͗28ckk8RRBO#]WI ]@ܵ
jF ɕ ?;wnmPށ\v*21QeTqJXN8M. з3h`x]bX2X٭-- ςgj 4w EAtH%5ч+]./ t:4I)h8=-Sg*8ZI˂PN F\!%ZDzd9ѷ'! Hn!DpD(u7$}diBM v̑cAٌy'8+BI;-Z:k AAer z?'](69)Ҩyz j}H(}b.w[t0(~o7:JmVa+N qH3ǜɆt_ٓ՜~f_syIn^V6] 3W. V$
!FZ
=<7
εS8. d6S)9klyAS۩݅_ Q*-߉"5TPpyG/ JNxu+ؙz?
8p7Uu}q8ıc'M|gI8'A]K!@ tNe,FB hՒ B&#]74! McR+ jJ+x^4fyy{== Ҫ U!U
CЫU?ol} TQ
ÖcpL"\-%F^5a!4ģtX֠Wm~% >/vZUZGi{ҵp\!\f6[-b;&7՟~}5WjUux>%F7-;up#~9w^8ÌbLٮYLSud,V:tEe07Tn̫ ZR}=a|]X`Pit^d 0(,aTՍ'LQ3љw+ڠCn36!oV7b7g2&j[DHč"'RLvʤ[.srSC e'!U^_k yuFH<^0k8A&4~Ehi%}L E@~Ԋt$ u0ט[ͼY[)pLC+6cLL%fkF<^X )KYD/_,v >L@9V!PP-/3$O$2
T>n |LTt܄ ;m4i }Z'I%CR$I95Q ?,&H<̽AbϷb{ ﵸJ?v N=b/4Zr1eQzO`YW}13!PS b.!r1KNaNcNs8ZW+ @]>kj_d{09}'wޭt[Y~\1_h/=Zb )!*${NNU;1ںyb B9(⋼|5 s,[:)WYUdRU+
>
P]ռv'qND*xZcŚNG `dLD|Աe/Kvͱ;s@^ *=
CTa"9 .: hX|K'7 }DtvbNIɨHqpd
I\vY n0r6[$-(p= -CoP5cF G,3ֿ8|Dwj7~ = rQRФ4C&D E\Dvh~M
,
XrϼmC#/ -m~~6ӽ@ǦܢII,.'"lRn-Ta6BnS&:%
t?=){d{%2Qdj- ɓƺ
ha-zPV/a;bKw?&Q( o#\LNqNaX8O"/L&먤X\?1،gT"!L/ " )g J 9J&G" axZ C0 5;7إVdvxK2~
e# =ιos_{@lOe*d(1c8-Z- Jb+J7V Z0AUd0c& Gm M& 1T8@:E 3
0:-2 9rR쟽'= {99rjgbcsh_TӌYE})}ޞ'x}ܶoNy& kyJG|oՎ3_bf JI)1ϴjj cY~N&ߪ29gŪ&4<< ȕɓ6
93XN+AOs^w Źz}ebY3Gm ur[/kveґH i֩XPGoe9%R.N6Zl`.BW+U&#eabg ]b`Z ٛ=jkYKwO 6wrn s72ηWxj*tnLJ =/k2LϘ`FY~/TSXnC.g6}AV9S0Gij Y|e; ދ6VX?4w σ_J#sܣλkb
W ϻحR.rw Az3F%6\+p|eӲxw4b}h؎Ƶhy: ŁMOq)x9D[&E .H|Fsk/AY;wc\g,K:XoD2yګ$캠Gfo-J.'RZ, +'v`W̙|*2q̥KEϮRqL߸pF=Dny[x ^D,(E}' ^]x} m2+h 2JF deם0 e ,i['K |Ù~*h[ۿz zvg;Z G!c]+u]ݵD%}:o| ;[=,[yf{:^ŒFEGc?y ^J{zQ AY/hj D{cN^3&wAQ
KiNSo'Y^m9
K1Z/! ͏ ߷̬y;lPChG)߃}MX< 0~Ag3ۚsǥ6wتK5ߙX~?D t攚Gk.$꽭ڼpjkzrWq t#3&>uv.mrG!=PS]j %mm\=iZ[N4r@S̊Q}BnVZU:O htNr٣dcv)M I|YLWY>$f@.f!k ǎ9[h 6-S5ٶBtVs f6Xr\xEZ}yADts S;B-s(>
ﭑ埄Vbx
ۦw5^{R9^3Oc:I4 BG*֙CKЁWY^W&[fOTԐD3w:}s?RzeuU51zN67Z&s<'P7i9o/3 r `֛t }ՈF6X9vmDTZMWV~3=\/\ɅlnB{+盕3(o{4ғ/3&m1Y |ami+/Dp5T+ޯo ҋ=Pa}9ǾQߺALy>3 swX> [u ̠E8p1SΓ~ Da/~>iF + |vnֆm ^] oy?ߞn ,p;
XB竰7a(» re{jc^j@`Js떡Uh@1 !/
1̍_x&!&3-7Uwm&VժaoNҋk&$9WF"Ya KInr~
~ޑltS PH?22Y7~ %Nfo: YϷ Zf)~#h.^.Yg sJ)T
m RFB;[t*-(2)ljD'lNeM ApKdt0'F2emiT68og=8Z-%<_xUb>|/bs )2-)FX-yRS'e4KL}pPn.?ƆǼuH͒[h Y n,%:8]scmeXG%4K>K矰 FLpo~+DuTc
I?z6X #zVfzkefMI3bOc
G4yX 7B \ewfR5pm߷klFeyWD?#{aHRz>wa3^ߓ֟aHSBGzK t\H~mglxw|=k+I]}*{Ji`{2-[_gٌ;Xr:ۻv%4Z9auȟaѱ%3#Wt;%;BzbGzwG@Tr-ew}I TFǺÌuI4` @Ǝ c.~}eͻ'Nvո Mh喁a/|dcP99w:A\ih4<=>F.L~u(+ك^|P-9bxC[j'T/~d.|THNxUZ,{-kk G
S!lzľCb,>%*b9 z~':r7{V0wa?egQg*2ƽv
04K)Q?}1^
/Qmx
]6r.
rs4] +(xnQ2=<<veN%2co۠OD;&,}y6FRwbͶ byGN|m/-?'Q'ˤoheќp{Li(h9[_]s Fx"
c@-k@r!yodA " I$~#E,I61l9|(rL:}3d[9jSYqcБF;Q'FcM|,)
똧zvq^r3)̧LϕՁ)M2[ui+_r(
/_%qZIoWwqPsuwa_QRN|@F{$SJ x_"Ӌ+nQV>V9MV2{ Y˜S_MJFO+"| VvVs_`b?R}5A4mi|mn5s^Xi:8 IָPϚ#97~Ej}f%|·a~mh>js?Íƿg}*S[*&&9 `pw=mReY[bDɌ1N0'MaW939'7n9+ιسuL"V!Sk1>%;' E
SA2t L_m}[׳[Z/ֳKjKD V١QܡHJ0 ?k8rv1q([yG ˵c7YN^jLWz T?_e>%*ŧϘ7*ع`#/F QUPmZ`0:MS& 4;s~bCrL6v?ηqsg?~K>^7/ 63اǛ-Er~ht ~rgsi_b $ھCz)2qU'|eHno^=i_~h6m8 wAZ8_T<_7oj!|sx}=a]n0F
Q9t^㻄Tq<ܤ%+ؼǰCWVj%}?eiLs+|ۚVsǥNu<Woim/}Q+T.a=v2Xc6ORW0R{Ta8^,Ez 6w<~]lפJ"
96=c8v7} o"5&߉wUI٠]nץ;K T
W>afO4I]Z" EypGqt.ocYpXQMwӼ[}'f?Yn[ĸ5SYZ:gUC_WƥV0+^d'wuzi#i{aK&Ӑ K!`hM N &hJEFC*Jת(*\ŖT ;}L%]hiU`ǣjhPClو9u/41. ']cƲ*] e 縌u iX#<
ɸSEJľ$ڥjjolVߴА {6Lw-̸tp's6&ؑKxZ/ gnl}Jڭ}laRCUƊS/_'A=ڂ/ uV!A* =-N"WS
|f- 7g< }rs~}˹hA~G?(̝=qj%@4K3OjF NHC']jZnXk
& h 6ֽm z[A@ckf-|s{pNH߸MP~i9eF3Ơ`U+z;O75?8QkIISPt!}O- [ 6q=W^ޜ1l4%5soONoZ͙-W[ =G Ĩ3tk8xcOrJ'?k2`*
3i0gnR=>OBgRTwSʞ&30 ;\w N~DRGsAv}İ4>KĤO)] ܣK6l`INkín_
9bg.CO{| F3χ{Q(]ثN؉Hrҗs~]z])ݮbs$L '9ؿf ~G/a5R^?dCR:>a
_K%r֞ys$+wTu4]4 %D/|(]ΧJ
#fz홬
p}:\$viZͭ;` ]פ{{n$~%Y=>/9 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 "!UyT)%ON) _ g~M6`XU?I " 唦iH1fi2 MgƲ!aK,o$c9D>ˬ'5H{U&\SjAUڪhj%mC6o-&R3G[ϪoW56&~l/"WGind y{Y2vdw+cnT=r=r+uz~ MZFhmyknjQq%6Pjj;Xc[ 6}l4Y]d5| 5j=4kg頶fn% jRs YFۯvh[49o6^QO۬-o诵aYFzf'kTӶjg_vN45]lml_AQ]wwvE R4*}k-a(
"`;ey.BҩZjM4i3Vme2vTc~iHI'-=tsν߹ݻ ] ڶp4z5o(5v ĴF=G]5UݡwFCZ}Dom-
jppTDB*Zc v~Dk=ڎ7 go8Uvz 0bhP 8` :j5oP[kz_եwiTTchoD,PѥzC-|~oiso ۥ j v6Ҹ hh2$ ./ݯY#W uć1#u_<-H,z7f +ʍzO d ="]"'12y>Jvtߒ1#LĆ
J <1?N|.OZ^Q\ cJpKdQU.|fsXuǛnwfwHqUxkΫ"@R8
_&VƮ!S,e]'$˻Tr"{xcuf7Y`00 X (EM 5ˀ0p 0ag#_0{#huv,>NJ}
⫠/.t,]? 3/σF]lPH8ͻ
y
(JP:;%N
/ i
5l3N<5- c熱sĄ}Pʳ
3;},}F1!Nl*jۛX: K DhvZ«ˬXHDĊµߛ͂ BrEjĂFQ"}#1dʫiu"
#\nZ1: e l" ն#gvK;& LP7Qff
Q+VD Xd f~FDXl6X,xNZTTTn* a64 Lf*Rr'VWVjg*=%Ы^^īHQ%3I%-P?,P?(P+P_*P-Vk*
%J^Y s\ J*yV*}T'jKxR!RBfCjAbOkC*-=..5&Q 2vCK}p _!4vcF_JĨg
az8λ4G!4!q!&pŴ)$Eğ qzA hU-Hm}d5j'
r8n"]vCj6ɫPŰ A/ wWɟ8s
ۍi11-7InT
>LZL*2&U>2 Y<1:~־@G4H V6O:iy(߂$IL
EI1r1qň%+P63 8NnSuf͜o^iεXll"Kbɴ,XrRanMHIIm`jQ)uMU4SGꚫuI|c|si])JцZ\ZV Q͋lk& :4zgSkJϰW-#KV.yb' A i.}YVgY~Ut]SKQoo>: P¾i%"u> 58}c)T"aKBa#4!m~iy-UOLoa9zSS}a 6e)})
#ՙjYJar8`q:eÔB' tڈCmr J xS GSUL[]Anu}:`ϲ:5mHhq3#4oxZ
t^=E֩]ŬmQQmb066-%lY,V&IЩS nQc(%Kݺ$ЭS[u{r}Nt{iy A |6jzb ;kbwMrd=eOd/n-T(At+˞H/
IZUBMY`HK!$onӋ7ouc;[w} 4:{f/+r`Lη \3kZ6Kf)_*nyO()~dNs;#{>lewj#c80 vc JB(-7*D=CuҌUGJ@GtRhi*:NU
VC 3~ f*+3uX
٘M!S'lN9U^pEOK& 8GQu2i|i%Wjvف{"0U&@!~ 5طw9zh[ڮs[&he^~Ty xj[ n=[]hǵr}9
$G "pV(Yp e+'hjI׳H""BX]@(
,B_@^ +
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 7/Type/Page>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00112.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/03-00112.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:13 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 437.25 591.75 328.5 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
(sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.215 0 Td
(year.")Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(2. )Tj
(5 U.S.C. \2473331 states: "An individual, except the President, elected \
or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(civil service or uniformed services, shall take the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.854 0 Td
(following oath: 'I, AB, do solemnly swear \(or affirm\) that I will)Tj
-19.854 -1.125 Td
(support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all ene\
mies, foreign and domestic; that I)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.157 0 Td
(will bear true)Tj
-42.157 -1.125 Td
(faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, wi\
thout any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;)Tj
T*
(and that I will well and faithfully)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.469 0 Td
(discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help\
me God.' )Tj
32.477 0 Td
(This)Tj
-45.945 -1.125 Td
(section does not affect other oaths required by law.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
(Applicant's brief also refers to the constitutional prohibitions against\
)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
28.646 0 Td
(ex post facto)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
5.054 0 Td
( law and double jeopardy in)Tj
-33.701 -1.125 Td
(criminal proceedings. )Tj
8.914 0 Td
(Neither prohibition is relevant to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.358 0 Td
(these proceedings. )Tj
7.636 0 Td
(Security clearance adjudications are not)Tj
-29.908 -1.125 Td
(criminal prosecutions and, therefore, do not implicate a criminal defend\
ant's rights under the Fifth and Sixth)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.556 0 Td
(Chesna v. U.S. Department of Defense)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
15.441 0 Td
(, 850 F. Supp. 110, 119 \(D. Conn. 1994\).)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-30.997 -1.125 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 94-0295)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(December 30, 1994\) at p. 4 \(discussing federal cases\). )Tj
36.463 0 Td
(Therefore, the prohibition)Tj
-36.463 -1.125 Td
(against double jeopardy is not applicable in these proceedings. )Tj
25.271 0 Td
(Furthermore, a review)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.163 0 Td
(of federal case law on the )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
10.495 0 Td
(ex post)Tj
-44.928 -1.125 Td
(facto)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
2 0 Td
( doctrine shows that it is not applicable to security clearance adjudica\
tions. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
30.185 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 99-0424 \(February)Tj
-32.185 -1.125 Td
(8, 2001\) at)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(p. 7 \(discussing federal cases\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
14.267 0 Td
( \(7th edition, 1999\) at p. 571 \(definition of "judicial estoppel"\).)Tj
-14.267 -2.125 Td
(5. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
14.267 0 Td
( \(7th edition, 1999\) at p. 571 \(definition of "equitable estoppel"\).\
)Tj
-14.267 -2.125 Td
(6. )Tj
(Indeed, the federal court decisions cited in ISCR Case No. 01-19823 \(De\
cember 3, 2003\) at p. 6 n.6 make clear that)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(an intervening change in the law is a well-recognized exception to the d\
octrines of )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
33.21 0 Td
(res judicata)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.75 0 Td
( and collateral estoppel.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 6/Type/Page>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00112.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/03-00112.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:13 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
(986.'" )Tj
(\(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.e.\))Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
("If the Appeal Board issues a decision denying or revoking a clearance s\
olely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Board shall include without explanation either the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.245 0 Td
(statement 'The Appeal Board recommends consideration of this case)Tj
-20.245 -1.125 Td
(for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or 'The Appeal Board does not recommend c\
onsideration of this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.185 0 Td
(case for a waiver of 10)Tj
-38.185 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986.'" \(Operating Instruction, paragraph 3.f.\))Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("In any case in which [the] Administrative Judge, or [the] Appeal Board \
in the event of an appeal, recommends)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consideration of a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986, the Director)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.716 0 Td
(shall within his sole discretion determine whether or not to)Tj
-22.716 -1.125 Td
(forward the case to the Deputy General Counsel \(Legal Counsel\) for fur\
ther consideration of a possible waiver)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.513 0 Td
(of 10)Tj
-44.513 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986 by the Secretary of Defense together with such rationale as m\
ay be requested by the Deputy General)Tj
T*
(Counsel \(Legal Counsel\)." )Tj
10.906 0 Td
(\(Operating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.582 0 Td
(Instruction, paragraph 3.g.\))Tj
-15.488 -2.125 Td
(The Operating Instruction does not authorize the Board to review an Admi\
nistrative Judge's recommendation whether or)Tj
T*
(not a waiver should be considered. Furthermore, under the Operating Inst\
ruction, the Board is not authorized to give)Tj
T*
(reasons or an explanation for its decision to recommend or not recommend\
that a waiver be considered, but only state)Tj
T*
(without explanation either: \(1\) "The Appeal Board recommends considera\
tion of this case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C.)Tj
T*
(986" or \(2\) "The Appeal Board does not recommend consideration of this\
case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986." Since the)Tj
T*
(Board is asked to make a recommendation in its own capacity, the Board i\
s not bound by the recommendation made by)Tj
T*
(the Judge below and must review the record evidence as a whole in order \
to fulfill its obligation to make a meaningful)Tj
T*
(decision whether to recommend or not that a waiver should be considered.\
)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Recognizing the limits of its authority under the Operating Instruction,\
the Board has reviewed the record evidence as a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(whole and states the following: The Appeal Board)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.384 0 Td
(does not recommend consideration of this case for a waiver of 10)Tj
-20.384 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.767 -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 unfavorable)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 16 346.5 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 321.75 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 16 244.5 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 219.75 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 142.5 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 117.75 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(10 U.S.C. \247986\(c\)\(1\) reads: "The person has been convicted in any\
court of the United States of a crime and)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00112.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/03-00112.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:13 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
(5200.2-R and without developing or trying to develop a factual record \(\
during the proceedings below\) that would allow)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(a reasoned decision by the Judge as to whether)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.966 0 Td
(Applicant's case is covered by Sections 4-100 and 4-102. )Tj
23.063 0 Td
(Indeed,)Tj
-42.03 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's argument ignores the fact that Sections 4-100 and 4-102 appe\
ar in a portion of DoD)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.503 0 Td
(Regulation 5200.2-R)Tj
-38.503 -1.125 Td
(entitled "Reciprocal Acceptance of Prior Investigations and Personnel Se\
curity Determinations." )Tj
38.888 0 Td
(Applicant has not)Tj
-38.888 -1.125 Td
(identified any record evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.383 0 Td
(that indicates or suggests his situation raises a colorable claim of rec\
iprocity. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
30.963 0 Td
(Compare)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-43.346 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at pp. 3-4 \(discussing conce\
pt of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.106 0 Td
("reciprocity" under NISPOM\).)Tj
-31.106 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's argument about Section 4-100 and Section 4-102 also is incon\
sistent with his argument \(Brief at pp. 22-23\))Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(that the Administrative Judge prejudiced him by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.579 0 Td
(failing to decide this case without consideration of 10 U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
-19.579 -1.125 Td
(Applicant cannot have it both ways. )Tj
14.635 0 Td
(Applicant cannot fairly claim both \(a\) the Judge erred by not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.52 0 Td
(deciding his case)Tj
-39.155 -1.125 Td
(under Guideline J without consideration of 10 U.S.C. \247986; and \(b\) \
the Judge erred by deciding his case under)Tj
T*
(Guideline J. )Tj
5.083 0 Td
(Moreover, Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.636 0 Td
(argued during the proceedings below that the Judge should analyze his ca\
se under)Tj
-13.719 -1.125 Td
(Guideline J and conclude he satisfied the mitigating conditions under th\
at Guideline. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.131 0 Td
(See)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT0 1 Tf
(Hearing Transcript at pp. 18,)Tj
-34.131 -1.125 Td
(213, 219; Applicant's Hearing Memorandum at pp. 1-2, 5-6. )Tj
24.314 0 Td
(Having asked the Judge to analyze his case under Guideline)Tj
-24.314 -1.125 Td
(J and apply the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.276 0 Td
(mitigating conditions under that Guideline, it is not reasonable for App\
licant to claim now that the Judge)Tj
-6.276 -1.125 Td
(erred by adjudicating his case under Guideline J.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Finally, even if the Board were to assume -- solely for purposes of deci\
ding this appeal -- that Applicant's case were)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(covered by Section 4-100 and Section 102,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.44 0 Td
(Applicant fails to articulate how he was prejudiced in any meaningful wa\
y.)Tj
-17.44 -1.125 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the Board construes the Judge's d\
ecision as concluding)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.978 0 Td
(that Applicant's case was)Tj
-36.978 -1.125 Td
(mitigated under Guideline J. )Tj
11.636 0 Td
(Since the Judge reached favorable conclusions under Guideline J, how was\
Applicant)Tj
-11.636 -1.125 Td
(harmed in any practical way)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.578 0 Td
(by the Judge's analysis of the case under that Guideline?)Tj
-11.578 -2.125 Td
(8. )Tj
(Whether the Board should recommend further consideration of Applicant's \
case for a meritorious waiver under 10)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 448.5 cm
0 0 m
547.646 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 435.75 Tm
(U.S.C. \247986\(d\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 435 cm
0 0 m
73.336 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 89.3359 435.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant asks the Board to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.859 0 Td
(reverse the Administrative Judge's decision and recommend that his case \
be)Tj
-17.97 -1.125 Td
(considered further for a waiver under 10 U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Given the applicability of 10 U.S.C. \247986 to Applicant's case, the Bo\
ard cannot reverse the Administrative Judge's)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(unfavorable decision. )Tj
8.858 0 Td
(A reversal would be in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.358 0 Td
(violation of 10 U.S.C. \247986 and would usurp the authority of the Secr\
etary)Tj
-18.216 -1.125 Td
(of Defense under that statute.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum implementing the provisions o\
f 10 U.S.C. \247986 states: "The decision as)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to whether a particular case involves a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.577 0 Td
(meritorious case that would justify pursuing a request for waiver shall \
be the)Tj
-15.577 -1.125 Td
(province of the DoD Component concerned \(i.e. all Components authorized\
to grant, deny or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.462 0 Td
(revoke access to classified)Tj
-37.462 -1.125 Td
(information\) beginning with the Director of the Component Central Adjud\
ication Facility \(CAF\), the Component)Tj
T*
(appellate authority or other)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.107 0 Td
(appropriate senior Component official." )Tj
16.209 0 Td
(For purposes of Deputy Secretary of Defense)Tj
-27.316 -1.125 Td
(memorandum, the Director, DOHA is the Director of the Component Central)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.131 0 Td
(Adjudication Facility for industrial)Tj
-31.131 -1.125 Td
(security clearance cases.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To implement the June 7, 2001 memorandum, the Director, DOHA issued an o\
perating instruction \(dated July 10, 2001\))Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(which states the following:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("Administrative Judges are responsible for initial resolution as to whet\
her or not 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the facts of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(the case." )Tj
(\(Operating Instruction, paragraph 2.e.\))Tj
0 -2.125 TD
("In the event of an appeal raising an issue as to the applicability of 1\
0 U.S.C. 986, the Appeal Board is responsible for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(final resolution of the issue." )Tj
11.795 0 Td
(\(Operating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Instruction, paragraph 2.f.\))Tj
-11.795 -2.125 Td
("In the event of a final determination that 10 U.S.C. 986 applies to the\
facts of a case, the Director is solely responsible)Tj
T*
(for the discretionary decision as to whether to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.55 0 Td
(recommend to the Deputy General Counsel \(Legal Counsel\) that 10)Tj
-18.55 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. 986 should be waived by the Secretary of Defense." )Tj
23.958 0 Td
(\(Operating Instruction, paragraph 2.g.\))Tj
-23.958 -2.125 Td
("If an Administrative Judge issues a decision denying or revoking a clea\
rance solely as a result of 10 U.S.C. 986, the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge shall include without)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.47 0 Td
(explanation either the statement 'I recommend further consideration of t\
his)Tj
-17.47 -1.125 Td
(case for a waiver of 10 U.S.C. 986' or 'I do not recommend further consi\
deration of this case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.21 0 Td
(for a waiver of 10 U.S.C.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>>
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00112.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/03-00112.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:13 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
(policy and standards without regard)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.58 0 Td
(to an intervening change in federal law. )Tj
16.104 0 Td
(Second, the Deputy Secretary of Defense)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(memorandum implementing 10 U.S.C. \247986 constitutes an explicit modifi\
cation of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.939 0 Td
(DoD policy and standards)Tj
-34.939 -1.125 Td
(applicable in cases covered by that statute.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(6. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's analysis of Applicant's case under Gu\
ideline J is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 702 cm
0 0 m
565.154 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 689.25 Tm
(to law)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 688.5 cm
0 0 m
29.66 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 45.6602 689.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.219 0 Td
(Judge's analysis of his case under Guideline J is arbitrary, capricious,\
or)Tj
-18.69 -1.125 Td
(contrary to law because: \(a\) the Judge failed to consider the earlier \
favorable adjudication of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.178 0 Td
(Applicant's security)Tj
-37.178 -1.125 Td
(clearance; \(b\) the Judge's decision is contrary to the provisions of E\
xecutive Order 12968, the Directive, and other)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applicable federal law; \(c\) the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.188 0 Td
(Judge should have concluded Applicant's past criminal conduct was mitiga\
ted under)Tj
-12.188 -1.125 Td
(Guideline J; \(d\) the Judge's decision does not reflect application of \
the "whole)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.497 0 Td
(person" concept as required by the)Tj
-31.497 -1.125 Td
(Directive; and \(e\) the Judge's decision does not reflect a common sens\
e determination as required by the Directive. )Tj
46.192 0 Td
(For)Tj
-46.192 -1.125 Td
(the reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that follow, the Board concludes Applicant has failed to demonstrate the\
Judge's decision is arbitrary,)Tj
T*
(capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(a\) As discussed earlier in this decision, the Board construes the Adm\
inistrative Judge's decision as holding that, but for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(the application of 10 U.S.C. \247986, Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.706 0 Td
(conduct was mitigated under Guideline J. )Tj
16.857 0 Td
(Since the Judge reached)Tj
-35.563 -1.125 Td
(favorable conclusions under Guideline J, Applicant fails to identify how\
consideration of a favorable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.571 0 Td
(adjudication of)Tj
-40.571 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's security eligibility in 1981 would have change the Judge's c\
onclusions under Guideline J. )Tj
40.769 0 Td
(And, in any event,)Tj
-40.769 -1.125 Td
(a favorable security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.159 0 Td
(adjudication in 1981 does not give Applicant any right to have the Admin\
istrative Judge)Tj
-12.159 -1.125 Td
(adjudicate his case without regard to an intervening change in federal l\
aw \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
30.043 0 Td
(i.e.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 10)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(U.S.C. \247986\).)Tj
-30.043 -2.125 Td
(\(b\) There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party mus\
t raise claims of error with specificity. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
44.153 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(,)Tj
-44.153 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 00-0050 \(July 23, 2001\) at pp.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2-3 \(discussing reasons why claims of error must be raised with)Tj
T*
(specificity\). )Tj
4.998 0 Td
(Applicant's conclusory claim that the Administrative Judge's decision is\
contrary to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.075 0 Td
(provisions of)Tj
-40.073 -1.125 Td
(Executive Order 12968, the Directive, and other applicable federal law i\
s too general and vague to discern what claim of)Tj
T*
(error Applicant is raising. )Tj
10.525 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board will not speculate or guess at what provisions of law Applicant be\
lieves the Judge)Tj
-10.525 -1.125 Td
(did not comply with.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(c\) As discussed earlier in this decision, the Board construes the Adm\
inistrative Judge's decision as holding that, but for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(the application of 10 U.S.C. \247986, Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.706 0 Td
(past criminal conduct was mitigated under Guideline J. )Tj
22.3 0 Td
(Accordingly, the)Tj
-41.005 -1.125 Td
(Board fails to discern any basis for Applicant's claim that the Judge er\
red by not concluding)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.004 0 Td
(Applicant's past criminal)Tj
-37.004 -1.125 Td
(conduct was mitigated under Guideline J.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(d\)/\(e\) Applicant's last two arguments are predicated on his reading\
of the Administrative Judge's decision as concluding)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(that his past criminal conduct was not mitigated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.385 0 Td
(under Guideline J. )Tj
7.609 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the Board)Tj
-26.994 -1.125 Td
(construes the Judge's decision as holding that, but for the application \
of 10 U.S.C. \247986, Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.271 0 Td
(conduct was)Tj
-40.271 -1.125 Td
(mitigated under Guideline J. )Tj
11.636 0 Td
(Given that reading of the Judge's decision, Applicant's last two argumen\
ts fail to)Tj
-11.636 -1.125 Td
(demonstrate any error by the Judge.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(7. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge was precluded from adjudicating Applica\
nt's case because of Sections 4-100 and)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 237 cm
0 0 m
555.322 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 224.25 Tm
(4-102 of Department of Defense Regulation)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 223.5 cm
0 0 m
214.6 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 230.5996 224.25 Tm
(5200.2-R)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 230.5996 223.5 cm
0 0 m
45 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 275.5996 224.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant also contends the Administrative Judge was barred, as)Tj
-21.633 -1.125 Td
(a matter of law, from adjudicating his case because of Sections 4-100 an\
d 4-102 of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.378 0 Td
(Department of Defense Regulation)Tj
-33.378 -1.125 Td
(5200.2-R. )Tj
(Applicant argues that under those two provisions of Department of Defens\
e Regulation 5200.2-R the only)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(question the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.11 0 Td
(Judge should have considered was whether, based on the previously adjudi\
cated facts, )Tj
34.712 0 Td
(whether to)Tj
-39.822 -1.125 Td
(recommend further consideration of Applicant's case for a waiver)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.475 0 Td
(under 10 U.S.C. \247986\(d\). )Tj
(Department Counsel argues)Tj
-26.475 -1.125 Td
(that those two provisions do not apply to Applicant's situation.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(During the proceedings below, Applicant did not raise the issue of wheth\
er his case is covered by Sections 4-100 and 4-)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(102 of Department of Defense Regulation)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.05 0 Td
(5200.2-R. )Tj
(Furthermore, Department Counsel's reply brief identifies other)Tj
-17.05 -1.125 Td
(provisions of Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R that could be pe\
rtinent to a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.658 0 Td
(determination of whether)Tj
-34.658 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's case is covered by Sections 4-100 and 4-102, but the applica\
bility )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
31.312 0 Td
(vel non)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
2.916 0 Td
( of those provisions turns on)Tj
-34.227 -1.125 Td
(factual determinations for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.579 0 Td
(which no record evidence was presented. )Tj
16.687 0 Td
(Since Applicant did not raise the issue until appeal,)Tj
-27.267 -1.125 Td
(Applicant cannot fairly complain that the Administrative Judge did not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.604 0 Td
(consider it. )Tj
4.693 0 Td
(Moreover, Applicant cannot fairly)Tj
-33.298 -1.125 Td
(invoke Sections 4-100 and 4-102 in isolation from other pertinent provis\
ions of Department of Defense Regulation)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
52 0 obj
[54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R 57 0 R]
endobj
53 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-00112.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/03-00112.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:07:13 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
(For the reasons stated in addressing Applicant's first issue, the Board \
will not presume to review and pass judgment on)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(the substance of the Deputy Secretary of Defense)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.992 0 Td
(memorandum implementing 10 U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
-19.992 -2.125 Td
(For the reasons stated in addressing Applicant's second issue, the Board\
will not presume to review and pass judgment)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(on the substance of the DOHA Operating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.801 0 Td
(Instruction concerning cases involving 10 U.S.C. \247986.)Tj
-16.801 -2.125 Td
(4. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge failed to properly apply the process re\
quired by the Department of Defense)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 676.5 cm
0 0 m
528.152 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 663.75 Tm
(memorandum implementing 10 U.S.C. \247986)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 663 cm
0 0 m
213.65 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 229.6504 663.75 Tm
(. Applicant contends, in the alternative, that even if the Department of\
)Tj
-17.804 -1.125 Td
(Defense memorandum implementing 10 U.S.C. \247986 is legally permissible\
, the Administrative Judge failed to properly)Tj
T*
(apply the process required by that memorandum. Specifically, Applicant a\
rgues: \(a\) the Judge erred by failing to decide)Tj
T*
(whether he should have received a favorable security clearance decision \
"without consideration of the statute"; and \(b\))Tj
T*
(without such a determination by the Judge, Applicant will be prejudiced \
in the future "if and when [10 U.S.C. \247986] is)Tj
T*
(repealed.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's first argument is not frivolous, but it is not persuasive. )Tj
26.705 0 Td
(In reviewing an Administrative Judge's decision, the)Tj
-26.705 -1.125 Td
(Board considers the decision in its entirety and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.996 0 Td
(does not limit itself to reading individual sentences or passages in)Tj
-18.996 -1.125 Td
(isolation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
3.944 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-10215 \(January 30, 2004\) at p. 6 n.4. )Tj
(Reading the decision)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.856 0 Td
(below in its entirety,)Tj
-39.132 -1.125 Td
(the Board does not find Applicant's interpretation of the Judge's decisi\
on to be persuasive. )Tj
36.269 0 Td
(Reading the Judge's decision)Tj
-36.269 -1.125 Td
(in its entirety, the Board)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.942 0 Td
(construes it as holding that, but for the application of 10 U.S.C. \2479\
86, Applicant's past criminal)Tj
-9.942 -1.125 Td
(conduct was mitigated under Guideline J.)Tj
T*
(Applicant's second argument lacks merit. )Tj
16.731 0 Td
(It is untenable for Applicant to make a claim of prejudice in this case \
based on)Tj
-16.731 -1.125 Td
(an assumption that a federal statute will be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.328 0 Td
(repealed in the future. )Tj
9.023 0 Td
(Applicant is entitled to have his case adjudicated)Tj
-26.352 -1.125 Td
(under existing law, not on speculation as to how the law may be differen\
t in the future. )Tj
34.963 0 Td
(Moreover,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(even if there were any)Tj
-34.963 -1.125 Td
(rational basis to conclude that the law would change in a particular way\
in the foreseeable future, Applicant's legal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(rights today are not determined)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.746 0 Td
(or measured against any future change in the law.)Tj
-12.746 -2.125 Td
(5. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by adjudicating Applicant's case \
under Guideline J when there was no)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 397.5 cm
0 0 m
531.662 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 384.75 Tm
(adverse information concerning Applicant since a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 384 cm
0 0 m
241.91 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 257.9102 384.75 Tm
(favorable security clearance adjudication in 1981)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 257.9102 384 cm
0 0 m
236.227 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 494.1367 384.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends)Tj
-39.845 -1.125 Td
(that the Administrative Judge should not have adjudicated his case under\
Guideline J because there)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.905 0 Td
(is no adverse)Tj
-39.905 -1.125 Td
(information concerning Applicant since he received a favorable security \
clearance adjudication in 1981. )Tj
41.871 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
-41.871 -1.125 Td
(argues that the Judge's unfavorable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.259 0 Td
(decision: \(a\) "defies the law, logic and experience"; \(b\) is contrar\
y to the )Tj
29.305 0 Td
(concept of)Tj
-43.564 -1.375 Td
(repose that underlies the legal doctrines of )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.188 0 Td
(res judicata)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.75 0 Td
(, judicial estoppel, collateral)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.551 0 Td
(estoppel, and equitable estoppel;)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 574.4922 332.25 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 574.4922 331.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 314.25 Tm
(\(c\) is inconsistent with a recent federal district court decision in a\
n Army security clearance case having similar facts;)Tj
T*
(and \(d\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(improperly fails to apply DoD policy and standards applicable to Guideli\
ne J cases. )Tj
36.768 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow,)Tj
-36.768 -1.125 Td
(the Board concludes Applicant's arguments lack merit.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(The doctrine of judicial estoppel)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 171.9473 263.25 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 171.9473 262.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 185.7534 258.75 Tm
( and the doctrine of equitable estoppel)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 369.0229 263.25 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 369.0229 262.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 382.8291 258.75 Tm
( are not applicable to Applicant's situation)Tj
-30.569 -1.125 Td
(and provide no legal support for his appeal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.384 0 Td
(arguments. )Tj
4.666 0 Td
(Moreover, the legal doctrines of )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.106 0 Td
(res judicata)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.75 0 Td
( and collateral)Tj
-39.906 -1.375 Td
(estoppel do not preclude the application of a new federal statute.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 325.5508 233.25 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 325.5508 232.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 339.3569 228.75 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant cites no legal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.969 0 Td
(authority to support his)Tj
-36.916 -1.125 Td
(premise that legal doctrines developed by courts to regulate issue precl\
usion in the context of adjudications can be)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(invoked to negate the force and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.828 0 Td
(effect of a federal statute enacted by Congress. )Tj
18.963 0 Td
(An individual's right to expect repose in)Tj
-31.791 -1.125 Td
(adjudications does not confer any right to, or reasonable expectation in\
, being)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.324 0 Td
(exempted from the application of a new)Tj
-31.324 -1.125 Td
(federal statute.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The federal district court decision cited by Applicant is distinguishabl\
e on its facts from Applicant's case. )Tj
42.363 0 Td
(Moreover, to)Tj
-42.363 -1.125 Td
(the extent that the federal court decision cited by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.742 0 Td
(Applicant is based on the federal district court's exercise of judicial)Tj
-19.742 -1.125 Td
(authority under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Board cannot a\
nd will not presume to exercise)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.99 0 Td
(such authority in)Tj
-40.99 -1.125 Td
(these proceedings.)Tj
T*
(Applicant acknowledges that 10 U.S.C. \247986 is an intervening change i\
n law, but then appears to argue that the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge should have adjudicated his case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.133 0 Td
(under DoD policy and standards that predated the enactment of)Tj
-22.133 -1.125 Td
(that statute \(Brief at p. 25\). )Tj
11.052 0 Td
(Applicant's argument is not persuasive for two reasons. )Tj
22.37 0 Td
(First, Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.527 0 Td
(cites no legal)Tj
-39.949 -1.125 Td
(authority for the proposition that he has any vested right or reasonable\
expectation in the continued application of DoD)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>/BS<