%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T11:15:06-04:00
2021-06-24T11:15:06-04:00
2021-06-24T11:15:06-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-29563.a1
uuid:393ce784-0e2c-4627-a1b2-b6f9ef14f917
uuid:51062a61-eab3-42b6-b23b-931bdb1f2a1f
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
21 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 16 0 R/Pg 12 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-29563.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/02-29563.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:15:06 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: September 30, 2005)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. 02-29563)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 \(DOHA\) issued to Applicant \
a Statement of Reasons \(SOR\), dated March)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(3, 2004, which stated the reasons why )Tj
15.469 0 Td
(DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified information for App\
licant.)Tj
-15.469 -1.125 Td
(The SOR was based on Guideline H \(Drug Involvement\) and Guideline E )Tj
29.771 0 Td
(\(Personal Conduct\). )Tj
8.249 0 Td
(Administrative Judge)Tj
-38.02 -1.125 Td
(David S. Bruce issued an unfavorable security clearance decision, dated \
July 22, 2005.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. )Tj
27.728 0 Td
(The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order)Tj
-27.728 -1.125 Td
(10865 and Department of Defense )Tj
14.023 0 Td
(Directive 5220.6 \(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.)Tj
-14.023 -2.125 Td
(The following issues have been raised on appeal: \(1\) whether the Admin\
istrative Judge erred by finding that Applicant)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(falsified a security clearance application; )Tj
16.63 0 Td
(and \(2\) whether the Administrative Judge lacked a rational basis for h\
is)Tj
-16.63 -1.125 Td
(unfavorable security clearance decision. )Tj
16.297 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms )Tj
18.523 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge's)Tj
-34.821 -1.125 Td
(decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.685 -2.125 Td
(Scope of Review)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.685 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, the Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
17.993 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the)Tj
-17.993 -1.125 Td
(parties to determine whether there is factual )Tj
17.798 0 Td
(or legal error. )Tj
5.719 0 Td
(There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing)Tj
-23.517 -1.125 Td
(party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the A\
dministrative )Tj
33.963 0 Td
(Judge committed factual or legal)Tj
-33.963 -1.125 Td
(error. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
25.797 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 00-0050 \(July 23, 2001\) at pp.)Tj
-25.797 -1.125 Td
(2-3 )Tj
(\(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specifici\
ty\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenge\
d, the Board must consider whether they are:)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(1\) arbitrary or capricious; or \(2\) )Tj
13.328 0 Td
(contrary to law. )Tj
6.553 0 Td
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. )Tj
24.104 0 Td
(In)Tj
-43.985 -1.125 Td
(deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or cap\
ricious, )Tj
31.726 0 Td
(the Board will review the Judge's)Tj
-31.726 -1.125 Td
(decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it\
fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for)Tj
T*
(its )Tj
(conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and\
the choice made; it does not consider)Tj
T*
(relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of )Tj
16.879 0 Td
(judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offer\
s an)Tj
-16.879 -1.125 Td
(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
-32.018 -1.125 Td
(a mere difference of opinion. )Tj
/TT3 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
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(L-zt/Mٷ)
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
35 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0ۤU}]?CF]lipk]7}fh}RrL3Ƥ( ixuwWX}UfBYŎ>v@HcڦtˆrG~'fhqк+&ŖV řVγL.nCRd,n)WID"S MΚSd
{=bbʅsfѫ |`ߥGf؛:SZ4ע3Y