͗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?
8pU}G]]qKaC^Kv
$$y60@c 2UQ^AGEʴ&-TBaPFm>|T u=]B O39}suӽG~j7TZ9%ucsg=Fv8wxwW$5Q8 xQx)?Cl[rA$ p]B^G =O 7m0/szS:)/uv^u*·+ K a;N*_ӕ-_̖Z
#9)pċbEk.\_t qgf} R匞a,G= m _
5|^vw(^ q{}.~:om yұe%CKaR@DRQrεsR?r{P]qE9ёά)c\9 wF > Ċ)x^ TٽjHdbrd':V!]eo/{Ys`ˉ<7l{bQNףpN-tQ-* ܯP i8P7FN1*gC|*Dl
w!P?1,&Zh[LN[\0<Եt-1_ҹ+q.WG(+ RmM i(b34W*]H߄ ]!|@
ƽHFzf0A
>h > ybLn1 R~9.4
gnd/S?*-Iܧ vZ5!S
c;KY@T]F tK;J0mUS.2Ǡ蒿C>OSXo
Bl{|-/,yb` 52Oub'cq~ ^A _k.Z26@[
y& >[ ``!ֿE0dqNm0Pς Ͱm}m= }\a3}GrAD''_x Yg mmƒ#OEٶd>KJCFf͵С}>G J}r/Q7]{chr
C>xU}.[HQ{ɾ|lfl ҷ0^2BvȹjieU~J'd6%XEN#w0zc Rȶ$GA
q\rn*VE6T|..Q HmCKVt` 1I1<>^;J[mIH^)>5,*j>5b |<ز^>O3N v,%Sʱ_9Vdۿ-{ n_1Wa7ǎ&cXL5?of K1OkR^'Q?͊g~p3W]g[З}^qSKMU"~少:S4D gTjTPv3F|% F_0MZ5MC qH.cugA-+\(+Tk-_ o|^w
Ʋ)U) o}X k<
a.ѧ貧RSj Vo\T"F v
1 (@ 6"V i~B'\S^@5uKi < Bah0ύ d/Ch
&hۇ5tR
3~fJ 8#C \
|Tޥ%(GY}
1|*-[9t.5Ku2<n5c}gi:Tp?8wQA.4I)57A/CL.4pޝ#tK獸5QOֱ WCU%}7eNnVW~mgFq<9ļZ*=Ft lF:+pn x*0`ϐ(V]"X zKq惄u-uUvX?oz&B gB&lM'YgI_m|vc?y _%lS^;g=!; 2
qGar;$
rh;fߞOsD7ߎh~`{p3>
}qv"U䧘cu#L]q#}CTyGΰ-o/"%z gU]q|o!@$$,YqVa@*SѪUFVjk :NKmj
iҎ
H w_eo7yw9[5&w6OwIJ
AKWT Z6D?~lzok{ObK4vVC3$oyi.a:ۈ=%O_(k^ê|rr$%U$/S:h>k t.>^:_8-'y>p UcF%K[Nʝ-uqS$)iz%zn"u[6kć9n:o Ṁ80UO'Č2({)\pL.X+C)Wc;9q'¹P
Zݓ^{n0|lԞ#߆K(ш <(;+
1|¹)'eft(59s3iۍ\4WNVh媆B<09 ,ce/#?<)gx/I@ #Ύ?yhW̐j ; w|7F vc,Ȯ :/evvG#+W5'&2_Ӛ@__o:ܤ_!rr&;?mFw= zkA.a_5s:vno)~̲9]sםnӾ$c'v6}Բf1ut/ T
cgd#w5Y/-mE}TH%v8 z%xLYBG7@F}+ 2%Xl)9^ZKQ}؝:wvtNB36^.vQpۧWE{7X[xϏm- fN_'=!#Pw7@oc>?3=G]&}Ŝd^(M)c`9{!bkp{.!Y;`u 3^s{_3xf +"}P]KMp)1%WmmVqPv\ǵG{ihi)ir ~7P߯?~Z"ҏm.<%R)
אoD{RHޔp|St -xCz g!wMc;=%}_
/}ǪAsnL9 v\N]N). /61)' )61Un>w?#Apv/ѽ"muu{]k`wΚ[Z_lno[Xt R7Or8M5hbDr&#iұ% K;B"nC!;%Nꈈ6^`1q*J跍]6H'.?htuP3zƁQǵ-I=d^NMOeˮˉ|χ3ٞJ[~ ûpj= =35ıݢq?dirr%YHD0Ƽ[k,6g+.JH[8+I+؎^c[
Ğ`,tzo~s^8s](ÝCmr5NMsLǯA#FXv+Cwq}o[𥟍a
2 J.ǀ^`Q<95I U?jYAf[M1ڿl_gML}Z [qqR[&ӥo@ib }G0:t?:}q
߭, ' 湑Ϙߋx^wz{~$UA{uԕcoKLf_-t,c `σiP촸_f1ε+\Ʈq2p浹M&9h!{9}y٘@Fsk%?_) Cѣ歗y
LϽ \^ %}R)y?Gxd3OK ^
1vml5̎3-YSYqECБ5V;us6N^ezԳRDIN{*u_9 N m6z3`^ IL潏H%sܯ7*' S^U]U_ϽP
DiHCyU o 42hiyPM@:PaxN V:-vAK (0SB[V)=7Tc7k}gַ@}β" 7pW<,v]<$)Q8< Dtu-l k%-hE{ֿ|KI([g 8 /Zz\j"I}eW*w-~;(}KuЉ~F['m+i=!WRk4X^QL9"1h(/Rl9#I!G]~3n/Cj`UrBg; yh Vz7Ҵ9 [ yȓV-RAbRךV"5A
C`mk0m݇7^=N~SoNKTř|mvZ\ߞZwq̚sdlY.9 4;7 dC&Ku닍nP?º]ZlថSmȗ;e4t+ɍM SP/} u/v5ܨZ舠3)OP+ݖiwodk)4PH-O QsV.-r"#?
72}L*3RPL
gr^Ҟ
%1*2D=o`Fi RKwߢgu v?dN dI' |i# 9-;ziɵs=}w.Z=`MKzYv7}t snzz{ۘ5a#<~֢a ˼x=+f{$O3]Ls`~ yU_ǒt r EirdzĢܓd,sQ68=ᕞ$(`
@=~ jUj۵U
^lwZ~
a4XHiyW#点ؿa7슛_+} Kkt:Z&z55]
FgKy[*I&Wf|1
//+fٚM>&I`"5d1y7Czҍ7Hp1K[9s}p+6nz_ PF?I?5u@ƨC穁X6[\ID5M}JFglN^)k5/ki3S W/dR$_*gΉ'69ƺ䥴-
mj|7d'h
O6^& ߾ǥi >jB{SoT%pd) Ld[C̣eBc#25e)I+ n*/
]vu;Yy{ hgSY˓~ E˼s/ٽ|J~V(PIZņ40Lfvn:tl(R["VUBAt#XaFe(32:]K֎38ss~w+}ibBVJ)2~}M}A_ƻ [DB˗&^&
=/DxY:U:UU.U;?&*6=[fθygG '|g ~P&Dqk'/+#ϑG鯡?~PG~L
ys~3ﹷ8Se>I\y*v J6ʵ4KjE d; \vL &Ɵf"_{n(c"sBw t$~'cbҋjguWߣm|i;V{#_m
Kg $R3> xuE8AG2v<YzWpn&.;Als/G7go9jN⼨t*\jYOvAIpÜӟ5עD5Yn_'ċ Z27.}![ç Y˞{ 悽Ud"-yڇ"w62{}?l_#>xBd/{}?Rp8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 p8 H}G\%
J[?JHRZ%P JozG_
YNU1fCHz@Z"zPj"i_W؇}=GЏ:멘("Y#!;$#i(fZrj9tSư'G3-m_K7/H<&ʄ%^ a鴣wtՌG3n1GgiˍͣV"Ֆ|#dc 3F\6QjZYc~lO&I9gcz/- dj; q_Sc!e>ZҍbvL$.6},Z{=ݑIg
^e3X!I7TJw'{M^YWWzsސz gulsfSɸgs6÷,sX2_wR~2g^O땃?שӗdo*?#>&`.!
C / f zdK罥:y /SeNxx.5s$B,7\}-z^zo;3KwvkX55t!KxF;w#_5Ɍ7-2}7F-g}Y}OOnr RxmwߗҨNw4Sg#jn㲶rzK# aC[YK#^m}9b% ?QoXW.]=6A w T5 =V!@@e< AiU ='s_Q/ebyQ|I=#lirˡҖW;uS pBQߓ ~!li,q8k)BvA ľєQA>F ӑހu##M^5Sg nW&5h|_
um
khmcN
e@mW);S(r, ז⬋32r~Bo!r[ 4<3\Yga/mo Wal >s9lxD,naɹu v0ǕVM
hbDcv%l]|TV݇}X:ۄ4ilLeB2ig~{ݽw>ˌZN绰i}vv.^O{Rz67jTѨ~+}~nF^ #J L2< =.= L>j_`>zFC~ pןI< ϱ<`|z 8[av6g އg}c /Z;F4`3ƏqsLynG{f1rpSe&1>88jn
?w T2 )%+ 92d X)1="F#TDZBK+4%"cD rB0TGI;wPƟ\ X俎?Ad®E b7\# 8o k'7Z{nIlC ھԏZ$2k8C߀BWHi/뷀f_I.T}X՟;`=؍=2jtrIb3> -"#I7+~ 2?z9h/AW
V+G\Mr;RYmHe@M8/#g pECi\G4eUz\ c*z c.YEp܌96Ev WJ$2
^ F7yM '?נ3t0cLju nӀbf ٧~<uHŎk _sZդ#;ѝ.ؤԵ ́+H5ff5 Bgry|w*EANOWӷ:͆74TCD_ԍ$5 3XJcʨc >u8t̔u Q
Bu.F\A2AZ*T??A` rZ
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02805.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/03-02805.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:46 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 264.75 591.75 500.999 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
(copy of Applicant's 1995 security )Tj
13.705 0 Td
(clearance application. )Tj
8.967 0 Td
(The methods and scope of DSS investigations are outside the)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(scope of review of the Appeal Board. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.217 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-0293 )Tj
(\(May 5, 2000\) at p. 4.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
2.718 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate harmful error below. )Tj
23.02 0 Td
(Therefore, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's)Tj
-23.02 -1.125 Td
(adverse security clearance decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 651 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 626.25 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 16 549 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 524.25 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 447 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 422.25 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR\
paragraphs 1.d and 1.f. )Tj
40.63 0 Td
(Those favorable)Tj
-40.63 -1.125 Td
(formal findings are not at issue on )Tj
13.914 0 Td
(appeal. )Tj
3.109 0 Td
(Applicant's brief contains additional assertions and explanations that s\
eek to)Tj
-17.023 -1.125 Td
(supplement the record evidence that was before the Administrative Judge.\
)Tj
29.851 0 Td
(The Board cannot consider new evidence on)Tj
-29.851 -1.125 Td
(appeal. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
3.109 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.29.)Tj
-3.109 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
(The record evidence shows the garnishment pertained to a debt to a credi\
tor, not a tax garnishment.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02805.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/03-02805.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:46 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
(financial difficulties had not been )Tj
13.689 0 Td
(mitigated)Tj
3.777 0 Td
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have concluded that)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(the security concerns raised by his history of financial difficulties wa\
s )Tj
28.242 0 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
4.277 0 Td
(In support of that contention,)Tj
-32.519 -1.125 Td
(Applicant essentially reargues his case with respect to the mitigating e\
vidence he presented below and argues that he is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(not at risk of engaging in illegal acts that would compromise security.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge err\
ed in concluding that the financial)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(considerations allegations had not been mitigated. )Tj
20.245 0 Td
(Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge's conclusions,)Tj
-20.245 -1.125 Td
(he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious,\
or contrary to law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
35.739 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional)Tj
-35.739 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this case, the Administrative Judge found that Applicant had a histor\
y of not meeting financial obligations which ran)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(over many years. )Tj
7.108 0 Td
(At the time the case )Tj
8.191 0 Td
(was submitted for decision, there was evidence that Applicant still had \
significant)Tj
-15.3 -1.125 Td
(outstanding debts. )Tj
7.527 0 Td
(In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably )Tj
21.217 0 Td
(conclude that Applicant's financial problems)Tj
-28.744 -1.125 Td
(were recent, not isolated, and still ongoing. )Tj
17.496 0 Td
(Likewise the Judge could also reasonably conclude that Applicant's)Tj
-17.496 -1.125 Td
(promises to resolve his indebtedness and his recent efforts to resolve t\
hat indebtedness were not a substitute for a)Tj
T*
(consistent record of timely remedial action. )Tj
17.633 0 Td
(Although the Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to two of th\
e)Tj
-17.633 -1.125 Td
(SOR allegations pertaining to Applicant's financial difficulties, the Ju\
dge was not )Tj
32.84 0 Td
(required, as a matter of law, to)Tj
-32.84 -1.125 Td
(conclude that the security concerns raised by Applicant's history of fin\
ancial difficulties had been fully mitigated. )Tj
45.638 0 Td
(As)Tj
-45.638 -1.125 Td
(noted )Tj
(above, the Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
18.771 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's material)Tj
-18.771 -1.125 Td
(findings and conclusions about Applicant's )Tj
17.428 0 Td
(history of indebtedness are sustainable.)Tj
-17.428 -2.125 Td
(3. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding that Applicant deliber\
ately falsified a security clearance)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 475.5 cm
0 0 m
516.129 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 462.75 Tm
(application)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 462 cm
0 0 m
53.314 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 69.3145 462.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant challenges the )Tj
10.635 0 Td
(Administrative Judge's findings that he deliberately falsified a securit\
y clearance)Tj
-15.078 -1.125 Td
(application in 2001. )Tj
8.221 0 Td
(In support of this claim of error, Applicant refers to the )Tj
22.327 0 Td
(record evidence of his claim that he)Tj
-30.547 -1.125 Td
(previously disclosed information about his financial situation in a secu\
rity clearance application that he executed in)Tj
T*
(1995.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In the decision below, the Administrative Judge noted that Applicant off\
ered nothing to support his claim that he had)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(disclosed information about a debt that )Tj
15.83 0 Td
(was satisfied by a garnishment before he executed a security clearance)Tj
-15.83 -1.125 Td
(application in 2001. )Tj
8.221 0 Td
(In general, it is legally permissible for a Judge to take into account )Tj
26.881 0 Td
(whether an applicant has)Tj
-35.102 -1.125 Td
(presented documentary evidence to corroborate a particular claim. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
26.737 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 01-09781 \(September 25,)Tj
-26.737 -1.125 Td
(2002\) at p. 3. )Tj
(However, implicit in such a holding is the notion that it can be permiss\
ible for a Judge to take into account)Tj
T*
(a party's failure to present documentary evidence if )Tj
20.727 0 Td
(the party reasonably could be expected to possess or be able to)Tj
-20.727 -1.125 Td
(obtain such documentary evidence. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.356 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0419 \(April 30, 1999\) at p. 4 )Tj
(\("When evaluating the)Tj
-17.687 -1.125 Td
(failure of a party to present corroborating evidence it is necessary to \
consider whether it is reasonable to expect the party)Tj
T*
(to possess or )Tj
(have the ability to obtain corroborating evidence."\)\(federal case cita\
tion omitted\). )Tj
38.256 0 Td
(By its nature, a security)Tj
-38.256 -1.125 Td
(clearance application is not a personal paper, and if )Tj
20.769 0 Td
(an applicant did not make or keep a copy of a security clearance)Tj
-20.769 -1.125 Td
(application at the time it was executed, an applicant would have to turn\
to the government )Tj
36.239 0 Td
(to )Tj
(obtain a copy of it at a later)Tj
-36.239 -1.125 Td
(date. )Tj
2.166 0 Td
(Because a completed security clearance application can be expected to be\
forwarded to the government, it could be)Tj
-2.166 -1.125 Td
(questionable to assume that an applicant necessarily would have a copy o\
f the completed security clearance application)Tj
T*
(or that an applicant could easily obtain a )Tj
16.439 0 Td
(copy of a completed security clearance application at a later date. )Tj
26.375 0 Td
(Given the)Tj
-42.814 -1.125 Td
(record evidence in this case, the Judge did not have a sufficient basis \
to draw an )Tj
32.239 0 Td
(adverse inference from the mere fact)Tj
-32.239 -1.125 Td
(that Applicant did not produce a copy of a security clearance questionna\
ire he claimed he had completed several years)Tj
T*
(before 2001.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Because the Administrative Judge, in making his findings about the falsi\
fication allegations, )Tj
37.159 0 Td
(appears to have relied)Tj
-37.159 -1.125 Td
(heavily on the adverse inference he drew )Tj
16.631 0 Td
(from the fact that Applicant did not produce a copy of an earlier comple\
ted)Tj
-16.631 -1.125 Td
(security clearance application, it is not clear whether the Judge's find\
ings of )Tj
30.531 0 Td
(falsification are sustainable on the particular)Tj
-30.531 -1.125 Td
(record evidence in this case. )Tj
11.55 0 Td
(However, a remand of the case to the Judge would not be warranted in thi\
s case. )Tj
32.378 0 Td
(Even if)Tj
-43.928 -1.125 Td
(the Board were to assume--solely for purposes of deciding this appeal--t\
hat a remand would result in the Judge making)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(different findings about the )Tj
11.164 0 Td
(falsification allegations, the Judge's findings and conclusions under Gu\
ideline F \(Financial)Tj
-11.164 -1.125 Td
(Considerations\) are sufficient to support his overall unfavorable )Tj
25.826 0 Td
(conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility.)Tj
-25.826 -2.125 Td
(Applicant also contends that the government's investigation was so "naiv\
e and incompetent" that it failed to disclose a)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
[48 0 R 49 0 R]
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-02805.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/03-02805.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:09:46 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(a mere difference of opinion. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.883 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 97-0435 \(July 14, 1998\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court\
)Tj
28.72 0 Td
(decision\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to l\
aw, the Board will consider whether they are)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(contrary to provisions of )Tj
10.109 0 Td
(Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. )Tj
28.238 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
-38.347 -1.125 Td
(or local law is not required because security clearance )Tj
21.851 0 Td
(adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
-21.851 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to federal law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.691 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 \(Supremacy Clause\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.828 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
(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 )Tj
21.425 0 Td
(by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as)Tj
-21.425 -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 )Tj
(making this review, the)Tj
-35.516 -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 )Tj
4.582 0 Td
(Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
10.775 0 Td
(The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence suppor\
ting a)Tj
-15.356 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence )Tj
20.758 0 Td
(that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those)Tj
-20.758 -1.125 Td
(findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpre\
tation of the record )Tj
36.112 0 Td
(evidence as a whole.)Tj
-36.112 -1.125 Td
(Although a Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, \
the party challenging a Judge's credibility)Tj
T*
(determination has a )Tj
8.081 0 Td
(heavy burden on appeal.)Tj
-8.081 -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 \(citing )Tj
15.857 0 Td
(federal cases\).)Tj
-15.857 -2.125 Td
(If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Boar\
d must consider the following questions:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(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 )Tj
(Case No. 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
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items )Tj
15.912 0 Td
(E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
4.737 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 334.1487 348.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 334.1487 348 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 318.75 Tm
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge was biased)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 318 cm
0 0 m
220.271 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 248.2715 318.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant asserts that the Judge was biased against him because he)Tj
-19.356 -1.125 Td
(erred in his findings of fact when he )Tj
14.718 0 Td
(stated Applicant had failed to disclose a garnishment for a tax debt. )Tj
27.186 0 Td
(The factual)Tj
-41.904 -1.375 Td
(error identified by Applicant)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 153.6191 293.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 153.6191 292.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 167.4253 288.75 Tm
( does not constitute harmful error under the )Tj
17.606 0 Td
(particular facts and circumstances of this)Tj
-30.225 -1.125 Td
(case, and the Board finds nothing in the record below or the Judge's dec\
ision which supports a claim of bias.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(There is a rebuttable presumption that quasi-judicial officials are unbi\
ased and impartial, and a party seeking to rebut)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(that presumption has a heavy burden of )Tj
16.023 0 Td
(persuasion on appeal. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.886 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 02-08032 \(May 14, 2004\) at p.)Tj
-24.91 -1.125 Td
(4. )Tj
(When the Board considers a claim of bias or lack of impartiality, the st\
andard )Tj
32.295 0 Td
(is not whether the appealing party)Tj
-32.295 -1.125 Td
(personally believes that the Judge was biased and not impartial. Rather,\
the standard is whether the record of the)Tj
T*
(proceedings )Tj
5.082 0 Td
(below contains any indication that the Judge acted in a manner that woul\
d lead a disinterested person to)Tj
-5.082 -1.125 Td
(question the fairness or impartiality of the Judge. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.856 0 Td
(See, )Tj
(e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR Case No. 01-04713 \(March 27, 2003\) at p. 3.)Tj
-19.856 -2.125 Td
(Bias or lack of impartiality is not demonstrated merely because the Admi\
nistrative Judge made adverse findings or)Tj
T*
(reached unfavorable conclusions in a case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.298 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.582 0 Td
( ISCR Case No. 94-0954 \(October 16, 1995\) at p. 4 \(citing)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-20.879 -1.125 Td
(McLaughlin v. Union Oil Co. of California)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
17.223 0 Td
(, 869 F.2d 1039, 1047 \(7th Cir. 1989\)\). )Tj
(Nor is )Tj
(bias or lack of impartiality)Tj
-17.223 -1.125 Td
(shown by identifying legal error by the Judge. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
18.69 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 98-0515 \(March 23, 1999\) at p. 5 \(citing)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-22.522 -1.125 Td
(Hedison Mfg. Co. )Tj
(v. NLRB)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 643 F.2d 32, 35 \(1st Cir. 1981\)\). )Tj
(Accordingly, the Judge's adverse findings and unfavorable)Tj
T*
(conclusions in this case do not establish the Judge was )Tj
22.052 0 Td
(biased or lacked impartiality. )Tj
11.913 0 Td
(Likewise, the Board's conclusion)Tj
-33.965 -1.125 Td
(that the Judge committed harmless error does not establish the Judge was\
biased or lacked )Tj
36.296 0 Td
(impartiality.)Tj
-36.296 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that the security c\
oncerns raised by Applicant's history of)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 49.5 cm
0 0 m
542.338 0 l
h
S
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/BS<