%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T11:18:05-04:00
2021-06-24T11:18:04-04:00
2021-06-24T11:18:05-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
02-31188.a1
uuid:ae37cb74-6f4f-4038-ad01-2cf8352b4e78
uuid:461a6b3d-f688-4843-beef-5d8c7da3e5c5
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
17 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
21 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
<><><><><><>]/P 18 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-31188.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/02-31188.a1.html)Tj
49.073 0 Td
([6/24/2021 11:18:05 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: March 8, 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. 02-31188)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 April)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(26, 2004, which stated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.276 0 Td
(the reasons why DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified inf\
ormation for)Tj
-9.276 -1.125 Td
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(The SOR was based on Guideline B)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.692 0 Td
(\(Foreign Influence\). )Tj
8.302 0 Td
(Administrative Judge James A. Young issued a)Tj
-27.438 -1.125 Td
(decision, dated November 3, 2004, in which he concluded it is not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.744 0 Td
(clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or)Tj
-26.744 -1.125 Td
(continue a security clearance for Applicant. )Tj
17.686 0 Td
(Applicant appealed.)Tj
-17.686 -2.125 Td
(The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Dep\
artment of Defense Directive 5220.6)Tj
T*
(\(Directive\), dated January 2,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.662 0 Td
(1992, as amended.)Tj
-11.662 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's appeal presents the following issue: whether the Administrat\
ive Judge's adverse conclusions under the)Tj
T*
(Foreign Influence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.386 0 Td
(Guideline \(Guideline B\) are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.\
)Tj
27.628 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the)Tj
-35.015 -1.125 Td
(Board affirms the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.552 0 Td
(Judge's decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.133 -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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.191 0 Td
(whether there is factual or legal error. )Tj
15.326 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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.801 0 Td
(specificity and identify how the Administrative Judge committed factual \
or legal)Tj
-14.801 -1.125 Td
(error. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.186 0 Td
(E3.1.32. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 00-0050 \(July 23, 2001\) at pp.)Tj
-22.186 -1.125 Td
(2-3 \(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.355 0 Td
(specificity\).)Tj
-26.355 -2.125 Td
(When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenge\
d, the Board must consider whether they are:)Tj
T*
(\(1\) arbitrary or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.191 0 Td
(capricious; or \(2\) contrary to law. )Tj
13.689 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)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.899 0 Td
(conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board will review the Judge\
's)Tj
-15.899 -1.125 Td
(decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.131 0 Td
(evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for)Tj
-24.131 -1.125 Td
(its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found\
and the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.019 0 Td
(choice made; it does not consider)Tj
-32.019 -1.125 Td
(relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to con\
sider an important aspect of the case; it)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.316 0 Td
(offers an)Tj
-42.316 -1.125 Td
(explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; \
or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to)Tj
T*
(a mere)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
2.942 0 Td
(difference of opinion. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
8.941 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 97-0435 \(July 14, 1998\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court\
decision\).)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
(1k\)sS1&H8C)
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0y
CemJia4F@xqIE?$eu|7C[m]ipk6o7JH\/ӌ}A9$t8aճ.V[p:WY!o=R(
p҇^(Tλyِ/sߊ;8bhU* ?*z2K-͵Y~07߰ gǰ#{0Rp]s>F;-c"?y|ܐqT_ z
endstream
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
H|TT=\(63b.{L%1&RDEc`Ƃ{WĮˌucb>}og~ A<A]SZF\I M]R@ۚL
w;2gLJ SC#hQFEz!2^'cAq=./,
f gaLh\lز\D$z2**0m~쀈Uwh2JUscJU%!A"#p-jnJ1|ӹILEoɅ(L;[ _T5ixOOΨ4wE9;&Y5*]ƵG9*V\f2[|tUQǵԭW?AF4mIyULZG-`-^ۦh3 H S)Mr9`Ny]rdy!^sHU9.Is-9F^
Jpsx;Hm
Mn+Q^W҇J.K9!SSSw7oK?#
ؗojoloh׳ױleinf|;pmŵYy%yZk^yeT7U^@-`knت