(that the Judge had to consider. )Tj
12.414 0 Td
(However,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge was not bound to accept Applicant's statements at face value. \
)Tj
32.919 0 Td
(Rather,)Tj
-45.333 -1.125 Td
(the Judge had to consider Applicant's statements in light of his assessm\
ent of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.036 0 Td
(Applicant's credibility and the record)Tj
-31.036 -1.125 Td
(evidence as a whole. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.524 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 00-0430 \(July 3, 2001\) at pp. 4-5; ISCR Case No. 99-04\
73 \(May 12,)Tj
-11.855 -1.125 Td
(2000\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(at pp. 2-3. )Tj
(Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge could have accepted Ap\
plicant's explanation for the)Tj
T*
(omission, or the Judge could have rejected)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.273 0 Td
(Applicant's explanation. )Tj
9.928 0 Td
(The Judge chose to reject Applicant's explanation as)Tj
-27.201 -1.125 Td
(not credible. )Tj
5.248 0 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, and giving deference to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.269 0 Td
(Judge's credibility determination \(Directive,)Tj
-30.517 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1\), the Board )Tj
24.382 0 Td
(concludes Applicant has failed to demonstrate the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.188 0 Td
(Judge's)Tj
-44.57 -1.125 Td
(choice was erroneous. )Tj
9.107 0 Td
(Applicant's argument that his explanations for his omission of the drug-\
related incident are "not)Tj
-9.107 -1.125 Td
(necessarily inconsistent or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.803 0 Td
(mutually exclusive" does not demonstrate the Judge erred.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
54 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-19896.a1.html)
endobj
53 0 obj
<>
endobj
55 0 obj
<>
endobj
51 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 485.0 null]
endobj
52 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 446.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 56
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000151651 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003738 00000 n
0000003765 00000 n
0000151031 00000 n
0000151115 00000 n
0000151157 00000 n
0000150841 00000 n
0000004502 00000 n
0000142111 00000 n
0000132748 00000 n
0000123793 00000 n
0000122145 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
0000010809 00000 n
0000010858 00000 n
0000010893 00000 n
0000011399 00000 n
0000011822 00000 n
0000069201 00000 n
0000069468 00000 n
0000037730 00000 n
0000038003 00000 n
0000012233 00000 n
0000012509 00000 n
0000012923 00000 n
0000038442 00000 n
0000070078 00000 n
0000122334 00000 n
0000124018 00000 n
0000124043 00000 n
0000132424 00000 n
0000132962 00000 n
0000132987 00000 n
0000141787 00000 n
0000142322 00000 n
0000150926 00000 n
0000151567 00000 n
0000151609 00000 n
0000151365 00000 n
0000151199 00000 n
0000151514 00000 n
trailer
<<75B5BAE77D232F4F956CD1872279B3EB>]>>
startxref
151824
%%EOF