%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T15:13:12-04:00
2021-06-24T15:13:12-04:00
2021-06-24T15:13:12-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
03-06249.a1
uuid:481d22ea-b8a4-4664-94e5-d04271b5c596
uuid:a13fe10e-50f0-499e-8d18-21a51ad5b898
Acrobat Web Capture 15.0
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj
<><>]/P 16 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
21 0 obj
[29 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-06249.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/03-06249.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:13:12 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 734.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 733.5 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 732.7503 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.75 l
0 1.499 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 733.5 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 618.75 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.751 l
579 -0.751 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 617.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.751 l
0 1.5 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.751 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(DATE: June 6, 2006)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(--------------)Tj
T*
(SSN: -----------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(ISCR Case No. 03-06249)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
2.806 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 543 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-7.539 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.317 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
2.722 -2.2 Td
(Pro Se)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On January 10,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security conc\
erns raised)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\) and Guideline J \(Crimina\
l)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.078 0 Td
(Conduct\) of Department of Defense Directive)Tj
-29.078 -1.125 Td
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\)\(Directive\). )Tj
18.578 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On November 30, 2005, after the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.496 0 Td
(hearing,)Tj
-44.541 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro denied Applicant's request for a secu\
rity clearance. )Tj
35.666 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed)Tj
-35.666 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.32 0 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-11.32 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge erred by concluding the security)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(concerns raised under Guidelines F and J had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.384 0 Td
(not been mitigated.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 328.9141 314.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 328.9141 313.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 284.25 Tm
(Applicant argues that the Administrative Judge erred in his characteriza\
tion and weighing of Applicant's mitigating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence. )Tj
4.053 0 Td
(Absent that error, Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.469 0 Td
(would have been entitled to a favorable clearance decision. )Tj
23.878 0 Td
(The Board does not)Tj
-39.4 -1.125 Td
(find Applicant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Admin\
istrative Judge to make a favorable security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance decision. )Tj
7.856 0 Td
(As the trier of fact,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.83 0 Td
(the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the fa\
vorable)Tj
-15.687 -1.125 Td
(evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence or )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
19.547 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
(An applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(disagreement with the Judge's weighing of)Tj
-23.573 -1.125 Td
(the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of t\
he evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the)Tj
T*
(Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is ar\
bitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this case, the Administrative Judge found Applicant had a lengthy and\
serious history of financial difficulties which)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(included the nonpayment of debts and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.496 0 Td
(the failure to file Federal and state income tax returns for the tax yea\
rs 2000)Tj
-15.496 -1.125 Td
(through 2003. )Tj
(The Judge's decision indicates that the Judge weighed the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.118 0 Td
(mitigating evidence offered by Applicant)Tj
-29.118 -1.125 Td
(against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct, and con\
sidered the possible application of relevant)Tj
T*
(mitigating conditions. )Tj
9.027 0 Td
(The Judge found in favor of the Applicant with respect to some of the al\
legations. )Tj
32.991 0 Td
(However, the)Tj
-42.019 -1.125 Td
(Judge articulated a rational basis for not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.245 0 Td
(favorably applying any mitigating conditions to the remainder of the)Tj
-16.245 -1.125 Td
(allegations, and reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applica\
nt had presented)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
36.626 0 Td
(in mitigation was)Tj
-36.626 -1.125 Td
(insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns. )Tj
24.561 0 Td
(Given the record that was before him, the Judge's ultimate)Tj
-24.561 -1.125 Td
(unfavorable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.025 0 Td
(clearance decision is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(;Zi4D\n)
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
Cqf=@b+a~B[>F(]Dp҆(-K{8m 8fL\`{Bkޭ&@M
Gw*H9*enFZ%LDALahԿCV
=U-
2LdOO//uqίc~}|Nob'0)Wi´4ZJ/Y
0 }
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgwQ`p-XPlhDy%)Ec;aEQAQa/.vW1q Oޗ;3̙;g @~ײMe>c 8l
p4خ?x`@D â'FNȎjEE?d&@<_o]O_t\ڛGB |? u^\ VfxИY6s@;z\I
}c#b4> s?4AWݏ2 RpBQD"v-?g{TսV *hzH+Ώ[͇ؐ$d`6ʮV:u]wukаQcwYzz)ޟ5iڬy}ZjƷm;:vߥݺ٫w_~u}qO? aâ3jt옱~?!~_'O:-ao3gΚ4'9ei.Zd+`5k32߰q.ksںmvٻ/w9ZxxJN9{|)\xMᖱX݅VWmEPmI4Q2ͥL:OoX(b8__p~̽1c.?ȃy\$_s\WQW!MVhj
6T)x:xjP⠸(nJcKiUh%AIT"%S٪RCJrF9Pz{xw=4W:nn.Wg
6fWXiXjL FQN^D(sHTJ̞Ab8G'.K
wܫ=##&rrO.ʷ5#q4u `MGΡmx
_p!MP?r(s>r9U%rt[Zq`v6;pj+=$Ozxxíf b@UirL'qkjcjmjejimR>=5Cs@YVRR:c
qu8̽V oh3ZF&].}@qF}/}w}7^=XcH(ЭWjivrt;EM``> b}1\uȫ3kCͷR*D5^*PUfw*vnv_L{ݻʥD)<fA*j9*̃e/=5
%uNB1li%'p#pJa;g .EQa0b FA1caq0& aL_a
L\Ȅi0w\P@B"
q9'TgXp530Uh6*qnM,܌ٸ6;0w.
o
&c
sq?A{