5j7CQ\Wbߗ3շ䈹UVYl垏PZs y[4[^o_d=E6n% x7F2d~շmsj|/6d M,^`N5RmJsZi;>3`ܛﶻI*Ѐ&.} Z ~R[)p4F1G ]y\w+#p ;db`#yt 6o蛕y32ɟR{/FfF132LZ.[ݫy/ ? -zZf귓+ ӂ5L|(R_F>*{Y`2
B\ʻr>H,sIZFP? \Uq{K ! B XD~߿
P~UqAiUK? e -tc-ӈ
ud~ξiݻ{ٳ`u/r'diPY +g&C`b;5:Our/%h/' 6]H8]G}WLx6֑?宆KWDn!SļgH9C#ueͻ]Wh?#*2YyR`Iw&ei#yή藺HzI&#hK-J5'*/:LBum*ڝ/=Ip7Nޡ
轻'$ϞY9<w!Z ʥ<\DwҞ: gΦw:
>U}{~㻬%O)C g˼xչ+>x$/Hڙʮ< )(_i~|BjP"̖ Y`(vԟ&Ɗy=.%_N.
?<#MltWȳ%.Pz( 17ktR |R `F2IGvl1t)*FAm祀 kl*:]Ntn`Fap):_{REL2y24W+At9;
b$L,%HoS+{4x!UOעO; XkWIVKR`yQcA8js@C3ֽ&cRm>iļu[>'wFFmLnu5d̕Ã2#K1Kgʼn*Pc4 RXmHC _c" J:@hMlq)1LƊmMR-G7eY$yoG'sJ֛/YwT6p%fvpT|SyԼE< o:J-~D~=RK\5ˑui .Ws?g`C{kAnˍyԩ@)ّH_Mh˺nɺjـw`:j[,W;5bJvL_W)"Wn!~n2|d9(uJmΣOX4@c+(=?rDUNE|%3D$2'yHt4|;2,ˇ6%:Ќ?k
'bdl^4 lGZڋu ?W~sw*-v2ɋ̒Rh0 earg<A7\qALβRX@ke0qgRl ǦGf36<:DtTF/Iz0OIm, Nh.X]!|ͦ ":Jj3a#-At'6ϨPM[9=gj7_Fr?;ٯ3cmHVGuCߒ /:ޫ2}VNsH#֏Q G&`LWǼ
MXt )ABE_^ "EvZB{ ˎ-x+~Uʑac%mW >KXtg.cYa,|}#wָ%Cdt3{=9 Cμ}*7 *M_RϾ]¿^nd:c7TɷNRϺ }ɷPs6|/t{.$>A/;W=[Z˼Y`?GqR y ^!U}i~e.Bv}RP,l@1Qr'gdIX}2>Z=UY_J.} % `aG7AOoVKpAO"o+ cSeر#ɕk}Czl\Y
1mz$Eq{i =@\ c
z \6R~lՉ|ElI_RЮ7';z
sX}^I "MgYh7II\
~Q]qܵ ƍp$vΦ`J uX8VS*zwl/^lwױڵ$-L66VUQ@mICEJ)&TT! U Us99;A}Ia 2t4+
B06k {\'Wf%9?tw|·ݩ` 5 w/ r6B??]f,}ߑ M = fѼ8abEȻpˈMyK_Ѳ4.9yV_C+D ZYW!Zw
Yjko"g1n #n='JtݸxVC Wp-x> , Ƴw>KKD}WRc 1/;DwKMܝFDc 1?SQBP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(FTܬz !|Dy^G ^*>4Y&6eQ>څsh325jtd˟h_S;{S?Ideoa7U [g6JثF8#\ R@۶-<Zj2cpJW~.'h-p\pNcktsȭӛ@gUT&C y5LcS@ C|M`,5/1eQEX@bR1 A\Ѣ 28L@$~H B;ΎcG}/d
!> V@=(QR_8B@]P^ ~-c^c,㔙P knD)%dOOA5?)PntK?
|6A "gPYeY8`X ]OANs/a0&Jl XQr*LdݹO
ϱ.,uu喯
-͛/^D"W{E%VnBrY"/COâNyR ևٰgSU+>:J
T?1;굺cS!} f?g{@֥?AJ>pE" ^/)"`/Ht ?)"`-Ea!'P2P2P2uN 9hL.}! )A`QN&`^3H.OQ2RHY(;
.[~Qq_[ C_,!#R6I&47ݦQg!C{LC(e+.?yi5tͩ4$6ԇ:C?AڻZh8寚o(귴 t zT }W]hWwfwf6Eb i64Ѱ
͚Ų+TRlBڟJB1ggmD`K o>;y)|s9g3
_Hs~O<}~oB+H~z/ <gl'}q1n jƗ )IOg, 6(# 7ٌ b ~MHq=n_ %(M1˸6
gmL# 9feaCv1OU nӀdf M +dGk 1vȸB)7Iϑ#K\qŢ8*=b.FfqIjz^$I'!iSu塩!MB`:?9A rK t9{0FهnfWŕCNv+290sw Ne Mnc"0p[.9 Gn#hX$ָwî}*#=;"q{0\ w.yemw`hz;"7I/!fg-
)8А*Ha4O;*I(5]HpXb ۊZXVFQ lz`
ʪ
]er
矺Z+AGŎ㧜.*c, ȸ}p, MdwϜh戺hY1jE sgUFt9gY^&ir*s \JLlK\snX.Y9se c;.K($ְu'9<=-sMKdqi]\}}M\ܰꊜҴ\u៴HS(J%
tEhޖAwp8t͌`} 1m8BGԑ@|[~60@ԁ@X[l6A;Ԏ D%md6PH;=Ɣ1c05s (yeBRf G 1%#i æHk̈́C!> :Cf(
~ ~k'0 嫲+/+, oB0*t
2¸0)L Wд0-ry\ ;eSNA"b{+3*̰(XDY$$Y DOA9x?.ߎ6PnA @~ A_RaoOFNZ FJgO*`0r
kWu@/ .^S@
öLL"S,hbP5|#\(B o-e%p(? (R
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00280.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archiv\
ed%20-%20HTML/03-00280.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:23 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 157.5 591.75 608.25 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm
(The Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of\
episodic alcohol abuse have not been)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(challenged on appeal. )Tj
8.94 0 Td
(Those unchallenged findings of fact)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.634 0 Td
(provide a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions)Tj
-23.575 -1.125 Td
(under Guideline G. )Tj
7.942 0 Td
(The Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's criminal record have not \
been challenged)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.321 0 Td
(on appeal.)Tj
-43.263 -1.125 Td
(Those unchallenged findings of fact provide a rational basis for the Jud\
ge's adverse conclusions under Guideline J. )Tj
46.112 0 Td
(As)Tj
-46.112 -1.125 Td
(discussed earlier in this decision, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.913 0 Td
(Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security clearance applicatio\
n in May)Tj
-14.913 -1.125 Td
(2002 is sustainable. )Tj
8.11 0 Td
(That finding of falsification -- plus the Judge's unchallenged findings)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.896 0 Td
(about Applicant's criminal)Tj
-36.006 -1.125 Td
(record -- provide a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions u\
nder Guideline E.)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
(Snepp v. United States)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
8.998 0 Td
(, 444)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(U.S. 507, 511 n.6 \(1980\). )Tj
(The Administrative Judge's findings about)Tj
-18.246 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's history of alcohol abuse, Applicant's criminal record, and A\
pplicant's falsification of a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.501 0 Td
(security clearance)Tj
-39.501 -1.125 Td
(application in May 2002 provide a rational and legally sufficient basis \
for his unfavorable security clearance decision.)Tj
T*
(Applicant's appeal arguments do)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.288 0 Td
(not demonstrate the Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contra\
ry to law.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
8.479 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(The Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision because Applicant \
has failed to demonstrate error below.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 504.75 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 480 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 402.75 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 378 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 300.75 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 276 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(Applicant's appeal brief contains statements about what has happened to \
him since the Administrative Judge's)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(unfavorable security clearance decision was issued. )Tj
20.853 0 Td
(Those statements constitute new evidence, which the Board cannot)Tj
-20.853 -1.125 Td
(consider on appeal. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.997 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.29.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
[45 0 R]
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00280.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archiv\
ed%20-%20HTML/03-00280.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:23 PM])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
(a mere difference of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.328 0 Td
(opinion. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
6.887 0 Td
(,)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
( )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR Case No. 97-0435 \(July 14, 1998\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court d\
ecision\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.006 0 Td
(to law, the Board will consider whether they are)Tj
-27.006 -1.125 Td
(contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other\
applicable federal law. )Tj
38.347 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
-38.347 -1.125 Td
(or local law is not required because security clearance adjudications ar\
e conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(pursuant to federal law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.691 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( U.S. Constitution, Article)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.138 0 Td
(VI, clause 2 \(Supremacy Clause\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.69 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 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 by such)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.758 0 Td
(relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as)Tj
-24.758 -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 making this review,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.248 0 Td
(the)Tj
-44.764 -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 Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
15.356 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting\
a)Tj
-15.356 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detract\
s from the weight of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.475 0 Td
(evidence supporting those)Tj
-37.475 -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 Judge's credibility)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.234 0 Td
(determination is not immune from review, the party challenging a Judge's\
credibility)Tj
-12.234 -1.125 Td
(determination has a heavy burden on appeal.)Tj
0 -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 \(citing federal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.883 0 Td
(cases\).)Tj
-18.883 -2.125 Td
(If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Boar\
d must consider the following questions:)Tj
T*
(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.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(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
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items E3.1.33.2 and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.717 0 Td
(E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-1.067 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 334.1487 348.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 334.1487 348 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 318.75 Tm
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding that Applicant falsifi\
ed a security clearance application in May)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 318 cm
0 0 m
550.137 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 305.25 Tm
(2002)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 304.5 cm
0 0 m
24 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 40 305.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(On appeal, Applicant states he is sorry about)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.634 0 Td
(not disclosing various matters when he completed a security)Tj
-20.634 -1.125 Td
(clearance application in May 2002, and asserts that he was not trying to\
mislead anyone at the time. )Tj
40.099 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board)Tj
-40.099 -1.125 Td
(construes Applicant's statements as raising the issue of whether the Adm\
inistrative Judge erred by finding Applicant)Tj
T*
(falsified the security clearance application by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.38 0 Td
(not disclosing: \(a\) six arrests and/or criminal charges \(which spanne\
d the)Tj
-18.38 -1.125 Td
(period from 1995 to 2001\); )Tj
11.137 0 Td
(and \(b\) alcohol counseling he received in 1997 or 1998 while in the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.298 0 Td
(U.S. Navy.)Tj
-38.435 -2.125 Td
(The record evidence of Applicant's explanation for omitting various info\
rmation when he completed the security)Tj
T*
(clearance application was before the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.046 0 Td
(Judge. )Tj
(That evidence was material and relevant, but it was not)Tj
-21.046 -1.125 Td
(binding or conclusive on the Judge. )Tj
14.47 0 Td
(Rather, as the trier of fact, the Judge had to consider Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.894 0 Td
(explanation in light)Tj
-40.364 -1.125 Td
(of the record evidence as a whole and make a finding of fact as to wheth\
er Applicant did or did not falsify the security)Tj
T*
(clearance application, as alleged)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.187 0 Td
(in the SOR. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0194 \(February 29, 2000\) at p. 3. )Tj
(Considering)Tj
-13.187 -1.125 Td
(the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's finding of falsification is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.588 0 Td
(sustainable. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.943 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural)Tj
-32.531 -1.125 Td
(Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge had a rational basis for his unfavorabl\
e security clearance decision)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 118.5 cm
0 0 m
486.82 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 514.8203 119.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant also:)Tj
-41.568 -1.125 Td
(\(a\) expresses great pride in the United States and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.799 0 Td
(his ability to serve in the U.S. military; \(b\) states he is proud that\
he is)Tj
-19.799 -1.125 Td
(not a drug user; \(c\) claims that his past misconduct is not serious en\
ough to preclude him from)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.048 0 Td
(holding a security)Tj
-38.048 -1.125 Td
(clearance; \(d\) expresses remorse for his failure to make full disclose\
when he completed the security clearance)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(application; and \(e\) asserts that he poses)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.356 0 Td
(no risk to his company or the security of the United States. )Tj
23.746 0 Td
(The Board)Tj
-40.102 -1.125 Td
(construes Applicant's statements as raising the issue of whether the Adm\
inistrative Judge had a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.282 0 Td
(rational basis for his)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(unfavorable security clearance decision.)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
<>/BS<