?x{'yOb]Kk) L ~V}gW
]խ|{gm 8["xNmrx堤9Ƞp
J]p[ݵz' =ق"
Q+7J&? vt5Cs!On6 =z8$:扉 y!A Rn!ld!`cy:HIaX 3W1 sPt|~?
? պQ4Ij.6nl,~Kyp`ƫ}!9;jlF6 G1;N3 U%^b+ &I,oc202IJ4τ9
`I 5RDAvȋp%
ɣ+ llfC 1|t ?kS44R:OOgGT0 FPsQMPbC]7N xB0cV3OLÀ߅7PMz 7] sс(Kg*eдF($ T ɒ1cn "[htGKF4]J,,<Їaj:#f O
mwњ@2/ ^g;UsV~KImlaEo, #m
TUQ|$ Wd rl)^O׀X6,`-l{ijqиJ]4n[nܷoaG#dϸu1-< 6$/GiHIXy
Qcb$b%! B::H7* D"($F ǀ0A7Eaa:aEEsDMsD8?;n\CZ@aBr!;_'15_«>? w>ľ%99ر/]'4uSVhk-djhB @R"TtC:ڤh#$*HCW(]uC8.@ 79":9q d"E"? Jdp,E5NھQzIH[c?eOk۽}kr@;Ou]mnlST)FܶM,'۰(2~nJ g3#sJLpapm`_, TYzWL?sX_OG$IwYMw%ul%kq~ph xē-`#
Q=G߳.ODRhlT/A,/O6H5hOn) S?JT$_B+P&ޯB+)ex#$PaT_5>V
2 *"L>vGsOOy g 2ڵGEӬ.YO8U.J@eUAZ̥*~-p dLWe5r !vs.n±n bܗCitRU@`WuL e]%6g=yk5\:_3.3o2WЯ5K|4s93掙 D--[-
LaRXV$ĭK($&bV)H4-XZTnT $9hzVU48Ч6b$JR=J/b]CH0L1̐a {`L[v9pIBis:aTmkK@;"Þv5`Y۬ Mّﱼ?Y (D@
# 瑟[XjU
kyu-Y !2WZb༵"o-χH?eJ%_8pGOݴP{%$^0H! )mӸe7 sЪ3DGD: !jzD%J
zzsƞ3#Y_"̃,b
`WncvRT:w>7rZr lbRr-< t-5%a$rRVHV4w'IMD-iΎt] #M C?=t(6 _8pˎj;jQɊzO\KVBVQ ^Ӓm$Nëw [ oFO.;wӘ j#ENov?=d}6HA,ֺSI֣(aH.= +D< 'pMyJL_wx
n쮡LYЮar:sٝ^;^{BӮvX@(cAD
iJ -Ѐ BQ)UHG)T
Ԋ9@zjyeg;Y`L@dd65yr1ՕtO4_ ~߶O. zs `v?e}S]/ys{_A3(Y:DQ d((R9ZV@9;W:b.^Y][NzD Hv}~I I/cQhQ{ޒ /K2YD'5@ۆm.,-,/.WUʪ*+n jEU#h5ߺm]rb. j|$gw4 .f?ʺy3ШmP;> \ oyNo34]?gJ` #= %:-M4d[\lPǁח 0 =R]k>]|Spq\
ơfpN u9:pQ͉f=| ,*`17Nf
( = |fh>gcLG RFqtx!Oܼٴ(
=6M"%z]r Y<_`qXf>Q .!6(,_(_!L 1"Wh[m Wh]tB "`+RΩ} U='lz6z&CbY.+pO2t\j+bvhkw_GJƧhKb}gw h=># 3'k*.۽o &0z|Ɓ/ nj? yoQg.D'1Y N }+
Ʒ|6W iGi q Yb ɓ\$IPys
^t(',ue+ `։\ث@,Kdm,y>,ϸk΅?"v' g&ُ8={{/tDe~&%1!;J7 ~Gf4T0[8w_ 5Tx>PA`|u2Pqg `RGU9E.K$ K`X=$Aeq00A2T97I%D̯h)t.bYol ilJc2qVe>Ֆ-FnP ۬m-ң(7!vH<[x~Wr]Mw}|p}]싓s ;l'9̷
4|dkEPBUʇv[jQpǦEӴU?bڪuޘDQYI{1[~{_{N_΄Ψ~~5uA(^..h?/gzlu_/=ho<7km<~ B)!=cF /X?"<+ |`HnޓyGю%uF
4߬x K $ n=rzxfУWuA}:xx\@ % ktGKeJw VM =.I+ 6ٴ[ Mee)j op˾c /J @1 Wr},
֩}3M2ޫ6n)UeWeYuuMvl9dc|}啖 _^) ?0d0q鈿'aAPR[@J30aQP$ 0ľT=V ^&q3x,uw&Y3'ҋ-w-uZ _Fk jk PJ@!LGRkBO_zp}82MJv ^ϭNAѷhZh1IGox SuExfM)wڠ'):Gc$]x(MĞY-wo < ZK}'kv )ߙ o'o#
?jlq/}݇F©U.W|t0<O" J&vXTr+_ oF<(m,6!푎|ǤD^P
5&Q'[R*#yiiɑ XNQDdeF. ٪TtN=Rᄂ b)=el[~
0Ҫ,Ύ(B^n[ރI 3a)q;&U3E5j2 7 w[ k<G_
}nόC Nf6762`IPB,ʽ*8 J`1 p 54-cT m^59&}}qPdC}'
>:F⊒c@{HGЊ_AрP0p uE-IhJ\YG 3^~J0G$>f$Jp "~j մL[$9!9Q$c8-OzzAN2qP?<.V\qϞ $\qFj2! &5Aء(Aj"nWG#T?[# 宾5;y ;)*2s~-z]ȭv w}{ߐkۻNN&{KVۧzOd/0/|\-9vv,}t~..|vg(D
ذT *HLLyD)dO˲E %5 ][fR(1P5*72
xLS~Rp .sȹqMH!ⶩ8̒1 *$c /oЯ+)S
w{gJȜO2?<. nCZ5*#F (>{;A mf?# ]G)?S撟F~o-8 WEa~^-T'ޓNVQGtAK|ʠT 0J0 n4 sHd KxrtTiETG]ΎC0^IPo_!E$0 qWsg>_,{Ow_J7ĔΉWKo8{
rT$Q6-0abL↓I q^"
TWl}ws;.q뮎C q( ĔG6, kHJXZu"C(PIU6mLi`Ф*?:FH Mt[a2
MPs{ߝ?yyI 9Z#+3 7WR݊AH@$REًEzL {Ņ[VPCcL5g-/\:܋o Nj
rC6!> +JKVu7\~(v/ʼnf_@ 1%A;E{搭ږŦSv՞%~%rӇ}W̄L`zӁ
NIzk1/ rެڑhM)TE H78trwFnK#lču%#Q-]tDXy W.m^,K˥^*_\,1{ 3;(_ՅPh2s3Hm5.UajTʿՏbZ̖B|>ٶy٬3#2#)<=¯UcĉE"ف0ֶ5 ȒK?09'' jד>>[:Kg>y ܜm6Ģ};K=o .pGRs֡8L
R
ȊMEN購5a h+|+P HLd YmNy(f+x*2y5<N"1dh
a-3GXV-~&'blFl*E F0_ʄL:{{;4Nuo o
cSj8ٱ,ft
J[S`+~cYR.8B}rzz=biMI$9O.z%*F=1"̍h'fNy'Eni\oֽƸ|p v9%HRB)N-$aVWQ-ldC K (%Cx" " l *?c=95j
u4BF ;[}h":$[ joK&
uXd #9"Tx*SLa Ģ0Oz Ģ_79
l0RNP n(w0Xpt¹ CQ1(tm !1(_6_lH0/D.8x{P 3?qw~H(n\|[" /|!rrl+Uqx|]S+߹]w@#9hk76ED=!Mկac1i4Qs K~MzK!Lw\̖Pg̽a7cn&$]:,ݔxUr$4%-HtR14Nqŧ ]q-
U~I
ktGW</K0
FQ|)ReZ'f@ 34.\@]]TC3" W
ayDmxdrupHTZr(LjPJ]kk- Ej0\ 2Val\AG3P|qf0<x;3#)6=yJ
XOMٺԩB&lPG:31{?_^>R;㞸; Ɵ'5u9GtRGX!azqe JVKJKuأێN[e0TD*2h[jJD%} E eU]TkWE2};+p X ]HRl%0ibV a; >@Q2wi4~u8=M~}g3{ qLJTFVEt1<%^rbdwQ.5%qj֤qpƭ
V$}zM䧋ׯ|VacB45Q)L_E\͋ yZPl o[eP =sucC`@!#;K?e8Όk`ZڽvoOb2<aM(}pq$c~p0x&R.-M}W\N}˓ߟvA8]30U۪ǩ'o 6J~i׀dB%ӯ,L\NjVZ= g-{lFzL]v $'(rsma cuq@
:x :
BC<5b rcd&uHѷ3np )fx;D:>`A)6YH,'.%|!\]!37; ?V5>06t b$Fc͟ZX9v+v7fHz\T?u&(UxN
R7'Ȅ&8e t'Px3zkb ,aX5*} )ª, H$2YHgtØ 8 I̾ CKQv.4K|q@T\)|\M \ }!X<5 ~BL[HB,$d! qNzvX>_g>d3CzB䉹AsOt5EL7fɮf ɡnt
j E:a et*!ܳwp9^_}uj+˙X/ǿs /oř6L9xxԾ%^Y@g#tgm&ny'8%5YË<۟^P2uޞ[9w'8N({OyF1 _Pf 7aA;Հ#,eW[ٻYVH1;-K"v5֡;;`wB V=ޕGS8)>Q2O |<°J<ypY#-f9/&d[T 2>_B>ǗO 0Yp{$`7wx@b#"UT}ycG0 tQʡ nZަ|4 9&S ,[gϳD®.w鍭S Jb@Q D_jz;p" R7=~Uf,tԁSpe^[dj_xHa=
0n_VB` pJ)ۦoJ^j Z
X;KdÑFE;=Q a8z:dl nfU[CX-X^beaYNk1^n/ {zbCo@&~_Vi{߈(DvL7~0xk ?KDqry> "b_t XỤ^ړzn"tnCme3 amD;8G1w=+l
[=c@S똬ڑow$`3qA"*Z F[A (J"sh4H8; ]kښ]ME$u'g/ n# mC&OlQ2O*][}@]ZG V:a>̴ùf%spDY,Z +Dqwiq Aa_(#cfrg =I,ym6*NɰfZl~^f675Z5[*_ %TB *Ak}NΪts;VD6LM^mpep~Y y6FN1 C1X^1 &Ɠ16߾ j8=vPYt ^slhp+F]c4˒++ vwا$sa{ VX˘ODѽKX-
lYNLM- \ JxVsea>Ej.\a+gxR/t/?
gY,2]_-,}r;[̓;DBP(4MMPy}p:1 (FY*aQne6ha":¦:i=Y,5_
V4^IyR%Qkci
X/RGfZv#Y>u37NvD:=tQ)q4wtvOtv/)H\A"g[ yf1CfYPz΄qNU.u眓 w:/99-/'a '&l0 %1&MMo[5,jXpEYXNV(F,6K;ә.%1Ha0Sc/(,J A;ŏLȮpD\Dp ,.
m!"lHTWh® aUbwM=;@O
?$jt;>#W&k3AOG4 <䦑]_.9ueggֱehf!|
D<ԄdjB\r/ؓ۟? $N*SL|*1?}/E zEykk0sF /n?id+.Ċ f2z:,LTQhu1-0:#8%G$|
r+STA靵1\tZ]WY5SdpJ1QgWucD.Ġz\o/LZBOV|]cDĤehͰ
pԮc,}vǙ?;̦̃}~|w wGJ-⪀O 7I0ZRw ` ~w Z% 0,aIuTu$z{/k0q:HNz7SC_*L!9crfVT Tc5ns {
Hpanju 3As/
bh||c
9Loiilza(S=%Ys ٟ#:h&Mؒ[+
YqT7qr #B_ @=Gr7Af9e Ř7Ʋd[|¸VN85MITjӵ1of0@ U۶qy(Q$R$ԇ)K2%b+ 6w jnM6ϊbE-6Ta:u 됪 &~d #Ȇ,?{'9q{;ޝɇ<ʧABZGTL峾4m[P@WKPoTMvTNwmLp֕ g)Q9[榑PѕL}>e&X]\OÔY"*9XAHA*:gpR| .9ϢY4"6SDygh"CGNY+iE*@e #Ц҇m6hrHB.t߀&e ,f<ķt"# SGLjҠ73e L4av\W"-.VҢl
+4#VVШ9T=|ύJՒ[,5)r`1Sz/M?,A.[ǭ}z5ZH{=Hq1&cZY~8:?kJ垳~8:[܌r@(_
;>5Gz$݀' t/D6~O} ]MS')K/#$_I~WI6#Lh\gDFlMfZCU3Ѹ9eVM07&2AdwߚC,r$EоUM'%:fpIj>\r}B^ JI*Hjiۤo'b\!ݞ`29.y"Fyl vt7x/몌i
>gjFט&)!@֣6 QWT; \TlKUkDa ٶ #0M8 (j*ٌiG؆>:,w\"!T""]]dG\*X]ox, zI> _1~|y_Ld zls/l_
J9ɧ.+8}|6h˯| ytf}OĀ
/oz *JgeLܑ! yVB(RGTJl~>|"p (Z8rjZ
)f5ˇ .B6[牰[khXYpkJ@E#!;v %0_Y8d |R¬%bx6]Z,HMiEN`14FlpV{;v<8zIG|c1T֭USe"aUP5Ą7tNli
CG?"jP}Jhێe -sq:N!rAUD)rNYP*Sx/e#H;JZ]P%LR 3Et)ĭLcr1 !}-r
[;صm]jܖ© u%zMhlrkLUh띕?X\dȮ'̜2uױŗ}Mf$p?\/9
5`m!Ew.r.Ԍ[0;nм 0|}vn#'aF~;qqnc8^05t%1 2t҉yܧ knapO JeQnʲAiPIM lJ h&f!db'dΙpfcW.9 T@"c8m$톐s
4(< ' $
W9D4j
r=ddMOAeFPS OPgVN)r-|jI`LcJG`#- zZ!yiL#/
W jrQ bSCkpJv@ W3!&#f` Ԋ
BFo aN-_SG߭>4rn\} t , XR B1_ )ZoLExQ L
7y=IOE0B;HmPvӤ2A^.hJ7__Ț C=
ɠ!UC3^,ꐶYnGm~7j+ Ki~&w{^]蹦] Hb~ vܹ M Sv It -Q9FMiz=f|l[l Wm.{3{zwn۳2ځF1j*HPѢHŖBe@< KP^xISicJ%4j#!x01
U@]3c39<.וob
wMZSR(#e UT*
d *(eY+
uCǢ0F
r\@]un "رsn0;9VTBEJX_>e}e?{$N(vR
: A #ۀH\3*AGC¾ ڐ H4b`7>^̑3%@|r 6D pK ˸
v
8bj|KtWl
V/۾ued2`X p4j.!]7tC@ +=tQͼYW4] Bɉr9e(U-U3LWzURa91JA #x.ka~T*I_CfRbZe'DMꒆ%fZ[>\k0 ?Of&si*VP Kw쏴OOa5Stm}s,˕b
N/MէqEZљ6^ 7RϢ3iD/Gڒd-?ï-mow;]BE#t,Y6X3fħST9u-kڒ/"{U\Iyt_" RM
`VUTj*ϥ"+JƘ,s'iu[fֲL$4ca Â3suNrVG%9+IdI@ z rSЃ
T
|W*J YBߦ4A?xӃ,m/)ݐѯ > U^C&6j[S:$<ι#O_C:[0 0`82т M
8e QT˳^m}oǶ1 { R
0 8R
&< 3NH/#p0G![Әd&}̠!0e$=I fQʮx,dIx* 9w3@ƀf(%((
O4,A'
P Hc9"a xh_w%#?nRݷ_ޱtw~yb QJЫb*iaײ?ԌҴK:; :I")*g D;Z:'uH9 Z :R LCWd|8y/ph9Z=qizbM6~,b<&vGgYrZ|紩%z>>S:.H[fWJ,s?͞ G=H ]9ޕegPrٵ{@!KЖp;3@-x"cCӲu;=-w$9yJA\j5T5v;-L^4Jk2M{Zy$Nf_bbK\8ѥ{%&~~/RıɄI-lP(e.(ok(H&H'.Q~(G Yաh՞m O֨lޢ\ :V}p o 3{ 6vp~'
b7e7SsTIIiwΑ !yOCg#?b
O쐰} 4<; [0C̀|78s.f]QUh1cK @"!ˈAKih<9uTVy&(6$lH# vur Sߐ t1 ]yWrn&J>iL cr9u-(wYdy(9M
\Y$WB)NO'6%8IF܇.
`*MhvQ94bo8N0vdL>/檽65 :?6>6>NlVfUk95s_9 Lw'OZ_|˟̕DG^|\ '̮ l\9׳)Q |MP ͖/8.qp28M g d! ~S ͐ fo7^# rGaԿ8&+|_;ñC MxĨ P @]SFQhh;1JQ:&QԑmMQ(Фtkm
m }BG;vC9}{wι7>Uw%$adeUT^>Z.2{qJ՛EKIy?g^%?Ҍ}~8^LTfTtmwXT]|6=/{%{:Om jj#UVGڞp<ߜ5˱˷>Ak.ZÑr"_>~DgHW; H ]va@pϱOR7鰶2 5^w yUұq! vafCg(.P ^(UQxġV(
.88<|y|ᆏ~`8 d豍7@rX5˫J .z1 Ë!Pg+86`A> x%XTR[SW TGyDf}қ=yrSV[QX)MʵF^;`ܩUI9ųF6
}no5h_(m *&yi.F
$Vwӯ#^[y{+l iG{X Gino
Y:k)XSSA@;4CM /@"{Bu^G@y3p R`.m`ھ |HA
zP?InfAkzcjrE+yѮHkGM,g;
XwS dq^g![;V
a}oCΆ
sQ> > 37Н@#>h]·m1 2b2qVSk, Q\IJuSkb٦`67 $VK۾u \+) ^5AZa=KX% u0?Ǩ6 W|CG]ز颙TԚԧ(` M}s\(Fk= ?{@ξ^e_`{;|JH/~-&pxQpcYI9n0>Su=d sI>G}fn1gR%I_u2Ƞ sK dne}".P lbSR>){?@5{瞒Rusi6mS?^^Au~,w_ '171^?D;E/K9i rȾ!`,kwꕴD'B2`hAԭY^݂sӔ(F ߣoh2
۳ | Mh==tTZ r9 }
şSw
!7NCo^}E(? uuE}Iӱðum7<:K
I|uoEx~+%U FNix4 !A J^m{C- n-vPӚ>$xػJ*`Q߶pu4Fۓ"߰\o6Y&x &qn|9gFc f]my)sz=b#l;DO# n.Qu18)VM:Zl1oll 2́Ufơ{^m>8xlM},wC_h 䮳SFLBBV/#=m)Wa?q9N1v=͑",HP%t%{JwS"9:?kyGiU-JRvݔӹ=-'uG ]I:=O=g*2O)z7kC;oMC 85UPk(UN-(c)WCNE [ZMp Qr_i;ײ<ύ>dL /c`"ï={O);
H2:< 2|B?K!f>Xi4{]Ec:#O:ՔOQ;r\Jkmj.fUq+A.^A9!U|c 1o &?zSW#YR Wųaw-/}Ir_*'^X:[ 5"{<|KJ W&jNtUX6
@ߐ_'Dgo<6Nƺ/aùZOu6YtM 32t՚_5NLB mB{ Þ jGz -{KQw`յ3kH{۰1s}(w 8
s:~[ RkMŞߏˉi
Nd%a9ELfZMtRRAQd·PVAz _ó PR?u1 A_د= Yg /"}.. ƿՑIvL$IW;% S
Q]1?KBGqP_݅3P?~[I څ &ܤ ħ3K}8~GTݖb[~۶[Վ¯_6y}]$<ܳpKߴZaG7d4i:_Mh>3[
l"sk7FދNWx>K%8 yve
#)%&n /&7VdG֯71Wubj)14Ļ]?%~KzKE&~|QKi?2d&3 Z+ lyb2s2qS
9IsS@ >:ʠ2i9Sp|L&8[ z|THM ;kVk7 칁ZМ[F.S ~ ƟZcx`:N {n%S&%y> ; o~'c\xX,k@z9zí3-RfV֍Q鋯Ͳ;ki
Ig9Kt FL.QIk}
IMf!glFY"#i} k
foa F`O9{ .c^foi&Fz4oF;Qg/sFD?!q8\uw6?Za̘ d7>5:yFmgl2=k+]WEkwޒ:a]Iwl9ۻvn1P5PZ9f+:ܟVdBu,g ]N f `}'2PȞ tE@TJN(G,eB %}dc: tEy {rYGܺutw~}r+MoX_)䷞ށF<ҟ3!>bиs]XN ' nOF"g1_cel`8sQ-*hP>J EB ҖA壂Q :K6CP8 N-ď ([
dw֗[79{Eݟ̯PtA)}f#^g|_Sߒ! ;k|CU/fd1|THNxYb<kI1=2tbY?} 6z;?C/s;\
6b @7xdwX^en\O* [xuuVS 6IbZDhD c;Agw*V2 /QGG ]}ĽayVJ.Rnw
mGݗa3 ڠaԕ<] Kks6½[])lL.s >Ÿr_ P)FsMbT'碹cKn甔r%g5 ZEyK~c6ZO
w4(fnbkiWM}?4cMH_~ܟ3M^$-%`t J 6V:u3[&ےј4nS`8:j+?͌!\VIVu!PN},\&hԣ'־9wTjPq xG "Jqݎ{
YSҺ]9KHݵ/w%[}jz+
( Xk^JE'(+wj}֗_>=m싪[~ h} ڏh$ָQg0!WRs4|~EJYE=FdKoG|
Z~ֿ}j_MKLu Uõ0P56/{ƥaqЏ}n5e
'S;J&Hq0 v }z!I1:M59(Wr.lkH멵q|6']#UoI-i >6Dώbt2Xc9PlRu#{<>0x^w L\o7l{fez6L {3ݢ?ߌsAg4a|mK eaNv>iDnLj.y~K`:S^þD{ 7Լx~~cb1cϗ=L{tڭ/F= C+쁞}w|ܽݮY:u pN2y{V~+WRg O>=ìM`{]|0q}щv~:v b,*ϋ۳}ndh9sLcmȧeоwb NV߃,]` Ogym;] 瞜g3gyTVd; 2@ "ȅY0 51 eTw>(툵VO;`mFJmNs,l®0}+h~ ԽF|^ht:W;MZ5}#ax2qwTj
wEyPmyvu_j3`9dq?] ҏw9)ם3J)]U̇Ëe|j53
rK~۱1xĭfQ]"O E2# ~bץ1o߄nk[l uƆGlL^(4.k4C,wuHrr_/ "P =d Rڳ ֞p,XVQ笓jU`nWI7| +iY29W$?1%u.OT$y~T9 \ Y曕܃=G~5`yƞ'M oI=DIO~q7 BgZR\
%ۯ#n/!謞Fvw&_# $3(>\_OG2Yvp
˓j1AdzM2
W'Gr:>F?7z!>rB&RɴZ=O,*E4cdg̃W$7wE+~ax^ѻ(ޟv 扛/mof_&juv>g})!ٖ
wiSvSdCteX cPB`xJu/IW&k_ ^mJbb1J++~6b)fF̐Nl{ LYn%cUЭwHspO8s % Hn6yClͭ,e&'\:O%N*u2pc,0m8) Yy?w!roG;.ڬٍYy3Ħ^kd)9HH}\nxݙ8c-ƃ}xN1=&+Ntlg+ˊ2g=uXOn
YNg iW˼'QxvaȽ:ԣ)Q 8ϼar.R
Wf%F?G8^uF+Chw
aU4B%x%4'r v窛b zϵ]_A,"REf5)<+*
)3"qJzChgYVODʒo%bgŨķ(zhg9c67\~_/fI.aӃe^220d[b<
!Pur E-9y(p;{almܸ;s&ϸ _`,!}wIkybS,4a 3uX_E
<az|;k<QwR\x^y_ԛg}_y'#}w)zs 2+HAO$([lSٸfq i8gq5ޛL-|$1~a91J o 'P̨f~#9Ct;e_"#/`IPXwrZ}? J+im3:mɲq \'ȯZ s;=v:_ ]d Jϙe^!Ͻq X_'
yG 9W aΡp;ffڲi[vS>k 1.ÕC.aԸ۲1[6Xϖ]߰e7sx0 jPŴqHH%) êE5k@;z?YL-ߐj&Xj%۔ǝzƩ3 뒓`RsPCm
p #vfzY*k8䚤 j {Χ[B.Ҁk+j>ze7J*,'X> [8'iS][(ǔ_ahP)H%&wpj >Y3E+)EU Z6,9<!5jyڕkx, HXbc<'p㟬WmPT>rمA^V!,b-Qoݻhai(k, SLKNja56B@ rW1LISߎ2$i>Ɍ:]}ss)⡔p2H,@!&CtC<-a `ɢ_~N
937y5$]g,ˀa` @""lMcW=(^E
;JvI}.-t<Ӿ[h7/^@[3l@sod=>`8:غJS vLV@5duyϬa뇰sCع!@jg0d 3Ϡx_d}'e^0{ ]-(ž},ǬΰvEv$լ a/aMRrMIVvyov'sE;$pc]ۀB
(`]vi͞']0v g9`ՐV%Y*"s D=ȴ@o&><#"lD6U0 K2ޒO8?d 8a d{ `3 ;\rLm*NVƣ x\T^3ÒKͼ&a&{MF (exy~ nDV 03O4edU0%B_د}k'ڗ:R(-^$yگvk\h2EuR'ybdߡ WSmBۈ@c ː9~~B}h>U! gCH#)b =xM~\ii;ԉзP" ɪoءCg ?C vPLm<#)U1Lů`c]
vH)Zo ,Rr"K.XGt9bG=r HukE|i ' 2]o?4-]6J ~4E|!r!1 J)&&[*tτNT~D毅iX~ ٘;)i÷[~.E|SiJLcLgQq[^x8r;;NĹY*py]y\WR]"ʒYAp ^!CC { WKc}Ŕ:jHl_U[K9WXU,Wf)a -K~}mDEh*oE(9[,tpl.
ߺ3jpœOQg?E%uօ6{ի%uqF 8f;vK94Do)Bmʉ="N_ H@配B-IF4)m҆5
Ҧi0:z_*E *6e=)c*
Fz0g%#9:a
a e6lV`z:qu4.PSbx<Ow`Ɏvh^?ru=|_$|Ўn QlGS]"ݡGgIWþ.;jw
zG4}֙ǵꇟ2ذ^Ԛ=% )Q+&jD)sJ֊ֶY JkRqh/V{{w{dTm"nuTe2"RIE*aO&Utj6Iy?iE
_>40P (~ܼ1kma
Sq>`l3DYbѣ{z& -zKepYxQWʪ& \A^' o3=C1Qcܘ1L@Cms1 [
J4Dt>̮=7t6f 6F㬊Y K,Fm!Nu1r/Y.K겚SUSmU^:NcSiwOsWMw;;) GŦשF;'ʙ99\A] Đ l 3 @ @ Ĭ e ~ ğHN@$¬ˬ*
HmPI*lbNLQB8I M\:#. y
o+ ĬFF`K!y0X- Dk0jSR
LO@ڌPXD Pd6@ "Ҿ@
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 6/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 701.25 591.75 64.499 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
(6. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1.)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(7. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. See discussio\
n of arbitrary and capricious standard in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Scope of Review section of this decision.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 AM])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 16 744 Tm
(Because of the errors discussed above, and because of the vagueness and \
lack of specificity in the Administrative)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Judge's findings of fact)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(regarding debts 1.j.,1.l., and 1.m., the appropriate remedy is to remand\
the case to the Judge to)Tj
T*
(issue a new decision that is responsive to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.135 0 Td
(Board's rulings on the appeal issues it was able to resolve, and that co\
rrects)Tj
-18.135 -1.125 Td
(the deficiencies in his findings of fact. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.551 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(93-0519 \(August 25, 1994\) at pp. 3-4 \(concluding)Tj
-15.551 -1.125 Td
(remand is appropriate when Board cannot discern what the Administrative \
Judge relied on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.406 0 Td
(in reaching his ultimate)Tj
-36.406 -1.125 Td
(determination\); DISCR Case No. 89-0806 \(July 26, 1991\) at p. 2 \(conc\
luding remand is appropriate when decision)Tj
T*
(below does not contain clear and unambiguous findings regarding the vari\
ous debts alleged in the SOR and the Board)Tj
T*
(cannot discern what)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.247 0 Td
(facts the Judge relied on in reaching his ultimate conclusions\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
13.52 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Pursuant to Item E3.1.33.2 of the Directive's Additional Procedural Guid\
ance, the Board remands the case to the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.86 0 Td
(instructions to issue a new decision that complies with the rulings made\
in this Board)Tj
-10.86 -1.125 Td
(decision and which eliminates the vagueness and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.855 0 Td
(uncertainty identified herein. )Tj
11.829 0 Td
(Upon issuance of a new decision by the)Tj
-31.684 -1.125 Td
(Judge, the parties retain their appeal rights. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.466 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(Directive, Additional)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.385 0 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.35.)Tj
-27.852 -2.125 Td
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 531.75 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 507 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 429.75 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 405 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 327.75 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 303 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge made formal findings favorable to Applicant und\
er subparagraphs 2.a. and 2.b. of the SOR.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Those favorable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.719 0 Td
(findings are not at issue on appeal.)Tj
-6.719 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
("The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the pe\
rson's control \(e.g., loss of employment, a)Tj
T*
(business downturn,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation\).")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
(This debt is the subject of subparagraph 1.j. of the SOR.)Tj
T*
(4. )Tj
(The SOR contains allegations concerning thirteen delinquent debts. )Tj
28.243 0 Td
(In his decision, the Administrative Judge found)Tj
-28.243 -1.125 Td
(that two of the debts)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.415 0 Td
(were duplicated in other SOR allegations, thereby reducing the actual nu\
mber of debts to eleven.)Tj
-8.415 -1.125 Td
(Inasmuch as this finding has not been)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.303 0 Td
(challenged on appeal, it is accepted by the Board for purposes of evalua\
ting the)Tj
-15.303 -1.125 Td
(arguments raised on appeal.)Tj
T*
(5. )Tj
("The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors\
or otherwise resolve debts.")Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>>
endobj
52 0 obj
[54 0 R 55 0 R]
endobj
53 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 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
(Department Counsel specifically argues that the Administrative Judge's c\
onclusions regarding the debt listed at)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(subparagraph 1.g. of the SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(are not supported by the record evidence. )Tj
28.908 0 Td
(Department Counsel's contention has merit.)Tj
-28.908 -2.125 Td
(Regarding debt 1.g., the Administrative Judge found that: \(a\) Applican\
t admitted owing $12,853 on the account; \(b\) the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(creditor offered to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.524 0 Td
(settle the account with either a greatly reduced lump sum payment or wit\
h monthly payments that)Tj
-7.524 -1.125 Td
(were within Applicant's financial means to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.342 0 Td
(make; )Tj
2.693 0 Td
(\(c\) Applicant failed to submit any proof of payment on the account)Tj
-20.035 -1.125 Td
(and there was no indication that he had acted on either option)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.825 0 Td
(presented by the creditor; and \(d\) Applicant chose to rely)Tj
-24.825 -1.125 Td
(on the fact that debt 1.g. did not appear in the two credit reports he s\
ubmitted with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.13 0 Td
(his SOR response. )Tj
(The Judge)Tj
-33.13 -1.125 Td
(concluded that Applicant's failure to take action on the account was not\
because of any unwillingness or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.862 0 Td
(inability on his)Tj
-41.862 -1.125 Td
(part to satisfy the account, but because he wrongly assumed that the fac\
t that the account was not listed on his credit)Tj
T*
(report)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(meant that he was not liable on the debt. )Tj
19.022 0 Td
(Department Counsel argues that the Administrative Judge's conclusion)Tj
-19.022 -1.125 Td
(that Applicant failed to take)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.413 0 Td
(action to resolve debt 1.g. due to a misunderstanding is contradicted by\
the Applicant's)Tj
-11.413 -1.125 Td
(admission of liability for the account in March 2001. )Tj
21.384 0 Td
(Department Counsel is correct. )Tj
12.69 0 Td
(Applicant admits liability for debt)Tj
-34.075 -1.125 Td
(1.g. in a March 2001 statement and this fact significantly undercuts the\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.659 0 Td
(Judge's conclusion that at a later time and after)Tj
-28.659 -1.125 Td
(the creditor's proffers of compromise settlement offers, Applicant thoug\
ht he wasn't liable for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.627 0 Td
(the debt. )Tj
3.693 0 Td
(The only record)Tj
-41.32 -1.125 Td
(evidence that provides any support for the Judge's conclusions about App\
licant's state of mind after he received)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.819 0 Td
(offers)Tj
-44.819 -1.125 Td
(from the creditor to settle debt 1.g. is Applicant's December 30, 2003, \
response to subparagraph 1.g. of the SOR,)Tj
T*
(wherein he makes the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.941 0 Td
(statement, without further explanation: "Deny-not on current credit repo\
rt." )Tj
30.39 0 Td
(There is no evidence)Tj
-39.331 -1.125 Td
(of record that speaks directly to the issue of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.689 0 Td
(Applicant's state of mind in May 2003. )Tj
15.845 0 Td
(Applicant's denial, made in)Tj
-33.534 -1.125 Td
(December 2003, says little about Applicant's state of mind regarding the\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.172 0 Td
(debt at the time settlement offers were made in)Tj
-29.172 -1.125 Td
(May 2003. )Tj
(The Judge's conclusions about Applicant's reasons for not resolving debt\
1.g.,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.882 0 Td
(when he was given a clear)Tj
-35.882 -1.125 Td
(opportunity to do so, are contrary to his own findings and are not suppo\
rted by record evidence. )Tj
38.574 0 Td
(Those conclusions)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.666 0 Td
(are)Tj
-46.239 -1.125 Td
(therefore not sustainable.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel also argues that the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1\
.j., 1.l., and 1.m. of the SOR are still)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(delinquent and Applicant has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.941 0 Td
(not demonstrated a commitment toward repaying these debts. )Tj
24.854 0 Td
(Department Counsel asserts)Tj
-36.796 -1.125 Td
(that the Administrative Judge improperly applied)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.94 0 Td
(Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 6 by considering the)Tj
-19.94 -1.125 Td
(debts resolved and including them in his justification for invoking that\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.412 0 Td
(mitigating factor. )Tj
7.192 0 Td
(The Board's ability to address)Tj
-35.604 -1.125 Td
(the claim of error regarding these three debts is greatly impaired by de\
ficiencies in the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.736 0 Td
(Administrative Judge's decision.)Tj
-34.736 -2.125 Td
(An Administrative Judge has broad discretion and latitude in how to writ\
e a security clearance decision, subject to the)Tj
T*
(legal constraints of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.331 0 Td
(Directive and basic concepts of due process. )Tj
17.993 0 Td
(See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-02528 \(May 28, 2003\))Tj
-27.324 -1.125 Td
(at p. 3. )Tj
(A Judge is required to issue a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.997 0 Td
(decision that sets forth "pertinent findings of facts, policies, and con\
clusions as to)Tj
-14.997 -1.125 Td
(the allegations in the SOR." Directive, Additional)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.154 0 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.25. )Tj
14.606 0 Td
(In meeting that requirement, a)Tj
-34.761 -1.125 Td
(Judge must set forth findings and conclusions with sufficient specificit\
y)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.995 0 Td
(and clarity so that the parties and the Board can)Tj
-28.995 -1.125 Td
(discern what the Judge is finding and concluding. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.079 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0809 \(August)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(19, 1999\) at p. 2. )Tj
(The)Tj
-20.079 -1.125 Td
(appeal rights of the parties and the ability of the Board to carry out i\
ts appellate functions are impaired when a decision)Tj
T*
(contains findings and conclusions that cannot be understood. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
24.579 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0476 \(July 22, 1999\) at p. 4.)Tj
-24.579 -1.375 Td
(In order to determine)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.719 0 Td
(whether a Judge's findings are supported by substantial record evidence,\
)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 467.3477 248.25 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 467.3477 247.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 481.1538 243.75 Tm
( or whether the Judge's)Tj
-38.763 -1.375 Td
(conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.077 0 Td
(contrary to law,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 284.5645 231.75 Tm
( \(7\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 284.5645 231 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 298.3706 227.25 Tm
( the Board must be able to discern what findings the Judge)Tj
-23.531 -1.125 Td
(made and what conclusions the Judge reached as to the SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.466 0 Td
(allegations.)Tj
-24.466 -2.125 Td
(In this case, the Administrative Judge's findings with regard to debts 1\
.j.,1.l., and 1.m. amount to little more than)Tj
T*
(recitations of Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.261 0 Td
(representations on the record about those debts. )Tj
19.272 0 Td
(They are therefore vague and unspecific. )Tj
16.575 0 Td
(In)Tj
-46.107 -1.125 Td
(his conclusions, the Judge states that, with the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.664 0 Td
(exception of debts 1.f. and 1.g., all of Applicant's remaining accounts)Tj
-18.664 -1.125 Td
(have either been satisfied, deleted from his credit report following a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.379 0 Td
(reinvestigation of liability, or have not been shown)Tj
-27.379 -1.125 Td
(to either belong to him or be delinquent. )Tj
16.357 0 Td
(The Judge's decision does not indicate which of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.342 0 Td
(these categories debts 1.j., 1.l.,)Tj
-35.7 -1.125 Td
(and 1.m. fall into. )Tj
7.36 0 Td
(Without more specific factual findings regarding these three debts, the \
Board cannot)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.016 0 Td
(discern: \(a\))Tj
-41.376 -1.125 Td
(whether Department Counsel satisfied its initial burden of establishing \
that these three debts belonged to Applicant and)Tj
T*
(were)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(delinquent as alleged in the SOR; and \(b\) regarding mitigation, if app\
licable, what the Judge found about each of)Tj
T*
(the three debts in terms of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.664 0 Td
(when and in what manner the debts were satisfied or otherwise resolved. \
)Tj
29.296 0 Td
(The Board's current)Tj
-39.96 -1.125 Td
(inability to answer these questions regarding)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.107 0 Td
(each of the three debts precludes it from making a reasoned decision as \
to)Tj
-18.107 -1.125 Td
(whether the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicability of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.951 0 Td
(Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 6 are)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 39.75 Tm
(sustainable or are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[467.0 246.0 481.0 257.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[285.0 229.0 299.0 240.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
56 0 obj
[58 0 R]
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 AM])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 16 742.5 Tm
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred in his application of Mitigating \
Condition 6)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 741.75 cm
0 0 m
404.918 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 432.918 747 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 432.918 746.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 446.7241 742.5 Tm
( under Guideline F)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 446.7241 741.75 cm
0 0 m
90.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 537.0405 742.5 Tm
(. The)Tj
-43.42 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge found that: \(a\) Applicant claimed that he did not\
know whom some of the creditors listed on his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(credit report were; \(b\) Applicant paid off one account in December 199\
8; \(c\) Applicant sought reinvestigation of a)Tj
T*
(number of the listed accounts; \(d\) credit reports indicate that severa\
l of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.601 0 Td
(Applicant's debts were reinvestigated and)Tj
-28.601 -1.125 Td
(deleted from his credit report; \(e\) Applicant is working to resolve a \
delinquent medical bill in the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.072 0 Td
(amount of $188)Tj
-39.072 -1.125 Td
(\(alleged in subparagraph 1.f. of the SOR\) and some action was taken as\
the outstanding amount has been reduced to)Tj
T*
($131;)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and \(f\) another delinquent credit account in the amount of $12,853 rem\
ains outstanding, despite the creditor's)Tj
T*
(offer to settle the account,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.662 0 Td
(because Applicant has chosen to rely on the fact that the account does n\
ot appear on two)Tj
-10.662 -1.125 Td
(recent credit reports. )Tj
8.496 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.637 0 Td
(concluded: \(i\) the $131 debt remains delinquent but the evidence)Tj
-19.132 -1.125 Td
(establishes that action is being taken to resolve it; \(ii\) although Ap\
plicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.493 0 Td
(has not acted to resolve the $12,853 debt, his)Tj
-29.493 -1.125 Td
(inaction is the result of his mistaken notion that the fact that the deb\
t is no longer listed on his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.715 0 Td
(credit report means he is)Tj
-37.715 -1.125 Td
(no longer liable for the debt, and is not the result of any unwillingnes\
s or inability to satisfy the account; \(iii\) all the)Tj
T*
(other debts listed in the SOR have either been satisfied, deleted from A\
pplicant's credit report following a)Tj
T*
(reinvestigation of his liability, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.387 0 Td
(have not been shown to either belong to him, or be delinquent; and \(iv\)\
Financial)Tj
-13.387 -1.125 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 6 applies in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(On appeal, Department Counsel argues that the Administrative Judge impro\
perly applied Financial Considerations)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Mitigating Condition 6. )Tj
9.723 0 Td
(In)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(support of its contention, Department Counsel argues: \(a\) the record e\
vidence reveals that)Tj
-9.723 -1.125 Td
(Applicant has demonstrated a lack of commitment)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.411 0 Td
(toward repaying five outstanding debts totaling more than $23,000;)Tj
-20.411 -1.125 Td
(\(b\) Applicant has not provided any documentation to support his assert\
ion)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.911 0 Td
(that these five outstanding accounts have)Tj
-29.911 -1.125 Td
(been satisfied or, alternatively, that he is not liable on these account\
s; and \(c\) with regard to one of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.681 0 Td
(the five debts, the)Tj
-39.681 -1.125 Td
($12,853 debt alleged in subparagraph 1.g. of the SOR, the Judge's conclu\
sion that Applicant failed to take action to)Tj
T*
(resolve)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(this account due to a misunderstanding about his liability cannot be rec\
onciled with Applicant's earlier)Tj
T*
(admission of liability for the account,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.247 0 Td
(and is not supported by the record evidence.)Tj
-15.247 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, Department Counsel has limited its assignment of error regard\
ing the Administrative Judge's application of)Tj
T*
(Financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.971 0 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 6 to a consideration of five account\
s. )Tj
29.967 0 Td
(Those accounts relate to the)Tj
-33.938 -1.125 Td
(allegations in subparagraphs 1.f., 1.g., )Tj
15.469 0 Td
(1.j., 1.l., and 1.m. of the SOR. )Tj
12.277 0 Td
(Department Counsel has not challenged the Judge's)Tj
-27.746 -1.125 Td
(findings and conclusions regarding the debts listed in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.552 0 Td
(subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.h., and 1.i. of the SOR.)Tj
-21.552 -1.125 Td
(Therefore, the Board need not consider those findings and conclusions fo\
r)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.88 0 Td
(purposes of resolving this appeal issue.)Tj
-29.88 -2.125 Td
(Upon consideration of Department Counsel's appeal arguments relating to \
the application of Financial Considerations)Tj
T*
(Mitigating Condition 6)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.473 0 Td
(and the decision of the Administrative Judge, the Board finds that it is\
not now in a position to)Tj
-9.473 -1.125 Td
(evaluate Department Counsel's arguments)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.064 0 Td
(regarding the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.j., 1.l., and 1.m. of the\
SOR.)Tj
-17.064 -1.125 Td
(The Board is in a position, however, to address Department)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.05 0 Td
(Counsel's arguments regarding the debts alleged in)Tj
-24.05 -1.125 Td
(subparagraphs 1.f. and 1.g. of the SOR and will do so before addressing \
its inability to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.828 0 Td
(resolve the issues surrounding)Tj
-34.828 -1.125 Td
(the other debts.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Regarding the debt listed under SOR subparagraph 1.f., the Administrativ\
e Judge found that the amount of the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(delinquent debt for medical)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.274 0 Td
(services was initially $188, but that Applicant worked to correct an inc\
orrect insurance)Tj
-11.274 -1.125 Td
(filing and the amount of the debt was subsequently)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.635 0 Td
(reduced to $131. )Tj
6.942 0 Td
(The Judge then concluded that, although the debt)Tj
-27.577 -1.125 Td
(was still delinquent, action was being taken to resolve the account. )Tj
26.909 0 Td
(Although he does not say so explicitly in his)Tj
-26.909 -1.125 Td
(decision, the Judge appears to rely on his findings and conclusions rega\
rding debt 1.f. as part of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.491 0 Td
(his basis for applying)Tj
-38.491 -1.125 Td
(Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 6. )Tj
19.943 0 Td
(In its appeal brief, Department Counsel does not address any of its)Tj
-19.943 -1.125 Td
(arguments specifically to the Judge's findings and conclusions concernin\
g debt 1.f. )Tj
33.367 0 Td
(Rather, in challenging the Judge's)Tj
-33.367 -1.125 Td
(findings and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conclusions regarding all five debts raised on appeal, Department Counse\
l asserts generally that the)Tj
T*
(evidence shows that Applicant displayed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.579 0 Td
(an unwillingness to pay debts, Applicant has not provided evidence that \
any of)Tj
-16.579 -1.125 Td
(the five debts have been paid or that he is not liable on them,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.576 0 Td
(and Applicant has failed to show he initiated a good-faith)Tj
-24.576 -1.125 Td
(effort to resolve his remaining debt. )Tj
14.579 0 Td
(Department Counsel's general assertions lack)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.369 0 Td
(merit and fail to establish error on the)Tj
-32.948 -1.125 Td
(part of the Judge in his resolution of debt 1.f. )Tj
18.274 0 Td
(The record evidence supports the Judge's findings that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.952 0 Td
(the Applicant made)Tj
-40.227 -1.125 Td
(some effort to resolve the debt and that the amount of the debt was redu\
ced. )Tj
30.601 0 Td
(The Judge's conclusion that action is being)Tj
-30.601 -1.125 Td
(taken to resolve debt 1.f. is also reasonably supported by the record ev\
idence.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[432.0 744.0 446.0 755.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
59 0 obj
[61 0 R]
endobj
60 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 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
(The Applicant bears the burden of producing evidence that warrants the a\
pplication of mitigating factors. )Tj
42.319 0 Td
(The Judge's)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(finding that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.888 0 Td
(Applicant's financial problems can be attributed, in part, to his divorc\
e derives essentially from Applicant's)Tj
-4.888 -1.125 Td
(very general assertion in a 2001)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.996 0 Td
(sworn statement that "some of my debts are from my divorce." )Tj
25.366 0 Td
(There is no record)Tj
-38.361 -1.125 Td
(evidence that further elaborates upon Applicant's statement)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.921 0 Td
(or that reveals how the divorce caused or contributed to)Tj
-23.921 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's financial delinquencies. )Tj
14.509 0 Td
(There is also no record evidence that explains)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.548 0 Td
(how Applicant's 1993 divorce)Tj
-33.057 -1.125 Td
(continues to affect Applicant's financial delinquencies more than eight \
years later. )Tj
33.057 0 Td
(Department Counsel points)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.193 0 Td
(out that)Tj
-44.25 -1.125 Td
(Applicant provided no documentation to support his assertion that his di\
vorce resulted in his current financial)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(difficulties. )Tj
4.832 0 Td
(The Board)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.499 0 Td
(need not rule that corroboration of an applicant's assertions regarding \
finances is generally)Tj
-9.331 -1.125 Td
(required to rule that, in this case, the paucity of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.105 0 Td
(evidence, other than Applicant's broad assertion, )Tj
19.674 0 Td
(undermines the Judge's)Tj
-38.779 -1.125 Td
(finding that there was a significant connection between Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.088 0 Td
(divorce and his longstanding indebtedness. )Tj
17.441 0 Td
(Other)Tj
-44.53 -1.125 Td
(than Applicant's statement that some of his debts were from his divorce,\
the only evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.393 0 Td
(of record that establishes any)Tj
-36.393 -1.125 Td
(connection between Applicant's divorce and his financial delinquencies i\
s: \(a\) information on credit reports that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.916 0 Td
(four out)Tj
-44.916 -1.375 Td
(of eleven delinquent debts listed on the SOR were opened prior to Applic\
ant's divorce)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 429.0566 594.75 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 429.0566 594 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 442.8628 590.25 Tm
(; and \(b\) evidence that one of)Tj
-35.572 -1.125 Td
(the four )Tj
(debts)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.j. of the SOR\) may have involved A\
pplicant's ex-wife's incurring of)Tj
T*
(an unspecified amount of debt at the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.801 0 Td
(time of the divorce.)Tj
-14.801 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel persuasively argues that, aside from any consideratio\
n of Applicant's divorce and its possible effect)Tj
T*
(upon his finances,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.499 0 Td
(there is evidence that Applicant compounded his debt problems by overext\
ending himself financially)Tj
-7.499 -1.125 Td
(and making a number of poor decisions)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.08 0 Td
(in lending money to friends and family. )Tj
16.108 0 Td
(The record evidence contains)Tj
-32.188 -1.125 Td
(admissions from Applicant that, after his divorce: \(a\) he lent $2,000-\
2,500 to a friend and the loan was never repaid; \(b\))Tj
T*
(he moved in with a girl friend and made the mistake of paying some of he\
r bills and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.825 0 Td
(allowed her to use his credit cards,)Tj
-33.825 -1.125 Td
(which resulted in some of the delinquent indebtedness he accumulated; an\
d \(c\) he tried to help his mother)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.543 0 Td
(with her)Tj
-42.543 -1.125 Td
(finances. )Tj
3.832 0 Td
(These voluntary actions undertaken by Applicant do not constitute condit\
ions that were beyond his control for)Tj
-3.832 -1.125 Td
(the purposes)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of applying Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 3. )Tj
30.053 0 Td
(Department Counsel correctly asserts that)Tj
-30.053 -1.125 Td
(this voluntary activity, and the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.442 0 Td
(specific evidence of record as to how it affected Applicant's finances, \
significantly)Tj
-12.442 -1.125 Td
(undercuts the Judge's application of Financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.509 0 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 3.)Tj
-18.509 -2.125 Td
(Regarding the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant's health pro\
blems and those of his current wife contributed)Tj
T*
(to Applicant's debt)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.762 0 Td
(delinquencies, Department Counsel argues that the majority of Applicant'\
s delinquent accounts)Tj
-7.762 -1.125 Td
(became past due prior to the time Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.772 0 Td
(and his wife experienced their health difficulties and are not related t\
o)Tj
-17.772 -1.125 Td
(medical expenses. )Tj
7.525 0 Td
(Department Counsel also argues that there was no)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.272 0 Td
(record evidence that Applicant was out of work for)Tj
-27.797 -1.125 Td
(an extended period of time. )Tj
11.218 0 Td
(A review of the record evidence reveals that Department)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.906 0 Td
(Counsel's first argument has merit.)Tj
-34.124 -1.125 Td
(Most of Applicant's delinquent debts precede the 2001-2002 time frame wh\
en Applicant claims he and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.363 0 Td
(his wife)Tj
-41.363 -1.125 Td
(experienced medical and layoff problems. )Tj
17.048 0 Td
(Moreover, only one of Applicant's debts is specifically identified in th\
e)Tj
-17.048 -1.125 Td
(record as being)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.358 0 Td
(medically related. )Tj
7.413 0 Td
(There is no record evidence that Applicant's or his current wife's medic\
al problems)Tj
-13.771 -1.125 Td
(created additional debt, other than a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.577 0 Td
(general statement by Applicant, not otherwise explained, that his wife h\
ad some)Tj
-14.577 -1.125 Td
(health problems which had been a financial drain. )Tj
20.187 0 Td
(Inasmuch)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(as Applicant has the burden of proof to produce evidence)Tj
-20.187 -1.125 Td
(justifying application of mitigating conditions, this lack of more speci\
fic evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.047 0 Td
(identifying substantial debt as being)Tj
-33.047 -1.125 Td
(the result of medical expenses undermines the Judge's application of Fin\
ancial Considerations Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.31 0 Td
(Condition 3.)Tj
-42.31 -1.125 Td
(Regarding Applicant's loss of work because of health problems, the recor\
d evidence includes Applicant's statement that)Tj
T*
(he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(missed approximately five months of work because of medical problems bet\
ween April 2002 and mid-January 2003.)Tj
T*
(In light of this evidence,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.998 0 Td
(Department Counsel's second argument that Applicant was not out of work \
for an extended)Tj
-9.998 -1.125 Td
(period of time minimizes that factor to an extent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.577 0 Td
(not warranted by the record. )Tj
11.551 0 Td
(However, there is a lack of record)Tj
-31.128 -1.125 Td
(evidence indicating how much income, if any, Applicant lost as a result \
of his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.381 0 Td
(or his wife's layoffs. )Tj
(Additionally, when)Tj
-31.381 -1.125 Td
(describing in the record what effect his layoffs had upon his financial \
situation, Applicant stated that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.46 0 Td
(his medical)Tj
-40.46 -1.125 Td
(difficulties made it difficult to catch up with his old debts. )Tj
23.495 0 Td
(As the available evidence describes a situation where the)Tj
-23.495 -1.125 Td
(layoffs)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(hampered Applicant's ability to pay old delinquent debts that had alread\
y accumulated, as opposed to creating)Tj
T*
(new debt, the evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.413 0 Td
(surrounding the layoffs has very limited applicability to Financial Cons\
iderations Mitigating)Tj
-9.413 -1.125 Td
(Condition 3, which speaks in terms of debts that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.553 0 Td
(arise out of circumstances beyond an applicant's control.)Tj
-19.553 -2.125 Td
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Administrative Judge fai\
led to articulate a sustainable basis for)Tj
T*
(applying Financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.721 0 Td
(Considerations Mitigating Condition 3 to Applicant's overall history of \
financial difficulties. )Tj
37.23 0 Td
(The)Tj
-44.951 -1.125 Td
(totality of the record does not support the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.774 0 Td
(conclusion that Applicant's indebtedness resulted from conditions that w\
ere)Tj
-16.774 -1.125 Td
(largely beyond his control.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[429.0 592.0 443.0 603.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
62 0 obj
[64 0 R 65 0 R 66 0 R]
endobj
63 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-20493.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/02-20493.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:01:52 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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.719 0 Td
(Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law, the Board will consi\
der whether they are)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.939 0 Td
(the Directive, or other applicable federal law. )Tj
18.408 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
-38.347 -1.125 Td
(or local law is not required because security clearance adjudications ar\
e)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.903 0 Td
(conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
-28.903 -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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.012 0 Td
(fact are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might \
accept as)Tj
-14.012 -1.125 Td
(adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.854 0 Td
(evidence in the same record. )Tj
11.661 0 Td
(In making this review, the)Tj
-35.516 -1.125 Td
(Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of t\
he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.684 0 Td
(Administrative Judge." )Tj
9.49 0 Td
(Directive, Additional)Tj
-39.174 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
15.356 0 Td
(The Board must consider not only whether there is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.523 0 Td
(record evidence supporting a)Tj
-35.879 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detract\
s from the weight of the evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.278 0 Td
(supporting those)Tj
-41.278 -1.125 Td
(findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpre\
tation of the record evidence as a whole.)Tj
T*
(Although a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, the party c\
hallenging a Judge's credibility)Tj
T*
(determination has a heavy burden on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.995 0 Td
(appeal.)Tj
-14.995 -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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.914 0 Td
(pp. 4-5 \(citing federal cases\).)Tj
-9.914 -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 Case No. 99-0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at p. 6 \(citing federal ca\
ses\); 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
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.109 0 Td
(Guidance, Items E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
11.541 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 334.1487 362.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 334.1487 361.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 329.25 Tm
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred in his application of Mitigating \
Condition 3)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 328.5 cm
0 0 m
404.918 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 432.918 333.75 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 432.918 333 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 446.7241 329.25 Tm
( under Guideline F)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 446.7241 328.5 cm
0 0 m
90.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 537.0405 329.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(The)Tj
-43.42 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge found)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.415 0 Td
(that Applicant had financial delinquencies under Guideline F \(Financial\
Considerations\).)Tj
-11.415 -1.125 Td
(The Judge also found: \(a\) a prior marriage of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.243 0 Td
(Applicant ended in divorce in 1993; \(b\) Applicant acknowledged that a)Tj
-18.243 -1.125 Td
(particular credit card debt may have been paid off, but his ex-wife)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.683 0 Td
(used the account while he and she were obtaining a)Tj
-26.683 -1.375 Td
(divorce and he denied liability for her charges)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 236.9102 276.75 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 236.9102 276 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 250.7163 272.25 Tm
(; \(c\) in a 2001 statement given to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.913 0 Td
(Defense Security Service,)Tj
-34.472 -1.125 Td
(Applicant attributed his then existing financial problems to his divorce\
, lending money to his friends after the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.99 0 Td
(divorce,)Tj
-43.99 -1.125 Td
(and his current wife's heath problems; and \(d\) in response to financia\
l interrogatories in May 2003, Applicant stated that)Tj
T*
(he and his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(wife had both been off from work for periods of time because of health p\
roblems. )Tj
37.239 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge)Tj
-37.239 -1.125 Td
(concluded: \(i\) Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.024 0 Td
(credibly attributed whatever financial problems he has experienced to hi\
s divorce, the health)Tj
-10.024 -1.125 Td
(problems he and his present wife have)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.579 0 Td
(experienced, and the loss of income that resulted from being out of work\
because)Tj
-15.579 -1.125 Td
(of health problems; and \(ii\) Guideline F Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.663 0 Td
(Condition 3 applied to the case.)Tj
-20.663 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, Department Counsel argues that the Administrative Judge's app\
lication of Guideline F Mitigating Condition)Tj
T*
(3 was improper. )Tj
(In)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(support of its contention, Department Counsel asserts: \(a\) Applicant's\
divorce was nearly ten years)Tj
T*
(ago and the record evidence reveals that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.297 0 Td
(his financial problems have been ongoing since that time; \(b\) soon aft\
er his)Tj
-16.297 -1.125 Td
(divorce, Applicant ended up paying bills for a number of close)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.326 0 Td
(friends as well as his mother, and these people failed to)Tj
-25.326 -1.125 Td
(repay him, leaving him with additional indebtedness; \(c\) a majority of\
Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.033 0 Td
(delinquent accounts are credit card)Tj
-33.033 -1.125 Td
(accounts which became past due before 2001 and are therefore not related\
to medical expenses; \(d\) there is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.037 0 Td
(no indication)Tj
-43.037 -1.125 Td
(from the record evidence that Applicant was out of work for any extended\
period of time; and \(e\) the Applicant)Tj
T*
(provided no)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(documentation to support his assertions that his divorce and medical pro\
blems have resulted in his current)Tj
T*
(financial difficulties. )Tj
8.58 0 Td
(For the most)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(part, Department Counsel's assertions have merit.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[334.0 360.0 348.0 371.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[432.0 331.0 446.0 342.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[237.0 274.0 251.0 285.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
67 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
76 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-20493.a1.html)
endobj
75 0 obj
<>
endobj
77 0 obj
<>
endobj
68 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 236.0 null]
endobj
69 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 197.0 null]
endobj
70 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 158.0 null]
endobj
71 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 133.0 null]
endobj
72 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 67.0 null]
endobj
73 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 765.0 null]
endobj
74 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 740.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 78
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000187485 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003752 00000 n
0000003779 00000 n
0000186467 00000 n
0000186726 00000 n
0000186768 00000 n
0000186277 00000 n
0000004718 00000 n
0000176096 00000 n
0000165149 00000 n
0000155305 00000 n
0000143863 00000 n
0000138871 00000 n
0000137743 00000 n
0000003882 00000 n
0000003928 00000 n
0000003977 00000 n
0000004291 00000 n
0000004067 00000 n
0000004099 00000 n
0000004131 00000 n
0000004163 00000 n
0000004195 00000 n
0000004227 00000 n
0000004259 00000 n
0000004940 00000 n
0000011111 00000 n
0000011160 00000 n
0000011196 00000 n
0000011706 00000 n
0000012129 00000 n
0000012498 00000 n
0000084278 00000 n
0000084545 00000 n
0000052807 00000 n
0000053080 00000 n
0000034053 00000 n
0000034334 00000 n
0000012885 00000 n
0000013161 00000 n
0000013521 00000 n
0000034660 00000 n
0000053519 00000 n
0000085159 00000 n
0000137932 00000 n
0000139082 00000 n
0000144077 00000 n
0000144109 00000 n
0000154647 00000 n
0000154976 00000 n
0000155508 00000 n
0000155533 00000 n
0000164820 00000 n
0000165352 00000 n
0000165377 00000 n
0000175767 00000 n
0000176321 00000 n
0000176360 00000 n
0000185290 00000 n
0000185619 00000 n
0000185948 00000 n
0000186362 00000 n
0000187192 00000 n
0000187234 00000 n
0000187276 00000 n
0000187318 00000 n
0000187360 00000 n
0000187401 00000 n
0000187443 00000 n
0000186976 00000 n
0000186810 00000 n
0000187139 00000 n
trailer
<<0EA9F862AE048845AF402135130EB946>]>>
startxref
187658
%%EOF