cHd-j 9~"ˇ۽}~KTyɽ'PϻMz$o\=//\?* />@[ $
I \SRf9O`.lNZI">x#QЋQYY8'KEl8:h Ƹ=VO?NBŞPTQLE#aʨH\A$ D(v\%l ÞP#+L6-/'p( WC(%▇ ۞=VpYCt!WO`y:hJ$ c'< 2fUzTC +@9+}l*[E4Kk{g?>s[a (F@ck3X Mzg;?"Pɝ]*Cvl87Ol Y(qMLESI6oFpUxpc Mq1p+~rm)gRVwQbF
LAU P q-AN:qI4A/ 3:<7?|pu j`zjuFA hatfiPD./%"&W%`n/y #
{N@ u+Xy'A > gLé 0 PnMvtz$\ܒ^c빜CJ F+]mêQ}:)ƲKv+(3=QC~(A;I7U-.6t,cYyWyrNm:{ƭ$l4U EdIT,$"*Ki[43S`搖L_䓦QRJRHʒbYC}
8\|('ሓI8G##r! j ̃tC..9 ߧLs{; (RўJV?9t
0[i -:D L Dn {lёۃ}MC'v4X^;&ۡ U녾Z}Y% hZ{{Lq]虵F9/!;Memt02h! XW];HpgT`*x,p,nohf]m-oY.uY u1y@9Y܃9v|>N ֽDi1Fqq2 %EY Y4v{]C/nQtSn}ݒGx^>mTw 휝>;]}8Nb;)N45VD͊Fd[A$Q[ZJ(4Ȫ
ЪHhTˤSjTUY&='Jf{w>>ų? g=غͥGi D|eNǜtnkZl 0 6˗mMqY߯HC``Q
n}0
fu/jlLtCPen2?b/3SL <1^xCغ6Ks9l;!.>xJ2 #2 R2K+> R1I$ Rco{#⫎߬
!pJUGo>+[n"DCE']µ" S3F]rT'Iz0;x0 Gy<4T3!yNe!y,gYY 6Y\^),,u0ƍCƜ!1ceH3ƬAxXX\@Tgd( Q"ժWEN^^Ȟ
|}^qC) *qP3;kwȨ:>QKL%+b2iD kCd(Ce35{"τ6X85 ELɶ#ge9 ʒ)!!eXh\ \cL:^3~NS>* W G|i{+&҃=zփ'KSM:=u;0zcwP vMa`)к
('/ژfŲIQΤ{gP*th ]JSڛ@? BAY q c: :9 F8LC:w{!49j=;=3'oK>"Spf
|"⬉(-wn;]U3IF{he }x ]Dt]?=j{i82, Exo~]{+˅!;9T{UUq9 5U9a8-47'{ ORUuI ?v x܉er]c{#,~Q^M00CM^)Mg \W吨&vS3}Y>ah(ה֣^qG\Ud/ նŃΥ6ҋgoƴeޚmwJx\[ f*IiS~˷cVJ=4R;
j vos
س-/{6>{VWc(ms&y {#V2vKo Pu$ '+F<!l$G
ĉ$æ #emUgH)U
D h)cT[yi 8WO*~Ѻ*DNI+iuTU閈V́hZ {ID]$%K1-dO?Zt cm `}{u^Ta:ȈCxOɪO6[VŽ0}['_e|z{T̤.ŊT
$mb:J)g=[NeF} AO'Q<{̎eNdSߥ3t63^W
/Il}YRkзz}L?f> 0cQ0ӂZe#n!D55J960+Ĩ,ja Zi*q2B%efX8f03\ƔLOx LuqRQ
L* )'G &L 1J jpeRT LjyyvZͫ, Pe c(]?>>)Nb"k$.P
CSuP&A]H !P&iTӺ4Z&J۴q[8{%AI{;[~oWfr SPOŌkn"DdpǹeOݖs5=Rk8z ])veWiMJ|yvj"Jme֝t<^Tk`2~纅N ;/ ֟*A \- 1$q=Ͻ}ӘwbHA,JAD J*I. yOy$)Fkeg$ `9`dsbYD2xϺȱsƉcţ)2bWH
^M9Sno4D(DƧoY^32T1"h蚡Z I%(18xq~kQ!/ ^Ui=Z+
oJۥ qx I@5hȀ!G΄.L~;1cY)rtv2/gNkeT_"hC|ՙ_<%\vͩ'Gyd4, , Fܵ}|]LDA̵e4TdPP|NN)} :և'y1םL.m jqoNhf}5"Ljk=$돋~E68^'懹,'r.Ǖ9+ T`9S XV {_eYu8d.wUEnoHѕA22Id%Xoπ dfP\bc7id')l?M tW * Q^ ho&w\b2`=Oj/ƞ\'OjS/|X#KgA u'#
b1Xkt. l;YsoY>hkuΟM=Qz\|<9h2FPRJGu:o?O^?ꔲm:cJ7`% Ի^*MMM^lm
\ X&=]EdBU3[I<01&s:X;CSxь9On% 9}_2 laR}UB4ȡ+ZYD9M!?ލW"CMBNraTDHkf|: m8hZKLZ6j4Y14wӞk#Q+BV@וIJ[ixd4^ʃů7 ZwE~9Q۲+LƼfV=XR_]"$M 2ontmp $W2\ 4N !/Aa h;`~*Tdkl[ GgNĥ̴歋j{G7uv*s9s-w33K X fG1l}چa.#[XvDզD2nkZ cNө7xJS3/ 幗Wy#Rmz0`AMRHCE=ŽV9 W۹hc`c,bM^Ƣ=2G.@3g8b_vߐaP3 fg9 ժH@d
k:a@*|;ݚQR3!5 Ϩ<Ō䑪"my@!P!4Vi$4rkSi0 sb)':TBbb?"6ũl"?9گE&+Xot e ʔeFh&
5Oc͂MnVG!QI<\d3+
] ߣ&WW؈c1:exՍ0ܳ_b%28K/CNRVzlY[_ X/YVJOtX67lovluÃ~
a^1bɋ=o/؋|,;3H(N2wYr\(EڗW4WV05m
>R96D::STqF/o :<_͓ OY ƹxUa9O
#4ilti%!N)HVN=> P N@b Բu]v.Nn88 > >2D2Ll4X//)w
̈#b^Ũ78}}Sь.Mm:0 ԟ#ۤ9$Ѫ!Rjھ>ñ|\% ֲQE"I{TIC PA xmk4Qm )n1n(ViY5F]xhya6_ *
m|(Ep
*j+"hZ s6STC Aա6+: NDQv^ʼnb5rR.Es;Ye u1
-l ETC$4
?,7U4R,֪K*wX4T?՞O]V?HPH\ ;Ӝ? ӑHAh'N۷fygl tk6ё9xsmMCgq9 R "6BP#nc:=cPdV-_"*XXgXC~3Zd9g[U(2so\zo+CyYr90XDi8;ƆVk߯d{t!_0++̷LP2=sv
{ٮVhu5e4*ie]MT2 *XafG+ 7n 7jPyC C9 x7bH3~ftt
iǻkCnsN8g9\ .|>,IdrLXs:'k蜜g 7pA'r [A|26|=kL, Q
+l
BK$NMPXh',=i܊"؎B@D LRls+AAhX
P R1 ] |D^k>[NnœjU%K{ c
gpƛǿ>OJ{P옝X}eǪQ}6Y &fcNMPcR_"*ݒ-^>iLh
'x$KZm6oH;FRg9:~b8s=
'Pt\9d0[;=3M-y rEo̗Y&gT'"L-@m8LO"bJZiU
F ˗!ImU?F0JDpb=Il 4* ˢV) УH`{ 2!B+ ߉38 :3kDTOoat5 48'F2~;B2^^&w )IɋGOߞ==hM^ВkQ~R NO Q#0naH .n]Cg\<(̈́-"a"Ɇ5핅Zi,Ѧzb9պc9Hv
&C1=
/|@lMT`zQ6s';JX?*yIexG8q>hφA tXHWEU8Gsm٫Az?ɳE̵ VȒtImLw 륫ΗARg 7
~w
auXfwKk+AexC8* M~]=f}>qa<}J=Ϟ'$w18>ڹ>ͭ79<ݡj[ӛ&nJǦյ'!!@"-bF[3%/ #KH:UBSceU)p)!h@ltap x`g2 33jG,r:ʖ]R-)bjE՛6
V?p f^3j Ykv. :q\ʒiY' r }˅5;\DCxNqjw݆ww\ν}?-%*G ]
B';MS/L6Y)fRQ<{A:S"c
t> ##] | >@A8fYJ[CCn|f\ GqT )a29
t"b 7/ x
(Mx?rp}Aef-s/b+%k mpa9KQm u{˗;'Kb__wvMp;N$Է%ߐ : etm3Fm3Uۤ TZѪZFtZ_X 1hȤ[&Q ,ݽw~Ť$' ^c{t1M3
Yȩ3k#NP[R|Qk|AL@o SDaC O3Ci`*ប8Sd"3ɐs fNq$Gir@Mu7 N .}%ܧ佈4U1T};h7] Z>( 9ClYal$HZ,Hr",Ha J c2sU8 ӹqȱEn#8̝M&|val0mU %0U,y ð4ƨH`H
-d# } >۴RaN3ZxЖXԶ5zN!IdĴDyeђT$t
\ߵmdFjDZ[bEXҙ@=-n*[~?=/r
I հfj M1@;bP7B\fd7[z+:cpa';u\W {%AԝXՃb=r
FKф4O3mC[iVQhRIڔ3طi tR& 9(9֑R*#ye[L7)B*'3 Yy@mI ^iG5 *"X`w;HG
[yrRlș(d>#~$q
@-ȤOM#3hIEMl*ty tc XKjӺ0,F𢀇_
>9-ی m(XoJJVTy'~i!TJa וF`h`7}aAx#:r}H :}8>H8Tõ!8>D 83 p |Ψ 8EO )0r~Z˵ i3oIRZӥ e{NKJҶhEh4opzg4
ɲ̘,
Jcme4C cjfib&;dOww]Mxc݉
ՅMϞFpy"^m^{?cΌ!z}jNw៴ݻ CεɎݓm/GO.x 8;ԞKo ڱpeʽܨ?x #ƿ&ӲJLJU
wyKzj
]
%c*;ъbHU~a.q
E 5tm"&@PD+tH#˖Yڛ[} } /*|n=m02s}y!lp
CGFߛt@/p oe9 wN:" r*NSp~\H9s毷ءHrzKB~BIZy?Ig$!3 7h>ԤIWAq!?/
9c d J0:ԈQvxJcP=xBezL4OKF(O0.%f*oqɟN|kjq}G3gKZɃ 3R_&~˩_x >< 9 !ʲi?R)ox3
6D!g3s J@珗iw1H IDLs)0Ck:(Lw_.v'TOaF[>Ɖ=xޭsZwX+^Q_tMjB!hcwO5lV ^ . 2t8 Kȏǁ;9hd(n פqΘ2fƼh8p
)
tC6V砌wȯD)(,ChMY4D:@5 o&f\Ʋ.
q9~04x+UR>f* 0ϼϏB^0+Z`;R4Z-B)JSPTeb6RW'#½Ҙ(07=Ƭe '恋$D61Ok۪|6TŒl>~cK~ pI}nI Ƶo"Ͼu`/
, h^uR$fQ MAG65wt*t.ʾR]M\w;9ߝ}:88 !n&*պIHRmU'QB+%B*k*k7YAjh61D˦F3e*U)0Z[ww~|k[Z7~b3+t
S pT`zmYx}(ǜJLQ,T
LK'L d
.dЍry X t eT24'[rÙgg DŽ̙L5CDCHq'Iq~Z fVe!+vb̼ fѬu']w{ v
P$a.!e]p*]Q䊹-*ztc0Ϙ|Ԝ69VSs=hQFOy|Vˠ482\!.RƤ m7JMJ
pK )4 X4( xyx"9yxdAM mM ۴ν9Q` 2LMH8+MK\V>xU%X4'ݔDbhb+
U~E
{tF:4/cT0,CR. yHm:πЀpmތʸspADĆX6q k}mupIyR3K惵Zl՜j"
5XZ._0R ĥBrn0\h[ #q ):?NjwS
觢l!uʐ#x ?}GQK?_zġ>=SOop _2ذ6uև}iƇiZڦLbU4aֱg[ 2 *"?8)5#~Ϻi(e- k(
..PXuh'/1&BB=
PSI Jْ]:{(ѡ!;WRNtnhcrq
Ѭpoޙ.lďmUVնlKժiLەRPPAuXZ \ۻQ;9sy=wh1s4K&_t"\B ^dA HۡeTzZz r )BQJR Z,p2=T~\H1L +J+-3:bF2}f~$z0$G#G$0 p4nazD#cʾ љ!? ^x6gF5Ѐ, L
p Ҹ)TzUO \Hy4RCHIѬ. ݬ rbo6)* vNINvډh'n7r8wj)w/ %Bh!y|Rmlsa'
K
"dBh; ;]e6dn]EL,J{=r["Zƞߥ꽁[g^{?9k9XfWl3; Ȝ3woVť+B,fõx %qRSC'Lꙟ)x|Ezϝݟ谀\^6gzrw
, L%whU oViC*(QrQ=%nq:M:T bU4m\=.3kG2
CZ6z&q0/+zت&0xmCm
EHy}gD1ǜ^S)p\q qfqcN
+-(2L)d^YT*ʲXOy7 SaS1Kk ojKdO;iK:2AH_k.ض+G!C,RLJ%m?iE[QYbexCX9 !;=ldUir(0lbbd a+D{`DO} 2l:=) jT
xZD᳁NlhM_I-dϊDRK3=]أ+GJ8 ~z8l)3`i@/)3O
y4B*jc1=MeE@" (HJ\p3s'FV6n1gLd`ec,5EJU.Ʉ5.>.7.y4LD*[c5@+.^)CEv]Gk]͑}d`: O(Y1k I|d,qby]g0 SLױCIZ|ykk]XH${O!lPe'#Mh53ZSip%(:keȌ2
a߸tRF ?w7/%frg`8,I10a0˙>UBޙ8Ѳ|_vT2=t's O%RDm63g˽kG̶97C js@{h A3u<$FjHm
X qj#9ЇR'q"! 185'mB4@_?:PcDl8e4&#bfR) /{d ƹi}AAC [o!7`c [`|Aut#wuz띁|&GgSd"8@fgk76 w l{Yd]ѭѪᩣ-'<=u2f7+8r70p+p2`x:vc%9!;նWs&dAk36U
CRsRNЯ G۴v,2ӪN` -Wfu*VhkحVۢb"Wqcq~+yD]! CO ӷMI0
6WSUQkcq 6
> L ۨJ'KI#D/}R%TB ]YyIT5]|`01SS T2T{˵|oά^ |WFeBl~TCU[-Q <ثjjhd̜{HԛOɋ_misjUڶ쇛E=zKIEhxjo! ? Bߠ3AsID:Gdȡ. L&IEdiF
; `E
OH7
!MӴPH; \!wH/*3 aXD!'+1
ؚ=-DRR r::8ֳ~@ut <ͅ[TȦ?PlL"ȆM526;+idԙV/2Jp w) |KX5bd,,ޤ+ewp7m7t$<ݎq6a
eh݀EG 'c Lt.dr +^1WO6ʙʉa!7=COlrQLÖe#3Mޔߔ'7̤ɬl8N8 A.82l̂@ 62<}>Fp"ǒsP [0iISTW41[4F߃QჍOQc-KQ+{1oF 6گF0t-ۏ ,.\}\69lq {FbyT"Si=LMHG0(1%'Q]U
ba'^ 4,hɪ>&<:_߳a?K!T0N>:1N $@3p/Fy{w9>|v}NIZ7 MMX5
H⮃h,F ݘR J 1% )[Y6 6xPi|ι<||*F^0.lkE?+.FC]H C+V
9BZq.F1&&t>F G {,8iyA=V{esEռoDzS7='5[[3
/ ^j~K(T U#Uhp N(&$y:ш ]'ot`#C:v^V~`yBxS=`{}>~Dp' Bf_Iw _i>IgS MN
;X& &d:;;CM #DL-F$qi_ ѧcǞyhw&>7W~U>?/ wE(nc1e.pYC]rWonKnognsooYkk8>N[](z>33Tb-)in: 9eЦq9rq ]I4zԊzl4Fb إ#6Ku\ p[U_$,e, l|L1mBmBp v6NGw`@62^U'e&3(Y aaIP:d3,Hsbf~[P]to&ZǛV5Vή6Kb}怷_Tca=6}JSձظy@%UOG7+e 3ؼn~if 3&?jr5PFexDW2V<(,G"<È B54(w_"']-QJݹq;ͱ} 7
a~X(%;i(JDd0##z
6*NT#Gm,/ǧS2+fSRbbqYI AK؝aUg@v
ƀFKC5 ?0vGlwVjG
dRp@ׇ>0 Ṃ_133EpЂw46Y;-3l6d
l}{->mĵep0Z Ӫ
GO D%ÿHe"}ƈ1nPF= ʂpsݻ{(5sfSs4DM~aw\nļˑŋyNEӁ:а9yP
?U&u
)
cUT0P17<'\+b^Ig ml2aׁv9td] TRMng`bAqv73D<FjYJJYKp&ʸr )-KKr`г9uDI\ G"-N#z"B~61[ĕUjjb>˹JshjRMEjC-
^%9a\qg
h1^q _pfC:!WV|"D F|OjԓqYRE#M#qe)/+U$(:|sdllwqѹ3k ]x ήw w8"18mT #F!0? DTB$pl &KlqI$H?YU U ;uߝٻ^Ϝ;(LX 4 UlNQuG`7[?ln3Ѻ0%c8'2b뎡{XĖ:L9c9,jYLUb mۨ1V@ AtV{ClW$O33p&R.FNK75Ji drTqDcIr #Ic$,h,GCQG33ԛI7Bx.6g̙s g!E4 L%1\t+..
] wpD熤RX2]t7 B/ ,nISo-Q-BqK^]a2R ޫ+a' si2iT}ٌVt0Ao߹<-a;k.hf"D+vDe!,@Ļ`I#| ^=I;vό yz/翾,)!( pz>hs;QObD]':e҅-/+PRu\քy1S_%CP
P9 C7xFfBJ;.O|&8c[]&nsceţ) b'h `[0? O|@'%
\%&HM%?`%vEiI "'0ר0 `Wȝ@4]K؍x[)t@B5@icn0wQE6N 4
[{6jI mt^˕aͪR%Vc_45]\#vJUP% .;ZwԁV3Et)ĭ``"mGt
lZv]אnb躑!U9S<ܽ;TmϏ|?{}O{ }g
eQ9ŝ:a%/ǚJpRW1,L4$lS^,6 \@"Z Uyp0rq g;{]*\ܪ1veX^-%`UoIaCeY_Do!ЅP:dX
ݖKm4VWy*OxA-W"ED46j=FVQs*= E6
̿kE: *Ȭy?V@Mh$)I6T*"i'l+%@H^ T
&# bAM>6*# Wbrqю8_95vp هv_z s{7)gߘsh~נrw|~|erl GJ NfA](v:*LxQڮr\
q M@Ű,?S,/Is'gu[-ڋX5G ۲d5KQGWv? <3K%{[+us=2 »f0^Lyq^/:3/2 {OQ3h^n 5m`~~?љeFZ4R^NC|^ t} ǛXcA
7*`F@x<,?~4gbK@EGӜ~ҸLʢ88 sz`*-k R/qATm\uXYmbtwt
m8u<Er3;/kdP}A 8
2!)RD3V<\"w*D. L % BW]
y E
4A)C(C1gIVb(.ՎyFUA8hv,
eP> tbw&XwkB<ȜZ?p>`;*RWeȫݒWy;-GRrk Zpm,nɮkT {7Z ҃Tb^s>@Z 9NPAV/mܿ^F!-7f2I2sV;d9*OOpSwsϽ_ -t}lg 9s/~;ٮ}o9l'fͪEB*F*Jۉ(AhK*"VMmJMtROPJ
$4)l-0[6ndX/rϖ^=}\:/LD,h.2FQkk5T>X[i_97-'O)'EIFc5''űA|:fsʹҬ6O; 4batZ8-R=!GDU(j**sq+[`LZ K-3iY&1IaA)2%9N+eK,q 馢{ yċx$qEPW!/O"@:KkF0M7}):Qc~ @`@qDIXM4FHvB",*XunݲhNJmݙP2+`&6) SJd n
#Xލl~ծ3Nty^0[` BwK 3eu)'ؘ*Z؋GBK
FS]O1q!j1LTZ Em..i .gȳ9FP<14
~
H{$s뽤X l]۸ Qj_7) Ҵ$п[^Դ؋B]"1L,ADGTkTNU \
nrW sbL`*?ɡ\|Ng#; "IT:7GZ8M107r@8 R}
rH>EOE)q*=%F yyIWa^EbbqTqHkl egoP2G< XR {,F"Ѩ lM-1Hl0NGsʘԚRiDJhՏ,pO6Q3 5M-ljѴa ѤFae6*Dj̅
هZaϏ}/kRsHE\j索ZU (h(PP/rAPx}el.A^j:dpDGx09P mzUX;*xnv7# ;L|7Y + WG:P=ь0 #8,34fCt, & }J]zRAM)>'c~Vhx8R 6-æ{X@L _m
i _=`G,paN<
ɥD7]yy< '8}r!r0
NcP SZ1ƶݛNKbg
.[Xfe;VI?o6 O<*?QnՏ\,`O¶ǟϤr 9ygd\:_e,N BE7v#m32rl@=I91芸K]wAezU |۵- nrGem"ɗ)O&]h K?t~qa3ϾKd P (30 XY^E6 _!Y6`&ɌΖnVݝ8 ^Ty>{r9˝UNg=S9ǝS^'^gDj|SEdە~B6Rߴ!:SP2~. Tl;0 v?ҟa)@T@0M+b`QVq.Ƒqʅ6{=ʆIH|Y;ZAJBVV)S(FW:+;?؎e^ =#"ҧʄOXf`[28.:/ۧ=F˭Ki<҃ Eoݛ"lQfʬ;Of@39uw|Q$^{#gܨYf^x_Qwϓ y[POB %S|l>HIb[cijX*x/e ӛoBR: Ϋ=({{˺˺Y6X
㓳K|]8ҾbhrH2/l²
>xJr*6?mۚԑç$gghWՁ@yAdmV66Nک?#g>ҮOQ-_0#,N>2V5;қ|z!|Ti͊Y=:RJZs%XpI1S9=]4tcq8f\fU(((TpM{Siz 5YJVpQŤɂkRP(ܡWx\8| |,϶,?vn=w") k X!Ⱥ
!VHq::HNiG}D(]9Y6PNt'4>y(^7Z6پ' P)Q*Zh8`ށmxaDXM -d[ lOQ1<>&Ruƫ2(3 QX/ra{s\Ay2J>!8ܣ(pqd -b 2pmon# Ip7c*#z {@X[-xr}8D4nq> vla07
Irq 9 Ѷƣ>G}fn1g,z7y̩!2[/sK dn
}"$אTlt-)medeHF[ڋAy|_DZ ۡρ,>CD
q{ [a/#e+~Լ UDaCp(}:uk~CT7M~97gI ^ (V)fr7w5ZCTt-QT['NL4I 1z2x|ȵ<ι/rIJF8,)}*hYUɠ94sg H1Ž! !D?p^}8e|l$ NXԫvq-P6Gqޜ;vF]4Xg yR5T bYKy 4v0hv,8jGãyt̟ m%^C ^.}b'\4qG⯈
^7/d &
=4VF!9 2OuxYYqxH WMf-q|7>ȾW0ܚJ6>i~ ًXncs%gO0MA~&c~*[^ᦈ8OŢ2HoGGC~5` tEe| 2Z \gPOE -uKi8qրW4Os< =A[{&
2߰={PDAHr3
RzZ +t.U| qeo#7V"7`ޣV., \Uuu9B
^(i)&
RRf"Z -ՎBL+:Ji Z_ԢUZZҎڡX
$[}srroB;ͺ{Xg}mwe2M<~+g1i^n2_M2%,J EA=9y _: nk1:
| ڮc ku5͝^%}靴=WK=nfL /R7h< 7dxT[
Jz2K:XgqtBq2ʛ5$ܬ$7I=
f r雽Fzè HD938Ix ʧW[IGG~xGKzU= c|8(BzX
GQp;M}b8+kOU9Aq VKO=$%F%xg/v,K(k'ఎ` SCRA*qߋ| *b? Ġغzknܾ$Nء:llMd%$bc?2_ϕ*Q'` sS[ [A^k!ˠORKiQ G<:.#weԷ \ȑ,WG[neֲ Ǡ>n;(_}YX-o}Vt'->/e7U S[q3p莝pT]W%
X Ow g9?qժ)UG͠U?ۚ8[9P̩hWNuy# [S:
]DCu{ʈy++4aU2rsrvi.v]c]n9uenb/Y)\]ݟ:Β*iBDȞ8ߒ=h=xiɫlU7febm{&P78=><> 9ŴMz}r}Afs֓sMz{|]S7to29]sv8{;BFǰgcz(Oѽҳd*r/xY0( T.>|ami+j EWz`a84( Zp/97[hb3Ͼ6ײ!1Ma Nx}];~e/3ya=s$u TrĻxi,`+`Mn!?&}3H\*FǮ04)%} m?E~ <<T }>g!%>5{*Oxy`ǀc.9"q&H@,/$FgJ z5Il}eNNB~kW̏bCP?Ql$Ww$O yHtyI?/ b%Յz%EߵVk0'Υ
wp/p o#<q7V = ms~)̭oVZI;Qw4z?|.,| !xcHuɽ
|ɍAMr]XZB̯"'
O_?# { _lb*Ϧ Ii9xޏ LԼklqAk\cr*>蓯"}Ve(ڈH|xDFekLMRd>>-'w
n/OxgK^@oJIZQ|g;j#2{n4֨ѼKUo2 $X52(F[z[dtd fhO7Ω:[Ny߁85<C5+=U@`љRfV֍Q鍯Ͳ+ki
I9Kt FLQIk}
KMf glF"Y!+gi} k doa ,G=
gRMzimaa_߶vQg/sFvG?q8RuW6?ZaȌ d>5:vyFmgl 2=k+MWEkwޒ:aAl9;vn1@5PZ9f+ݟVd|u,g ȅN f `}2-PȞ uF@TJN,-eB %}dc;:
tFy {rE{ܺutw~}r3MoYO)䷞ރF<ҏ31Y^3h[N]Os
e\0c{!H
M$ C G5ZQRi(-V 0)RmjGi DTʌN;vU*djs}ڴ33{_WLxV# |:^A (1j7Hs_J-Io|GnށX=; zs#is^8*$'zjm =Ssߕ&YibgؖQN D&Ku8MnP?a`FlSy {3T-6 Wa?bjދ=><0*8֓ tFwO>reX;܉H[2[v{NJ ৌWisy+o$Ij7e[VJwXJ˅7{39"P_,7{rc31kv~k2*x (%6lг
|{+LZw0Y2`i_zAD^OkW{ %ڛ x|S+41GaнD}τ]wC={e]uVb={ ;>zS`,NƯ\lOvמa^N֦wo4^m4S
)Pп| D{ y`S@|vC2A^+4V]&&zz4ؓ[F·{;{kҼ!ĤJ3H.ϏaO>fٗ_~}BkĂY䐥ĝ2Lb5D4^ON<눙îĊy$ 5k8 v.rL3A5 qCTס#@d%uf m~ !]:n'cao5/_OUOHjTrϦ/.C*A}Ƹĥ tbk? 0,hrYGy. RRbփ.29V<@yKW%| W^^ *$ky__)DU0xn28rFfJɵZ=O,:iZO.__ |/2Hᗅ'zRgNFEǥkFG` 1VeuI1MLʙ2A \+]ҢH`/簷7 q^ :\ ._!Cv ȩ|,k.[Y %أf uE֫T8M2x]2!)ο/ب+w`
c{ 8: ۱ko(jz^Wv8(U uHR @UbT)*}D*N+A*!(u&EmԪ ofm Eڦy93̙xAC1մxG؇3 mI/d
8 ӆÞ)1cp8 ϸ}Wrwf] r<$+`e6̗}Te_/?a' Vlxнi1{ʼn,[igYa攧 x.aŴ|(ccYw%"qI~roexД(` sx7.02V8{S[[Qܟ zqz@?z2t:_A#CCXc|~ywG%縗K8{8ߟup<#[+ 60vk?Wy3~%ޒlJ
IiWҧ ֙U<o @A^rDvcFp-,[(ioWR`7 3ss(/Pe )?2#qLz^}dYVODʒo 6J\EϊP-ÉoQ"ݟghg9cO6A/2W%_;K}AcSi/_sw-1R:9!Ds4仝hc~͞kr.r{|[
~|=v ~ Z!w?b 3wgY_E<cz| +<sQwRSsu1mo""0*T zi#v*h-m.@9J΅B? &7\OƜA$!8B~c9/s>y[o"8|
廯 r6εfo ~յ_}M^*?9' OB9d:c+ee2{F{M)TþN NSYs3pn#1aRcIXl> ?Qʇ+O)o+zs!w2ў1xͬ<@>*SG| KbZ?u{sMc/ߎY~ >rq gy)d S, `6~ps l%07G֛w-K ` *ĝ{XU*,M< Խ <ĕ/{xd9/#֭>e-u Çg9/-|e7 p'8's,{u ~qn* K# ,OSR+5 uFG? =h4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4'
Pk˜g!C
j }!Icd sI7jQ͚D/ɲ^O#rSw7ZnZ`&=q'i]O=zFrruqkPGidn Ԑ`[q Gbݶ>~15&iZGQhd54,qzJA^M~
) OG3$Vbʶ+UK!+M<iNC֧90{h?#nmʒ
Y3Rsءa]&}h] K'd ǪEC$":ý}RVryyMVwV/v"
E0ؕ}T_S'dY D}) ƃ;XPJ DF==h wG@D#MT?IKBVR:5 b)kHYV(dD$[*BV* '!+ GR---͕pJ[h rU X"Ts@
$wxϝ_
#_|D;#[9v
#/E8?^>Vr' /' /r7s22(3KNǍ" El-`ysJgn&kHŷxXa?#(08́*ED4<'zQ+v컈[`Qƿ &D}XYaG2HrY^V䚒' q#B2nNfhwrmIZz%ǺȷK/Q*~=OLJa6rTGi| D=z%`iځLV}yGE؈l yXxYMhihihip-*b^h-~GL Pe~Yz LW m\(V9(c43 *((mioH447BҮ
iY[SlWf0x Wap(3`[Z 3 晜˜8ysy5\mn|0|a@g32nd%㟐q~ԇ>q0 "w f ;r ?הk,djVqz5^.oīj7% \j5i_4ik6D)7FKv#Dў!~)$_%?/9dO~C_;ДBn&L7~ŵ\ZD):% D=$D1rRblc߶q/8OkA ڥxd;mt6i2t4}6^E%CZeq(ogu%;-THBvȏ1Ȩ =BJ"AE̤9S+tWs @&F1˻T' u!]NQFR]FQo w?Ǿrۏi=KlR48,M6_\ḢR
g
3#.:F% oѶkb8V xho6`"m(fm7VK4TSsYTܠc*7^l!N:`N~nvfg,qs
\^W+וrTå0dV^$gA+K+"O;>3\(QTRg]m\ZRj
c֮CmJOC+$vh#h^؈!Dؒ$ l$@,m_
@ mz6
HzRXB`S֓R9V^pc|v\B=r0O.`PPXfk0kezIZ'AY'HO"؆ήvt[uXf;=:KvQh;p}s#Eo;~+V^giHUF*#"TdREo+|5|=O@HƬYe4Xf{4NRBOeIG)t-IGXeIG^*tpyt #^fz{c Ƹ1cd{% Fす*Lc< Hq4Dt>̮=7t6f 6F㬊Y K,|Fm!Nu1r/Y.K겚SUSmU^:NcSiwOsWMw;;) GŦשF;'ʙ_srȃ/RT9Q!>fuX8Y@?1 C3 ċx3HYYU"ڠTh q4 қ썹 MuF]@W@ YB`d1C6#[ @N (.a2AiX[AJQs1cq)Cq10u)"h1H[)m "f
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
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 PM])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
(21. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(Cf)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. ISCR Case No. 02-12329 \(December 18, 2003\) at p. 6 \(presence or abs\
ence of a particular Adjudicative)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(Guidelines disqualifying or mitigating condition is not solely dispositi\
ve of a case\).)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
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 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
(5. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(Hearing Transcript at pp. 18, 130-131.)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(6. )Tj
(Since the Administrative Judge did not cite or otherwise appear to rely \
on Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 3,)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(4, 5, 6, or 7 in making his decision, Department)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.33 0 Td
(Counsel's arguments about the nonapplicability of those mitigating)Tj
-19.33 -1.125 Td
(conditions are irrelevant to this appeal and, therefore, need not be dis\
cussed.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(7. )Tj
(The obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole is set forth i\
n Directive, Section 6.3 and Adjudicative)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Guidelines, Item E2.2.1. )Tj
10.026 0 Td
(Failure to fulfill that obligation)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.692 0 Td
(would give rise to a claim of error under Directive, Additional)Tj
-22.718 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.2.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(8. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1.)Tj
T*
(9. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. )Tj
25.104 0 Td
(Such a distinction follows from the language of the cited)Tj
-25.104 -1.125 Td
(Directive provisions and the legal principle that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.3 0 Td
(provisions of the Directive should not be interpreted or construed in)Tj
-19.3 -1.125 Td
(isolation or in a manner that makes any of them meaningless or superfluo\
us. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
30.771 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 01-23356)Tj
-34.102 -1.125 Td
(\(November 24, 2003\) at p. 8.)Tj
T*
(10. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See Anderson v. City of Bessemer)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
14.941 0 Td
(, 470 U.S. 564, 575 \(1985\)\(noting that credibility determinations inv\
olve more)Tj
-14.941 -1.125 Td
(than just assessing the demeanor of a witness\).)Tj
T*
(11. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 01-26893 \(October 16, 2002\) at p. 7.)Tj
-4.832 -2.125 Td
(12. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-02195 \(April 9, 2004\) at pp. 6-7.)Tj
-4.832 -2.125 Td
(13. )Tj
(Experience shows that lawyers generally argue for interpretations of the\
record evidence that favor their clients.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Indeed, such arguments are an important facet of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.269 0 Td
(lawyers' professional obligation to zealously represent their clients.)Tj
-21.269 -2.125 Td
(14. )Tj
(The Board does not find persuasive Applicant's argument that the Adminis\
trative Judge properly concluded)Tj
T*
(Applicant "is an individual who made an isolated mistake)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.32 0 Td
(premised upon an isolated lapse of judgment as a teenager.")Tj
-23.32 -1.125 Td
(Although Applicant's marijuana use could be attributed to his immaturity\
as a teenager, his falsification cannot)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.529 0 Td
(be so)Tj
-44.529 -1.125 Td
(characterized.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(15. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-00305 \(February 12, 2003\) at p. 3.)Tj
-4.832 -2.125 Td
(16. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-19479 \(June 22, 2004\) at p. 6 \(". . . the Judge's \
decision cannot simply be silent about)Tj
-4.832 -1.125 Td
(what, as a matter of common sense, appears to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.855 0 Td
(be a relevant factor that could be an important aspect of the case"\))Tj
-18.855 -1.125 Td
(\(footnote omitted\); ISCR Case No. 02-02195 \(April 9, 2004\) at p. 4 \(\
"Furthermore, if a Judge does)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.763 0 Td
(not discuss or even)Tj
-39.763 -1.125 Td
(mention a significant aspect of the case that reasonably could be expect\
ed to be explicitly taken into account in the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Judge's decision, then a serious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.733 0 Td
(question arises as to whether the Judge forgot that aspect, ignored it, \
failed to take it into)Tj
-12.733 -1.125 Td
(account, dismissed that aspect of the case for no apparent reason, faile\
d to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.85 0 Td
(understand the significance of that aspect of)Tj
-29.85 -1.125 Td
(the case, or engaged in an arbitrary or capricious analysis."\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(17. )Tj
(As discussed earlier in this decision, an Administrative Judge's decisio\
n can be )Tj
33.312 0 Td
(arbitrary and capricious if: it does)Tj
-33.312 -1.125 Td
(not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.185 0 Td
(satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational)Tj
-21.185 -1.125 Td
(connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not cons\
ider relevant factors; it reflects a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.594 0 Td
(clear error of)Tj
-42.594 -1.125 Td
(judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offer\
s an explanation for the decision that runs contrary)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to the record evidence; or it is so)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.329 0 Td
(implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion.)Tj
-13.329 -2.125 Td
(18. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.15.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(19. )Tj
(Executive Order 10865, Section 2; Directive, Sections 3.2 and 4.2. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
28.41 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines, Item)Tj
-28.41 -1.125 Td
(E2.2.2 \(noting that doubts should be resolved)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.415 0 Td
(in favor of the national security\).)Tj
-18.415 -2.125 Td
(20. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-05110 \(March 22, 2004\) at pp. 4-6.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
[52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R]
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 752.25 Tm
(national interest to grant or continue access to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.605 0 Td
(classified information for a given applicant.)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 449.1895 756.75 Tm
( \(19\))Tj
ET
Q
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 449.1895 756 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 467.8706 752.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Such a determination is)Tj
-37.656 -1.125 Td
(not committed to the unfettered discretion of the Judge, but rather must\
be made within the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.629 0 Td
(constraints of the Directive.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 726.75 Tm
(\(20\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 726 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 32.2437 722.25 Tm
( )Tj
(In this case, Department Counsel proved that Applicant engaged in falsif\
ication of a security clearance application.)Tj
-1.354 -1.125 Td
(Such falsification raised)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.914 0 Td
(important security concerns that Applicant had the burden of rebutting o\
r overcoming)Tj
-9.914 -1.125 Td
(sufficiently to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. )Tj
25.127 0 Td
(The Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.054 0 Td
(Judge's decision fails to articulate a)Tj
-33.181 -1.125 Td
(satisfactory explanation for his favorable conclusions that is rationall\
y supported by the record evidence as a whole.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant argues that even if the Board decides that the Administrative \
Judge erred, the Board should conclude such)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(error is harmless in light of the record evidence as a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.964 0 Td
(whole. )Tj
(Applicant's argument is a proper and legally permissible one)Tj
-20.964 -1.125 Td
(that is consistent with Board precedent. )Tj
16.024 0 Td
(However, the Board does not find it persuasive in this case. )Tj
24.022 0 Td
(If the Judge's only)Tj
-40.046 -1.125 Td
(error had been to misapply Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1, that\
error would not -- standing alone --)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(necessarily lead to the conclusion that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.439 0 Td
(the Judge committed harmful error.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 371.5527 603.75 Tm
( \(21\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 371.5527 603 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 390.2339 599.25 Tm
( )Tj
(However, Department Counsel has done)Tj
-31.186 -1.125 Td
(more than just show that the Judge erred by applying the Personal Conduc\
t Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.716 0 Td
(Condition 1. )Tj
5.25 0 Td
(Given the nature)Tj
-39.967 -1.125 Td
(and totality of the Judge's errors, the Board concludes they are not har\
mless in nature.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel has demonstrated harmful error that warrants reversal\
. )Tj
30.434 0 Td
(Pursuant to Directive, Additional Procedural)Tj
-30.434 -1.125 Td
(Guidance, Item E3.1.33.3, the Board reverses)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.466 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge's favorable security clearance decision.)Tj
-18.466 -2.125 Td
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 481.5 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 456.75 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 379.5 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 354.75 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 277.5 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 252.75 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
("The information was unsubstantiated or not pertinent to a determination\
of judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability")Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines, Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.883 0 Td
(E2.A5.1.3.1\).)Tj
-16.883 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-05110 \(March 22, 2004\) at pp. 4-6 \(discussing how \
the Directive does not leave security)Tj
-4.332 -1.125 Td
(clearance decisions to the unfettered)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.798 0 Td
(discretion of security clearance adjudicators\).)Tj
-14.798 -2.125 Td
(3. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 01-06870 \(September 13, 2002\) at p. 5.)Tj
-4.332 -2.125 Td
(4. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0583 \(November 18, 1999\) at pp. 7-8; ISCR Case No. \
98-0582 \(November 12, 1999\) at)Tj
-4.332 -1.125 Td
(p. 7.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
<>/BS<
>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[449.0 754.0 467.0 765.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
53 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[16.0 724.0 32.0 735.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[372.0 601.0 390.0 612.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>>
endobj
55 0 obj
[57 0 R 58 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R 61 0 R 62 0 R]
endobj
56 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 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
(evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.494 0 Td
(erred. )Tj
(However, if an appealing party articulates a cogent argument)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(or reason for how or why the Judge's weighing of the evidence is arbitra\
ry, capricious, or contrary to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.501 0 Td
(law, then the)Tj
-40.501 -1.125 Td
(appealing party is doing more than just expressing a conclusory disagree\
ment with the Judge's weighing of the record)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence. )Tj
4.053 0 Td
(Furthermore, even if the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.969 0 Td
(appealing party does not challenge the Judge's weighing of the record ev\
idence, the)Tj
-14.022 -1.125 Td
(appealing party is not precluded from raising other claims of error unre\
lated to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.684 0 Td
(evidentiary weight.)Tj
-31.684 -2.125 Td
(Applicant is correct that an appealing party's ability to set forth an a\
lternate interpretation of the record evidence)Tj
T*
(generally is not sufficient to demonstrate the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.078 0 Td
(Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions are erroneous. )Tj
25.508 0 Td
(It is not)Tj
-43.586 -1.125 Td
(unusual for the parties to be able to proffer plausible )Tj
21.215 0 Td
(interpretations of the record evidence,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.438 0 Td
(sometimes interpretations)Tj
-36.653 -1.125 Td
(that differ from the one made by the Judge. )Tj
17.55 0 Td
(Accordingly, on appeal, the question is not whether the appealing party \
can)Tj
-17.55 -1.375 Td
(proffer a plausible)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.58 0 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence that differs from the Judge's inte\
rpretation,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 489.3086 623.25 Tm
( \(13\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 489.3086 622.5 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 507.9897 618.75 Tm
( but whether the)Tj
-40.999 -1.125 Td
(appealing party can articulate a cogent argument or reason as to how)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.711 0 Td
(or why the Judge's interpretation: \(a\) does not)Tj
-27.711 -1.125 Td
(reflect a reasonable or plausible interpretation of the record evidence \
as a whole \(including evidence that runs contrary)Tj
T*
(to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge's interpretation\); \(b\) involves a weighing of the record ev\
idence that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to)Tj
T*
(law; \(c\) reflects or exhibits arbitrary or capricious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.158 0 Td
(reasoning; or \(d\) contains some other identifiable factual, logical, o\
r)Tj
-20.158 -1.125 Td
(legal defect.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this appeal, Department Counsel does more than simply disagree with t\
he Administrative Judge's weighing of the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(record evidence, or merely set forth a plausible)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.075 0 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence that differs from the Judge's)Tj
-19.075 -1.125 Td
(interpretation. )Tj
5.887 0 Td
(Rather, Department Counsel makes arguments that challenge the Judge's de\
cision on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
34.171 0 Td
(grounds that: \(i\) the)Tj
-40.058 -1.125 Td
(Judge makes some )Tj
7.749 0 Td
(findings of fact that do not reasonably take into account record evidenc\
e that runs contrary to those)Tj
-7.749 -1.125 Td
(findings; and \(ii\) the Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.595 0 Td
(decision reflects arbitrary and capricious reasoning.)Tj
-11.595 -2.125 Td
(The Administrative Judge concluded Applicant "is a trustworthy and relia\
ble person whose record of conduct and)Tj
T*
(employment justifies a finding that it is clearly consistent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.19 0 Td
(with the national interest to grant a security clearance to him.")Tj
-23.19 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel challenges the Judge's favorable decision on the grou\
nds that: \(a\) the Judge erred by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.39 0 Td
(concluding)Tj
-42.39 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's falsification was not pertinent to a determination of his se\
curity eligibility; \(b\) the Judge's conclusion fails to)Tj
T*
(take into account significant record)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.355 0 Td
(evidence that runs contrary to it; and \(c\) the Judge did not articulat\
e a satisfactory)Tj
-14.355 -1.125 Td
(explanation for his favorable conclusion.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(As discussed earlier in this decision, Department Counsel persuasively a\
rgues the Administrative Judge erred by)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concluding Applicant's falsification was not pertinent to a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.341 0 Td
(determination of his security eligibility. )Tj
16.108 0 Td
(That error)Tj
-39.449 -1.125 Td
(significantly undercuts the Judge's favorable decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel also identifies significant record evidence that runs\
contrary to the Administrative Judge's)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(conclusion that Applicant is a trustworthy and reliable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.939 0 Td
(person.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 314.2598 288.75 Tm
( \(14\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 314.2598 288 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 332.9409 284.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Specifically, Department Counsel points out the)Tj
-26.412 -1.125 Td
(record evidence shows: Applicant concealed his drug use and drug-related\
arrest from his family and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
40.625 0 Td
(employer;)Tj
-40.625 -1.125 Td
(Applicant did not disclose to the federal government the extent of his m\
arijuana use until he was questioned by a DSS)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(agent; Applicant did not tell his family)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.747 0 Td
(about his marijuana use until he received the SOR and was placed on leav\
e;)Tj
-15.747 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's disclosure to his employer has been very limited; Applicant'\
s falsification was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.241 0 Td
(calculating and premeditated;)Tj
-36.241 -1.125 Td
(and )Tj
(Applicant sought to minimize his falsification at the hearing. )Tj
26.244 0 Td
(Although the Judge was not required to specifically)Tj
-26.244 -1.375 Td
(cite and discuss each)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.608 0 Td
(and every piece of record evidence when making his decision,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 417.8418 204.75 Tm
( \(15\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 417.8418 204 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 436.5229 200.25 Tm
( the Judge erred by issuing a)Tj
-35.044 -1.125 Td
(decision that: \(a\) has the practical effect of ignoring, glossing over\
, or failing)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.018 0 Td
(to acknowledge or take into account)Tj
-31.018 -1.375 Td
(significant record evidence that runs contrary to the Judge's findings a\
nd conclusions,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 426.7187 174.75 Tm
( \(16\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 426.7187 174 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 445.3999 170.25 Tm
( and \(b\) fails to articulate a)Tj
-35.783 -1.125 Td
(reasonable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.525 0 Td
(explanation for why the Judge concluded that Applicant is a trustworthy \
and reliable person despite)Tj
-4.525 -1.375 Td
(significant record evidence that runs contrary to that conclusion.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 324.8945 144.75 Tm
( \(17\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 324.8945 144 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 343.5757 140.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Given the totality of the record evidence in this)Tj
-27.298 -1.125 Td
(case, the Judge failed to articulate a rational, satisfactory explanatio\
n for why he concluded Applicant has shown he is a)Tj
T*
(trustworthy and reliable person.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Once an applicant has admitted, or Department Counsel has proven, conduc\
t or circumstances that raise security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concerns, an applicant has the burden of presenting)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.743 0 Td
(evidence to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those security concerns)Tj
-20.743 -1.375 Td
(sufficiently to warrant a favorable security clearance decision.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 314.5234 62.25 Tm
( \(18\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 314.5234 61.5 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 333.2046 57.75 Tm
( )Tj
(A favorable security clearance decision)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.27 0 Td
(should not be)Tj
-42.703 -1.125 Td
(made unless an Administrative Judge can make an affirmative determinatio\
n that it is clearly consistent with the)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[489.0 621.0 507.0 632.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[314.0 286.0 332.0 297.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[417.0 202.0 435.0 213.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[426.0 172.0 444.0 183.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[324.0 142.0 342.0 153.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[315.0 60.0 333.0 71.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
63 0 obj
[65 0 R 66 0 R 67 0 R 68 0 R 69 0 R 70 0 R]
endobj
64 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 750.75 Tm
(Applicant counters by contending the Administrative Judge's decision is \
sustainable under the "whole person" concept)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(because:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(i\) Department Counsel has the burden on appeal and has not met it;)Tj
T*
(\(ii\) There is a presumption that the Administrative Judge considered a\
ll the record evidence, and Department Counsel)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(does not even contend the Judge failed to do so in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.19 0 Td
(this case;)Tj
-20.19 -2.125 Td
(\(iii\) The Judge properly weighed the record evidence and reached a fai\
r and commonsense decision;)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(iv\) The Judge properly found Applicant to be a credible witness;)Tj
T*
(\(v\) Department Counsel is merely disagreeing with the Judge's weighing\
of the record evidence;)Tj
T*
(\(vi\) The Judge properly weighed the record evidence as a whole and art\
iculated a satisfactory explanation for his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(favorable conclusion;)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(vii\) The Judge properly concluded Applicant "is not a person habitual\
ly skating on the edge, but rather, is an individual)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(who made an isolated mistake premised upon an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.662 0 Td
(isolated lapse of judgment as a teenager"; and)Tj
-19.662 -2.125 Td
(\(viii\) Department Counsel's ability to set forth an alternate interpre\
tation of the record evidence is not sufficient to)Tj
T*
(demonstrate the Judge's findings and conclusions are)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.425 0 Td
(erroneous.)Tj
-21.425 -2.125 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes Department Counsel's ar\
guments are, on balance, more persuasive than)Tj
T*
(Applicant's counterarguments.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant correctly notes that there is no presumption of error and the \
appealing party has the burden of demonstrating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(error below. )Tj
(However, for the reasons discussed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(in this decision, the Board concludes Department Counsel has met its)Tj
T*
(burden of demonstrating error below.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant correctly notes that there is a rebuttable presumption that th\
e Administrative Judge considered all the record)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence, and that Department Counsel does not even contend the Judge fa\
iled to do so in this case. )Tj
40.1 0 Td
(However,)Tj
-40.1 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel's choice to not challenge that presumption in this ca\
se does not have the significance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.557 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
-42.557 -1.375 Td
(seems to attribute to it. )Tj
9.387 0 Td
(Whether a Judge complied with the obligation to consider the record evid\
ence as a whole,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 560.166 323.25 Tm
( \(7\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 560.166 322.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 573.9722 318.75 Tm
( is)Tj
-46.498 -1.375 Td
(not the same question as whether the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.968 0 Td
(Judge made findings of fact that are supported by substantial record evi\
dence,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 569.4941 306.75 Tm
( \(8\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 569.4941 306 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 285.75 Tm
(or the same question as whether the Judge's conclusions and rulings are \
arbitrary,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.782 0 Td
(capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 553.334 290.25 Tm
( \(9\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 553.334 289.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 567.1401 285.75 Tm
( )Tj
(It is)Tj
-45.928 -1.125 Td
(possible for a Judge to consider the record evidence but fail to weigh i\
t properly, to draw unreasonable or unwarranted)Tj
T*
(inferences)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.358 0 Td
(from the record evidence, or to )Tj
12.633 0 Td
(apply arbitrary and capricious reasoning to the record evidence in reach\
ing)Tj
-16.992 -1.125 Td
(conclusions about a case. )Tj
10.358 0 Td
(Accordingly, even though)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.664 0 Td
(Department Counsel has not challenged the presumption that the)Tj
-21.022 -1.125 Td
(Judge considered all the record evidence, that does not foreclose Depart\
ment Counsel from raising other)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.986 0 Td
(claims of error)Tj
-41.986 -1.125 Td
(by the Judge.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge's assessment of Applicant's credibility does no\
t have the significance that Applicant places on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(it. )Tj
(When evaluating a witness's testimony)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.816 0 Td
(\(including that of an applicant\), an Administrative Judge can assess t\
he)Tj
-16.816 -1.125 Td
(witness's credibility and rely on that credibility assessment as part of\
the process of weighing the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.949 0 Td
(witness's testimony.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 153.75 Tm
(\(10\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 153 cm
0 0 m
16.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 32.2437 149.25 Tm
( )Tj
(However, a credibility determination is not a substitute for record evid\
ence supporting a Judge's findings and)Tj
-1.354 -1.375 Td
(conclusions,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 75.6602 137.25 Tm
( \(11\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 75.6602 136.5 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 94.3413 132.75 Tm
( and it does not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.36 0 Td
(relieve a Judge from the obligation to decide what weight reasonably can\
be given to the)Tj
-12.889 -1.375 Td
(witness's testimony in light of the record evidence as a whole.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 313.0879 120.75 Tm
( \(12\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 313.0879 120 cm
0 0 m
18.681 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 331.769 116.25 Tm
( )Tj
(In short, a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(favorable credibility determination does)Tj
-26.314 -1.125 Td
(not preclude an appealing party from raising claims of error unrelated t\
o the credibility determination itself, or a claim)Tj
T*
(that the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.221 0 Td
(Judge made an improper use of such a credibility determination. )Tj
25.964 0 Td
(In this case, Department Counsel need not)Tj
-29.186 -1.125 Td
(challenge the Judge's credibility determination in order to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.284 0 Td
(raise its claims of error.)Tj
-23.284 -2.125 Td
(Applicant is correct that an appealing party's mere disagreement with an\
Administrative Judge's weighing of the record)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[560.0 321.0 574.0 332.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[569.0 304.0 583.0 315.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[553.0 288.0 567.0 299.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[16.0 151.0 32.0 162.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[75.0 135.0 93.0 146.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[313.0 118.0 331.0 129.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
71 0 obj
[73 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R 76 0 R 77 0 R 78 0 R]
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 748.5 Tm
(Although the Administrative Judge's decision refers to Personal Conduct \
Mitigating Condition 2 \(without quoting it\),)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(the Judge used language indicating he was actually)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.66 0 Td
(relying on Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 517.5742 736.5 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 517.5742 735.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 718.5 Tm
(Accordingly, it is reasonable for Department Counsel to frame its argume\
nt in terms of Personal Conduct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.406 0 Td
(itigating)Tj
-42.406 -1.125 Td
(Condition 1, not Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. )Tj
23.833 0 Td
(Even Applicant's reply brief construes Judge's decision as)Tj
-23.833 -1.125 Td
(referring to Personal Conduct Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.58 0 Td
(Condition 1, not Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2.)Tj
-16.58 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel persuasively argues that the Administrative Judge's a\
pplication of Personal Conduct Mitigating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Condition 1 in this case was arbitrary and capricious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.245 0 Td
(because the information he omitted was material and pertinent to a)Tj
-21.245 -1.125 Td
(determination of his judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's counterarguments \(Reply Brief at pp. 10-12\) are not persua\
sive. )Tj
30.56 0 Td
(First, Applicant's reliance on the "could")Tj
-30.56 -1.125 Td
(and "may" language of the Adjudicative Guidelines)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.894 0 Td
(is irrelevant to whether Applicant's omission was material. )Tj
23.702 0 Td
(Second,)Tj
-44.596 -1.125 Td
(an Administrative Judge does not have unfettered discretion in interpret\
ing and applying the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
37.129 0 Td
(Adjudicative Guidelines)Tj
-37.129 -1.125 Td
(disqualifying and mitigating conditions. )Tj
16.249 0 Td
(The right of parties to receive a fair and impartial determination under\
the)Tj
-16.249 -1.375 Td
(Directive does not translate into)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.024 0 Td
(a right to expect the exercise of unfettered discretion by Hearing Offic\
e Judges.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 553.8027 561 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 553.8027 560.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 543 Tm
(Third, Applicant's argument about his disclosure to the Defense Security\
Service \(DSS\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.311 0 Td
(agent is irrelevant to whether)Tj
-35.311 -1.125 Td
(the Judge properly applied Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1. )Tj
27.941 0 Td
(The materiality of Applicant's omission does not)Tj
-27.941 -1.125 Td
(turn on whether the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.053 0 Td
(Applicant later made a disclosure to a DSS agent. )Tj
20.105 0 Td
(Fourth, Applicant's argument that Department)Tj
-28.159 -1.125 Td
(Counsel is urging "an extremely expansive interpretation" of materiality\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.114 0 Td
(is unpersuasive. )Tj
(The concept of materiality in)Tj
-29.114 -1.125 Td
(security clearance adjudications should not be more narrow than the conc\
ept of materiality in criminal prosecutions)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(under 18)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(U.S.C. \2471001.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 129.666 477 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 129.666 476.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 143.4722 472.5 Tm
( )Tj
(Fifth, the "whole person" concept does not save the Judge's legally erro\
neous conclusion)Tj
-10.623 -1.125 Td
(about materiality. )Tj
7.303 0 Td
(The "whole person" concept pertains to a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.728 0 Td
(Judge's evaluation of an applicant's security eligibility in)Tj
-24.031 -1.125 Td
(light of the record evidence, not the Judge's interpretation of language\
in the Directive. )Tj
34.946 0 Td
(Sixth, Applicant is correct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.748 0 Td
(that)Tj
-45.693 -1.125 Td
(the Judge did not use the word "materiality" in his decision. )Tj
24.146 0 Td
(However, the language of Personal Conduct Mitigating)Tj
-24.146 -1.125 Td
(Condition 1 concerning pertinency )Tj
14.163 0 Td
(has been)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(construed by the Board as dealing with the functional equivalent of)Tj
-14.163 -1.375 Td
(materiality.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 70.9785 406.5 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 70.9785 405.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 84.7847 402 Tm
( )Tj
(Furthermore, during the proceedings below, Applicant's attorney made sta\
tements that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.032 0 Td
(show he)Tj
-40.764 -1.375 Td
(understood the materiality of Applicant's omission was an important issu\
e in the case.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 427.7441 390 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 427.7441 389.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 360 Tm
(For all the foregoing reasons, taken cumulatively, the Board concludes t\
he Administrative Judge erred by applying)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1 to Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.596 0 Td
(falsification. )Tj
5.276 0 Td
(The information Applicant omitted clearly was)Tj
-27.872 -1.125 Td
(material and pertinent to a determination of his security eligibility.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's favorable security clearance decision\
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 306.75 cm
0 0 m
554.613 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 582.6133 307.5 Tm
(.)Tj
-47.218 -1.125 Td
(Department Counsel also contends the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.635 0 Td
(Administrative Judge's favorable decision is not sustainable under the "\
whole)Tj
-15.635 -1.125 Td
(person" concept because:)Tj
T*
(\(A\) Applicant concealed his drug use and drug-related arrest from his \
family and employer;)Tj
T*
(\(B\) Applicant did not disclose the extent of his drug use until questi\
oned by the DSS agent;)Tj
T*
(\(C\) Applicant did not tell his family until he received the SOR and wa\
s placed on leave;)Tj
T*
(\(D\) Applicant's disclosure to his employer has been very limited;)Tj
T*
(\(E\) Applicant was "exceptionally deliberate in his falsification" \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.974 0 Td
(i.e.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, very calculating and premeditated\);)Tj
-25.974 -2.125 Td
(\(F\) Applicant minimized his falsification at the hearing;)Tj
T*
(\(G\) Applicant's marriage after the falsification is not sufficient to \
support the Judge's conclusion that Applicant has)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(significantly changed and demonstrated maturity; and)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(H\) the Judge failed to give due weight to the seriousness of Applican\
t's falsification of the security clearance)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(application.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 72.3145 51 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 72.3145 50.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[517.0 734.0 531.0 745.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
74 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[554.0 558.0 568.0 569.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
75 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[129.0 474.0 143.0 485.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
76 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[71.0 404.0 85.0 415.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
77 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[427.0 387.0 441.0 398.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
78 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[72.0 48.0 86.0 59.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
79 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02486.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/03-02486.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:34 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
(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
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(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
-0.492 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(The Administrative Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant w\
ith respect to Guideline H \(Drug)Tj
T*
(Involvement\). )Tj
5.887 0 Td
(Because those formal findings are not at issue on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.856 0 Td
(appeal, the Board need not consider the Administrative)Tj
-25.743 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's past history of marij\
uana use, except to the extent they are)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.127 0 Td
(relevant)Tj
-44.127 -1.125 Td
(to the appeal issues concerning the Judge's findings and conclusions und\
er Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge found that Applicant did not falsify a security\
clearance application)Tj
T*
(in September 2002 by answering "NO" to a question that asked whether his\
use of alcohol had resulted )Tj
41.418 0 Td
(in any alcohol-)Tj
-41.418 -1.125 Td
(related treatment or counseling \(SOR paragraph)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.437 0 Td
(2.b.\). )Tj
(That factual finding and the Judge's favorable formal finding)Tj
-19.437 -1.125 Td
(concerning SOR paragraph 2.b are not at issue on appeal.)Tj
T*
(The Administrative Judge found that Applicant falsified a security clear\
ance application in September 2002 by failing to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(disclose the full extent of his marijuana use, but)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.384 0 Td
(concluded that the falsification was mitigated because: \(a\) the full)Tj
-19.384 -1.125 Td
(extent of Applicant's marijuana use was not pertinent to a determination\
of judgment, trustworthiness, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
42.087 0 Td
(reliability; and)Tj
-42.087 -1.125 Td
(\(b\) the record evidence as a whole showed Applicant "is a trustworthy \
and reliable person whose record of conduct and)Tj
T*
(employment justifies a finding that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.248 0 Td
(it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security \
clearance to him.")Tj
-14.248 -1.125 Td
(The Judge's conclusions about this falsification are the subject of this\
appeal.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding Applicant's falsifi\
cation was not pertinent to a determination)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 97.5 cm
0 0 m
557.332 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 84.75 Tm
(of judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 84 cm
0 0 m
203.303 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 219.3027 84.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Department Counsel challenges the Administrative Judge's conclusion that\
)Tj
-16.942 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's falsification was mitigated because the information Applican\
t omitted from the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.642 0 Td
(security clearance)Tj
-36.642 -1.125 Td
(application was not pertinent to a determination of judgment, trustworth\
iness, or reliability. )Tj
36.797 0 Td
(Applicant contends the)Tj
-36.797 -1.125 Td
(Judge did not err by reaching that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.69 0 Td
(conclusion.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
80 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
103 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-02486.a1.html)
endobj
102 0 obj
<>
endobj
104 0 obj
<>
endobj
81 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 543.0 null]
endobj
82 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 504.0 null]
endobj
83 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 479.0 null]
endobj
84 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 453.0 null]
endobj
85 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 414.0 null]
endobj
86 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 348.0 null]
endobj
87 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 323.0 null]
endobj
88 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 216.0 null]
endobj
89 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 137.0 null]
endobj
90 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 111.0 null]
endobj
91 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 186.0 null]
endobj
92 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 72.0 null]
endobj
93 0 obj
[20 0 R/XYZ 0 765.0 null]
endobj
94 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 147.0 null]
endobj
95 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 108.0 null]
endobj
96 0 obj
[18 0 R/XYZ 0 83.0 null]
endobj
97 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 765.0 null]
endobj
98 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 740.0 null]
endobj
99 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 687.0 null]
endobj
100 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 635.0 null]
endobj
101 0 obj
[19 0 R/XYZ 0 609.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 105
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000177608 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003759 00000 n
0000003786 00000 n
0000175615 00000 n
0000176245 00000 n
0000176288 00000 n
0000175425 00000 n
0000004826 00000 n
0000167675 00000 n
0000157700 00000 n
0000148273 00000 n
0000136583 00000 n
0000130011 00000 n
0000123222 00000 n
0000122103 00000 n
0000003889 00000 n
0000003935 00000 n
0000003984 00000 n
0000004339 00000 n
0000004083 00000 n
0000004115 00000 n
0000004147 00000 n
0000004179 00000 n
0000004211 00000 n
0000004243 00000 n
0000004275 00000 n
0000004307 00000 n
0000005037 00000 n
0000010959 00000 n
0000011008 00000 n
0000011043 00000 n
0000011643 00000 n
0000012066 00000 n
0000068617 00000 n
0000068884 00000 n
0000037146 00000 n
0000037419 00000 n
0000012477 00000 n
0000012753 00000 n
0000013152 00000 n
0000037858 00000 n
0000069499 00000 n
0000122303 00000 n
0000123422 00000 n
0000130236 00000 n
0000130275 00000 n
0000135607 00000 n
0000135933 00000 n
0000136257 00000 n
0000136786 00000 n
0000136846 00000 n
0000146319 00000 n
0000146645 00000 n
0000146971 00000 n
0000147297 00000 n
0000147623 00000 n
0000147949 00000 n
0000148476 00000 n
0000148536 00000 n
0000155754 00000 n
0000156078 00000 n
0000156402 00000 n
0000156726 00000 n
0000157050 00000 n
0000157374 00000 n
0000157914 00000 n
0000157974 00000 n
0000165737 00000 n
0000166061 00000 n
0000166385 00000 n
0000166709 00000 n
0000167031 00000 n
0000167355 00000 n
0000167886 00000 n
0000175510 00000 n
0000176726 00000 n
0000176768 00000 n
0000176810 00000 n
0000176852 00000 n
0000176894 00000 n
0000176936 00000 n
0000176978 00000 n
0000177020 00000 n
0000177062 00000 n
0000177104 00000 n
0000177146 00000 n
0000177188 00000 n
0000177229 00000 n
0000177271 00000 n
0000177313 00000 n
0000177355 00000 n
0000177396 00000 n
0000177438 00000 n
0000177480 00000 n
0000177522 00000 n
0000177565 00000 n
0000176499 00000 n
0000176332 00000 n
0000176671 00000 n
trailer
<<80CA74A6196AEC41A72E138482B172EE>]>>
startxref
177781
%%EOF