i ,2.ÕE.aԺڲ-,i.oز[|Ԣ (i+∑ЭJV0,,5i@,)$UbjT 71R ,Y88-G=#7Na))w.1>}-)Z!@
l+8nH Al63RY9&$Vu>wF%n_cFO^P6+s˾ UV!e9X9IU"R-,D9tH
{Fcm*ODگ{|'!SE=RTXkmʒc
Y3Rsخ#W[@,S}ݖXOtT8
hoJ%E;Pi:VXmOK/ޓpP} GH\& E{ %`/[ ӭd z:E ~loGI% 6on~mGP %Y ;r Sv$v0d x|=H&!E̤X0tKsҎ^ Q Om}5dM6Yۺ\d%+.']ABRKWN^#A.[WB?b kv՞&#y6]H܊ &[** uԑũ 79}//߈ GHg"x17i@1sߠGx]nMy1z1}+uL
_⋍וI͈s\sŮ2UZZrTåkq~&>!CC WKc=RJZe)d5SyNk]8eھ,gyJvqHU֜F(]!thLn[ڱ;Z%zS9Yz,V +۴h3᧟?M֙T{^{beSj8NY[הJo2qMI_)G;E<1[iNZ
k0
OVau4 ,UMlJcU+U 0-$+.$r4
lcPLO?Mt2$$hF֡P(.xOO`λ=zCO [^.Ntb+;_c{~=~F[;,NJv= LꝉLnj9Z'j ~`bfQk*tJD)Y+ҳ.ҔiWМYۢ"iZ$+;~<ጵPo4@uqM*R{7* ŔEzI+Ox?/hp0 ,ܼyeXF2;*iY=d' zowѪZkZ' 1=& Q=D' \!^' iN[mC5Qcܘ1J
[A%
G*WMc< ĕHI&t́A~̮>f>]6m^6F,beY ^l5sa͘gcyS1=mk
V> Δw\l_&<nNǃu9@ @ -OgCA>r"X]LX>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-25725.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/02-25725.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:09:07 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 714.75 591.75 50.999 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
(Guidelines, Item E2.A7.1.3.2\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(2. )Tj
("Positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety" \(Directive, Adjud\
icative Guidelines, Item E2.A7.1.3.3\).)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-25725.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/02-25725.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:09:07 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 16 754.5 Tm
(credibility of his testimony in 2004. )Tj
14.582 0 Td
(Department Counsel also cites Applicant's omissions )Tj
21.455 0 Td
(from his security clearance)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(application as grounds to challenge Applicant's testimony. )Tj
23.564 0 Td
(The Judge found the omissions were errors and not deliberate)Tj
-23.564 -1.125 Td
(falsifications and was not bound to conclude that those errors necessari\
ly undermined Applicant's testimony.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Department Counsel argues Applicant had motive )Tj
20.272 0 Td
(to fabricate testimony in order to receive a security clearance. )Tj
24.904 0 Td
(The)Tj
-45.177 -1.125 Td
(same could be argued about any applicant in DOHA proceedings, but the me\
re presence of )Tj
36.598 0 Td
(such potential motive by)Tj
-36.598 -1.125 Td
(itself is not grounds for ignoring testimony. )Tj
17.666 0 Td
(The Judge's application of the mitigating conditions is sustainable give\
n the)Tj
-17.666 -1.125 Td
(facts and )Tj
3.832 0 Td
(circumstances of this case.)Tj
-3.832 -2.125 Td
(\(2\) )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred in his finding as to whether Appl\
icant's omissions from his security)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 647.25 cm
0 0 m
519.059 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 634.5 Tm
(clearance application constituted a deliberate )Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 633.75 cm
0 0 m
218.889 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 234.8887 634.5 Tm
(falsification)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 234.8887 633.75 cm
0 0 m
57.311 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 292.1992 634.5 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel argues that the Administrative Judge)Tj
-23.017 -1.125 Td
(erred by finding that Applicant's incorrect answers to two questions wer\
e not deliberate )Tj
35.197 0 Td
(falsifications. )Tj
5.665 0 Td
(Department)Tj
-40.862 -1.125 Td
(Counsel's argument amounts to a disagreement with Judge's interpretation\
of the record evidence which is insufficient to)Tj
T*
(demonstrate error. )Tj
7.58 0 Td
(We need not agree with each and every one of the Judge's findings and co\
nclusions to conclude that)Tj
-7.58 -1.125 Td
(they are supported by adequate record )Tj
15.493 0 Td
(evidence to sustain them in light of the contrary record evidence. )Tj
26.213 0 Td
(Absent a)Tj
-41.706 -1.125 Td
(showing that the Judge weighed the record in a manner that is arbitrary,\
capricious )Tj
33.295 0 Td
(or contrary to law the Board will not)Tj
-33.295 -1.125 Td
(disturb the Judge's findings of fact. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.261 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR 03-19011 \(July 27, 2005\), at p. 4.)Tj
-17.593 -2.125 Td
(\(3\) )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's decision relied on piecemeal analysis\
of Applicant's conduct and circumstances)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 527.25 cm
0 0 m
555.814 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 588.8066 528 Tm
(.)Tj
-47.734 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel argues that the )Tj
14.579 0 Td
(Administrative Judge favorable decision relies on piecemeal analysis of \
Applicant's)Tj
-14.579 -1.125 Td
(conduct and circumstances. )Tj
11.273 0 Td
(The Board concludes that this argument is )Tj
17.135 0 Td
(unpersuasive.)Tj
-28.408 -2.125 Td
(The Board need not agree with all the Judge's findings and conclusions i\
n order to conclude that the record evidence)Tj
T*
(permitted the Judge to find that the bulk of )Tj
17.357 0 Td
(Applicant's security significant conduct had stopped by early 1999 and t\
hat)Tj
-17.357 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's 2002 omissions were not deliberate falsifications. )Tj
24.841 0 Td
(Under those )Tj
(conditions the Judge had room to reach the)Tj
-24.841 -1.125 Td
(favorable conclusions he did regarding Applicant's security eligibility.\
)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating harmfu\
l error on appeal. )Tj
37.072 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge's)Tj
-37.072 -1.125 Td
(February 16, 2005 decision is )Tj
12.109 0 Td
(affirmed.)Tj
-12.109 -2.125 Td
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 344.25 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 319.5 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael D. Hipple)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 242.25 cm
0 0 m
129.311 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 217.5 Tm
(Michael D. Hipple)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 140.25 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 115.5 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 39 Tm
(1. )Tj
("The problem occurred a number of years ago and there is no indication o\
f a recent problem" \(Directive, Adjudicative)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
[44 0 R 45 0 R]
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-25725.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/02-25725.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:09:07 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
(explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; \
or it is so )Tj
32.018 0 Td
(implausible that it cannot be ascribed to)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(a mere difference of opinion. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.883 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 97-0435 \(July 14, 1998\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court\
)Tj
28.72 0 Td
(decision\).)Tj
-43.935 -1.125 Td
(In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to l\
aw, the Board will consider whether they are)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(contrary to provisions of )Tj
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
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
(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
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
(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
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
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
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
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 \(citing )Tj
15.857 0 Td
(federal cases\).)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
(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
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items )Tj
15.912 0 Td
(E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)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 erred in his finding and conclusions a\
s to Applicant's current alcohol)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 29.9922 307.5 cm
0 0 m
500.367 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 294.75 Tm
(consumption)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 294 cm
0 0 m
61.998 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 77.998 294.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel argues that the )Tj
15.079 0 Td
(Administrative Judge erred in his finding that Applicant currently)Tj
-20.246 -1.125 Td
(limits his alcohol consumption to a glass of wine with dinner once every\
three to six weeks. )Tj
36.937 0 Td
(Department Counsel also)Tj
-36.937 -1.375 Td
(argues that the Administrative Judge's application of Guideline G \(Alco\
hol Consumption\) Mitigating Conditions 2)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 565.7559 269.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 565.7559 268.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 236.25 Tm
(and 3)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 42.3262 240.75 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 42.3262 240 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 210.75 Tm
(are not )Tj
2.999 0 Td
(supported by the record evidence.)Tj
-2.999 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel is correct that the Judge's finding of fact is errone\
ous. )Tj
30.144 0 Td
(There is no record evidence to support a)Tj
-30.144 -1.125 Td
(finding that Applicant limits his )Tj
13.027 0 Td
(consumption to a single glass of wine every three to six weeks. )Tj
25.467 0 Td
(Applicant himself)Tj
-38.494 -1.125 Td
(testified that he drinks one to three glasses of wine in that time frame\
and his )Tj
30.992 0 Td
(wife testified that Applicant drinks wine or)Tj
-30.992 -1.125 Td
(beer with her whenever she presents it at dinner, perhaps as often as th\
ree times a week. )Tj
35.403 0 Td
(However, the Judge's error )Tj
(is)Tj
-35.403 -1.125 Td
(harmless given the totality of facts and circumstances in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge's application of the challenged two mitigating \
conditions is supported by the Judge's)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(sustainable findings and the record evidence. )Tj
18.244 0 Td
(Applicant's last alcohol related incident was in 1998, almost seven year\
s)Tj
-18.244 -1.125 Td
(prior to the close of the record in this case. )Tj
17.3 0 Td
(The Judge found that Applicant recognized )Tj
17.55 0 Td
(in 1999 that he had a problem)Tj
-34.85 -1.125 Td
(with alcohol and significantly reduced his consumption at that time. )Tj
27.411 0 Td
(Department Counsel relies on Applicant's conduct)Tj
-27.411 -1.125 Td
(in the )Tj
2.5 0 Td
(1980s and 1990s to undermine Applicant's testimony at the November 2004 \
hearing. )Tj
34.146 0 Td
(Given the facts and)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(circumstances of this case, the Board is not persuaded )Tj
21.827 0 Td
(that Applicant's conduct in the 1980s and 1990s undermined the)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
<>/BS<