%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T11:12:37-04:00
2021-06-24T11:12:36-04:00
2021-06-24T11:12:37-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-27870.a1
uuid:5fc98765-d9d5-4023-aceb-df5f14e721e1
uuid:febb4611-2c9a-43d1-bc40-7e8067e66158
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
[27 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-27870.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/02-27870.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:12:37 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: February 15, 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. 02-27870)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
2.806 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 543 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-4.498 -2.2 Td
(Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.276 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-1.332 -2.2 Td
(Chester H. Morgan II, Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On March 24,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2004, DOHA issued a statement of )Tj
(reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security conc\
erns raised)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline M \(Misuse of Information Technology Systems\) and )Tj
28.078 0 Td
(Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\), of Department of)Tj
-28.078 -1.125 Td
(Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended \(Directive\)\). )Tj
26.324 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On May 9, )Tj
(2005, after)Tj
-38.791 -1.125 Td
(the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales granted Applican\
t's request for a security clearance.)Tj
T*
(Department Counsel timely appealed )Tj
15.106 0 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-15.106 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: \(1\) whether \
the Administrative Judge's application of)Tj
T*
(Guideline E Mitigating Condition 5 is )Tj
15.444 0 Td
(supported by the record evidence; and \(2\) whether )Tj
20.381 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge's)Tj
-35.825 -1.125 Td
(whole person analysis is sustainable in light of the record evidence.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant was fired from his former employer for entering the computer s\
ystem calender and e-mail accounts of the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(company's chief financial officer \(CFO\) in )Tj
17.285 0 Td
(arch 2000. )Tj
(While recognizing that this conduct was indicative of poor)Tj
-17.285 -1.375 Td
(judgment and irresponsibility, and was therefore potentially disqualifyi\
ng under )Tj
32.215 0 Td
(Guideline E)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 460.2285 248.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 460.2285 247.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 474.0347 243.75 Tm
(, the Administrative)Tj
-38.17 -1.125 Td
(Judge cited numerous factors that he concluded mitigated the government'\
s case against Applicant. )Tj
39.834 0 Td
(These were: \(a\) the)Tj
-39.834 -1.125 Td
(fact )Tj
1.749 0 Td
(that the CFO's computer system and e-mail accounts were readily availabl\
e on the public drive of the company's)Tj
-1.749 -1.125 Td
(computer system; \(b\) no password or other )Tj
17.413 0 Td
(user identification was necessary to gain access to the accounts, and th\
e)Tj
-17.413 -1.125 Td
(accounts were essentially open to public view, notwithstanding the compa\
ny's desire to )Tj
35.144 0 Td
(limit access; \(c\) no company)Tj
-35.144 -1.125 Td
(information technology policies or procedures or training programs put A\
pplicant on notice that he should not have had)Tj
T*
(access to )Tj
(the CFO's calender and e-mail accounts; \(d\) in the absence of any ille\
gal "hacking" by Applicant, his attempts)Tj
T*
(to view information on what was the public drive )Tj
19.968 0 Td
(do not constitute dishonesty or a rule violation; \(e\) Applicant access\
ed)Tj
-19.968 -1.125 Td
(the CFO's accounts primarily to review stock options data because there \
was a question )Tj
35.227 0 Td
(in his mind as to whether the)Tj
-35.227 -1.125 Td
(company was being fair to him in the awarding of performance-based stock\
options; and \(f\) even if a pattern of)Tj
T*
(dishonesty and )Tj
(rule violations had occurred in 2000, the conduct has been mitigated bec\
ause of the circumstances of the)Tj
T*
(conduct, the fact that it was uncharacteristic behavior )Tj
21.574 0 Td
(for Applicant, who was humiliated by his actions and apologized)Tj
-21.574 -1.125 Td
(for them, the conduct occurred approximately five years ago, the conduct\
is unlikely to recur, )Tj
37.598 0 Td
(and Applicant has)Tj
-37.598 -1.125 Td
(demonstrated rehabilitation and has an excellent reputation among his co\
lleagues.)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 44.25 Tm
(The Board concludes the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions \
are supported by the record evidence. )Tj
45.057 0 Td
(Department Counsel's ability to)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(4oa4ڭ )
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0Ezl`!i!ݖ8$khd8[[GH3'wO.HC{ɝ%Ԫ;깏ٲt]N_^1˭pNzӐյuJw醣>f{4~o.?S/'WuzFož~/ߍ_Q]9iNcjjYgW{֙`iRV\r _̶"{Y_L~o;0}lkOO77O77O77OOaFAFaVX+'e\\\\\\\\r
fOclbl汞gSGqU
0
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
H|y|ϼ>3$[LJ/ڛZ{֭V JԒXb-"5vA,}j+EՇ3\zh|s