%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T11:08:22-04:00
2021-06-24T11:08:22-04:00
2021-06-24T11:08:22-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-24752.a1
uuid:796ccc66-b919-438e-9f01-bf84891b0c44
uuid:8811325a-788f-4fb9-8395-f634dd4882ac
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
15 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj
<><>]/P 16 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
21 0 obj
[29 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-24752.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/02-24752.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:08:22 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 31, 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. 02-24752)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
2.806 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 543 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-7.539 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.317 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
2.722 -2.2 Td
(Pro Se)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On August 18,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2004, 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 B \(Foreign Influence\) of Department of Defense Directi\
ve)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.322 0 Td
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\))Tj
-30.322 -1.125 Td
(\(Directive\). )Tj
4.886 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On February 23, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H.\
)Tj
-17.354 -1.125 Td
(Leonard denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
24.197 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
-24.197 -1.125 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's unfavorable clearance decision)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.939 0 Td
(contrary to law.)Tj
-17.939 -2.125 Td
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge's unfavorable clearance\
decision should be reversed because it is)Tj
T*
(Applicant's wife's family members, not his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.33 0 Td
(family members, that are citizens and residents of the People's Republic\
of)Tj
-17.33 -1.125 Td
(China \(PRC\). )Tj
(Applicant also argues that his evidence was sufficient, as a matter of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.324 0 Td
(law, to demonstrate that his wife's)Tj
-33.324 -1.125 Td
(family members were not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power\
in a way that could force him to choose)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(between)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.582 0 Td
(loyalty to them and the United States.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 239.9453 234.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 239.9453 234 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 253.7515 230.25 Tm
( )Tj
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 206.25 Tm
(The Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to rebut, explain, e\
xtenuate or mitigate facts that the Department Counsel proved or that)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.193 0 Td
(admitted regarding his family ties to the PRC, and the Applicant also ha\
d the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable)Tj
-4.193 -1.231 Td
(security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.439 0 Td
(decision. Directive \266 E3.1.15. )Tj
12.117 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole,\
both favorable and)Tj
-19.556 -1.231 Td
(unfavorable, evaluate the facts and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.16 0 Td
(circumstances of Applicant's past )Tj
13.621 0 Td
(and current circumstances in light of pertinent provisions of the Direct\
ive, and)Tj
-27.78 -1.231 Td
(decide whether Applicant had met his burden)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.411 0 Td
(of persuasion under Directive \266 Item E3.1.15.)Tj
-18.411 -2.462 Td
(The fact that Applicant's explanations and his mitigating evidence did n\
ot lead the Administrative Judge to the decision desired by Applicant do\
es)Tj
0 -1.385 TD
(not establish)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.277 0 Td
(error. )Tj
12 0 0 12 91.2721 120.75 Tm
(The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge\
to make a favorable security)Tj
-6.273 -1.125 Td
(clearance decision. )Tj
7.856 0 Td
(As the trier of fact, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.302 0 Td
(Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favora\
ble)Tj
-17.158 -1.125 Td
(evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
19.797 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 301.873 93.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(An applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.457 0 Td
(disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence, or)Tj
-35.777 -1.231 Td
(an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is n\
ot sufficient to demonstrate the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.652 0 Td
(Judge weighed the evidence or reached)Tj
-39.652 -1.231 Td
(conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to la\
w.)Tj
0 -2.462 TD
(A review of the Administrative Judge's decision indicates that the Judge\
weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(lK=N XMJnV )
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
H\j >wIJB[ȡhHt
qylOg>?y?ZyΈ=JK:04J.b-$ٰAͻLxdItJ/p#j=dж q^F:O#q@7Yhy2_e,Gǚ"g.qB\>D*L8WL\ׁωuqA[W:9w_9$~C"4
0 ;
"
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgv΅HS݅Q1hL
Jl`DEPĎƂuV
{uE/97wΜ3gw ԁ$ e&yI|%,".<>sM p1:Q#]jp\?8oh mǎvZ$H{ИNx1|kq'&.qljܞ ;""n@VMxx qbQ6GFol߿@F@3@ QX*Cktʂh
@n-Q<5|U սQ *(Ac
DUΏϰ!A
ILppNjqQWԒF4iڬyO}[jߦm@:v
峠ݺ_|U_|o?〟~"":,6n=fN8irҔߦ&O>#efjڬs2Λ`řK²+VfZf
9i-[sm߱s={?p#EG?Qr3gK/]M7eγ0 m
b3yS0ɔJhZ
!U# TCUTGT%*zzTORI=Ri4Q)I$Lz%Uk"5 t2MB;P;U])t:7]=]CkkEy+]2
"{^rcGn!X9INSY|yI."|V&a}~~DɾZC1%Z k5Veռ,([ȇBh<%s鴆J9_f
BP!VUV:I~!yIC$햊
ZhM&C96TshS!8dYr%UΡQC/z<
:C!Pяs Uem9Y[{UklwxJ
RzHMb̮n+ 0P?TV,|An
,,m-֖V?KK˧斦&Ej@EE4 zN9-?scei
4u0M~&ÄƧrxx~Xl,04Q:VcOc7cWQgշ
>f~gFU+5{tqL'Zx8|B0+@/Ͽbo;Ler2GYpqi]>yN>3gRM|#gV.ϕ`
$4cXa:C,
\ C
lX)P3X9^+X
8fPQpN8 4