[ ѧt0VJ`6!)JUT
n`P ̷Vl8 K$,,MafM2=4 ɐYҧ7Cѣ =Lsww'{d:\f
fVvtu,Ǻ$z"0tHwYҝܕ6{vٙ;psN><`͢THOZ)Q+%jMSVjgҳn4+hN.cQ ė6gdc_ڌP[ RuH!}Tbʏ"=ʒ$ `{ڼco2,#i ƴ
g^7[;h[íխ
Gz>\_]?:j>G9mo
6Fqcp¥BCJ6C3!U$xo!6;H&t́A~̮9a~O1=m g/fqVϢeQkYݰf;ᵼs;^Ωw{PTSmS;>:N1u̥tx'
x.J~@`w ]LIp;ejkӱ1ŷ| yЁ5@;$ x8țSG@NDX K{o2֘kX۸.>/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
(02-29328.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/02-29328.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:14:49 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 726.75 591.75 39 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
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR\
paragraph 2.a. )Tj
37.158 0 Td
(That favorable finding is)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(not at issue on appeal.)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
(02-29328.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/02-29328.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:14:49 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
(Applicant voluntarily disclosed his falsifications to an investigator th\
e first time he was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.187 0 Td
(interviewed\); ISCR Case No.)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(01-03767 \(December 5, 2003\) at p. 4 \(Judge had a rational basis for c\
oncluding )Tj
32.046 0 Td
(government's security concerns)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.815 0 Td
(were)Tj
-44.861 -1.125 Td
(not mitigated by the fact Applicant had "come clean" and "had nothing le\
ft to hide"\). )Tj
34.178 0 Td
(Similarly, the Judge was not)Tj
-34.178 -1.125 Td
(required to conclude)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.469 0 Td
(such concerns were )Tj
(mitigated by Applicant's favorable professional and work record. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.335 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-46.135 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 01-01642 \(June 14, 2002\) at)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(p. 6 \(security clearance decisions not limited to consideration of an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applicant's conduct during duty hours; off-duty conduct that raises)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.757 0 Td
(security concerns can be considered in assessing an)Tj
-26.757 -1.125 Td
(applicant's security eligibility\). )Tj
12.622 0 Td
(After reviewing the Judge's decision, it is the Board's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.522 0 Td
(view that Applicant has not)Tj
-34.144 -1.125 Td
(demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence as a whole in an arbitr\
ary and capricious manner. )Tj
40.291 0 Td
(Nor has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant)Tj
-40.291 -1.125 Td
(demonstrated that the Administrative Judge was obligated to conclude tha\
t the favorable evidence cited by Applicant)Tj
T*
(was sufficient)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.832 0 Td
(to overcome the security concerns raised by the disqualifying conduct. )Tj
28.463 0 Td
(The Judge also considered the)Tj
-34.295 -1.125 Td
("whole person" factors, such as the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's age, the circumstances surrounding the conduct, his motivati\
on, and the)Tj
T*
(likelihood of continuance or recurrence, and nevertheless)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.157 0 Td
(concluded that the evidence presented in the case was)Tj
-23.157 -1.125 Td
(insufficient to overcome the security concerns raised by Applicant's con\
duct. )Tj
31.031 0 Td
(Applicant has not shown that the Judge's)Tj
-31.031 -1.125 Td
(application of the relevant Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating condition\
s and "whole person")Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.613 0 Td
(factors, or her weighing of)Tj
-37.613 -1.125 Td
(the record evidence, was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The federal government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and\
confidence in persons granted access to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(classified information. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.248 0 Td
(See)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Snepp v. United States)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
10.636 0 Td
(, 444 U.S. 507, 511 n.6 \(1980\). )Tj
(Security clearance decisions are not an)Tj
-19.883 -1.125 Td
(exact science, but rather are predictive)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.63 0 Td
(judgments about a person's security suitability in light of that person'\
s past)Tj
-15.63 -1.125 Td
(conduct and present circumstances. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.411 0 Td
(See Department of the Navy)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.469 0 Td
(v. Egan)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 484 U.S. 518, 528-529 \(1988\). )Tj
(The federal)Tj
-25.88 -1.125 Td
(government need not wait until an applicant actually mishandles or fails\
to properly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.741 0 Td
(handle or safeguard classified)Tj
-33.741 -1.125 Td
(information before it can deny or revoke access to such information. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
27.602 0 Td
(See Adams v. Laird)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 \(D.C.)Tj
-27.602 -1.125 Td
(Cir. 1969\), )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
9.331 0 Td
(, 397 U.S. 1039 \(1970\). )Tj
(Applicant's falsification of a security clearance application provided a\
)Tj
-9.331 -1.125 Td
(sufficient)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.026 0 Td
(rational basis for the Judge's unfavorable security clearance decision. \
)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
27.892 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-12329)Tj
-35.25 -1.125 Td
(\(December 18, 2003\) at p. 4)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.496 0 Td
(\(discussing security significance of falsification\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
10.271 -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
(Therefore, 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
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 341.25 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 316.5 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 239.25 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 214.5 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 137.25 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 112.5 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
[44 0 R]
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-29328.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/02-29328.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:14:49 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
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
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 332.25 Tm
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred in concluding that the security c\
oncerns raised by Applicant's falsification of a)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 331.5 cm
0 0 m
571.975 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 318.75 Tm
(security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 318 cm
0 0 m
89.273 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 105.2734 318.75 Tm
(application had not been mitigated)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 105.2734 318 cm
0 0 m
165.949 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 271.2227 318.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(On appeal, Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding)Tj
-21.269 -1.125 Td
(that the security concerns raised by his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.745 0 Td
(falsification of a security clearance application had not been mitigated\
because:)Tj
-15.745 -1.125 Td
(\(1\) multiple character references had stated that Applicant was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.294 0 Td
(generally trustworthy, honest, reliable, upstanding,)Tj
-25.294 -1.125 Td
(patriotic, a )Tj
4.526 0 Td
(good employee, and/or an asset to the United States, \(2\) the omitted)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.382 0 Td
(information had been fully disclosed to)Tj
-31.908 -1.125 Td
(the government in a subsequent interview, \(3\) Applicant had regretted \
the falsification and had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.182 0 Td
(apologized for it, \(4\))Tj
-38.182 -1.125 Td
(Applicant had falsified the application out of concern for his privacy, \
\(5\) the falsification had occurred over two years)Tj
T*
(ago and was an isolated incident, \(6\) Applicant was not subject to coe\
rcion, exploitation, or duress, and \(7\) there is little)Tj
T*
(likelihood the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.777 0 Td
(conduct would recur. )Tj
8.719 0 Td
(Applicant essentially summarizes the favorable evidence of record, rearg\
ues his)Tj
-14.496 -1.125 Td
(case, and asserts that the Judge should)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.552 0 Td
(have applied the Guideline E mitigating conditions and "whole person" fa\
ctors in)Tj
-15.552 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's favor. )Tj
(For the reasons set forth below, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.703 0 Td
(Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge erred.)Tj
-21.703 -2.125 Td
(There is a rebuttable presumption that the Administrative Judge consider\
ed all the record evidence unless the Judge)Tj
T*
(specifically states)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.331 0 Td
(otherwise. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.719 0 Td
(, DOHA Case No. 96-0228 \(April 3, 1997\) at p. 3. )Tj
(Furthermore, the Judge is not)Tj
-15.05 -1.125 Td
(required to cite or discuss every piece of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.438 0 Td
(record evidence. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
6.857 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0809 \(August 19, 1999\) at p. 6.)Tj
-26.626 -1.125 Td
(Applicant is essentially rearguing his case, asserting that he is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.966 0 Td
(honest and has held a security clearance without any)Tj
-24.966 -1.125 Td
(problems. )Tj
(Those arguments do not demonstrate the Judge erred. )Tj
25.854 0 Td
(As noted above, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.192 0 Td
(Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.94 0 Td
(de)Tj
-45.987 -1.125 Td
(novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(This case involved the deliberate omission of information of obvious sec\
urity significance. )Tj
36.574 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge is)Tj
-36.574 -1.125 Td
(not required, as a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.136 0 Td
(matter of law, to conclude that the security concerns raised by Applican\
t's falsification were)Tj
-7.136 -1.125 Td
(necessarily mitigated by Applicant's subsequent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.426 0 Td
(disclosures to the government. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.47 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 01-19513 \(January)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(22, 2004\) at p. 5 \(Judge did not err by concluding government's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.675 0 Td
(security concerns were not mitigated by the fact that)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[334.0 360.0 348.0 371.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
48 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-29328.a1.html)
endobj
47 0 obj
<>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
46 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 765.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 50
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000141818 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003731 00000 n
0000003758 00000 n
0000141275 00000 n
0000141331 00000 n
0000141373 00000 n
0000141085 00000 n
0000004394 00000 n
0000131493 00000 n
0000125139 00000 n
0000124099 00000 n
0000003861 00000 n
0000003907 00000 n
0000003956 00000 n
0000004147 00000 n
0000004019 00000 n
0000004051 00000 n
0000004083 00000 n
0000004115 00000 n
0000004605 00000 n
0000010700 00000 n
0000010749 00000 n
0000010784 00000 n
0000011294 00000 n
0000011723 00000 n
0000070715 00000 n
0000070982 00000 n
0000038876 00000 n
0000039149 00000 n
0000012146 00000 n
0000012422 00000 n
0000012849 00000 n
0000039603 00000 n
0000071596 00000 n
0000124288 00000 n
0000125350 00000 n
0000131718 00000 n
0000131743 00000 n
0000140761 00000 n
0000141170 00000 n
0000141776 00000 n
0000141581 00000 n
0000141415 00000 n
0000141723 00000 n
trailer
<<46F0FE1C2B961E4AAF1C7590F5FA6C35>]>>
startxref
141991
%%EOF