͗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?
8pUs^AQ]Ww/vy
, ® -
JPQwƯ4jc$D'iXciqڎMV|hAgDw3L[ߞ9ь`W,~MULqq
>&ckk`K-.>qpopVQ4+-u)EgH" )rRWĢQ KiЩ 1 9SM:-.+ ~0w].uu%\ꜳ+¹́HEyמ潼"bj,P9gջlc@߲>Pݬh2ArokWe#D!]b8Cˑwt]ৃ|<= _6[A~QՄ
Ve8ɬV:3ǎ
_85ȏ*1KՇ̜X qN/2x}qaB/sy]XieQ]}{͙} a'|-[k=oj]ݯx=bcN#aO1y"YPu ]yZW+uU/w
PV (W]T7,8nyS2s)K)LT1WnnBBif(tg^qۼ+ (WTqBtDL(ڱqsVpײ3Yx&TCG ҈KrIKsgfn~:M5 ]KPN*% +T QҴԕ >:id6&h`Ҽvߛ?. byfى.] >& K_<¹w]O's lE^vrY:7WFZ^QO5A8@
8ўگ<=jʛ/0,f/nZj_N'ɫ/| zvJMߘRz>J!=i^z˗&zN|ݔi #Q 8o͐3ĻV:'aC@N3Q>d>Ը'coF@w
w6B}Uny=9cJ^g62OR:lg ilP$`[/m
ax\TʳnjUfހ^`ˠ,b}W l|H?FUv <櫴CQuQ^fժQQeOSX/a PvdU] "(F ȩk2?SWe|Nu[MH %wKZ{qOF?xZ$B9s@uGԫn'M1%+>G^i){|GNSS}& K *CNֱd _ gNZ
34 !r ϒ(?
<:>Ge_@^ؠ%z&jTeJ|ƮZp=$n%A['M=8G̥<>d=
W$H%OͿKOI8>@26z?"qs?t?k;e*x,?E,5~ JquG ԥvq=b50 788ܱ\jb.MRm'
m!ߢVt~p6C.isjQoS9&5>\"qbo
V y+vW:N>I;06F<7 UU}}ﻋ.B..˂® ..I#
Rba@R1dJtGSFFCS)5Q_d6"쾷s9?3ys9Nf@]y=R{ÍJg~CQ#@Tfp/Q έ3q|gWz^ na"ChW 9WWK(n>:QO {EtΓrr]* q>ҨhrɟQ s B4j=8c9)ÕP|>9ȗ_$5{/AϮ^G.q|xWouܭ[߉V9; [=זNֹXRMl{?X)aBo0uL
ơ99/"-}N^ yu;/ZonvPӒ>$xػJ2 + O zͨmZxs;+R>#zW [߄a:l˭Kc#j?{ ݱ˶kʺDk ,4ZZ5hղǼ{[=ΖiT53 jc.ockj
a isVbO1
kX՟/\n\4[;.rڑ.w7G~:27Az-Ӕd..]Oˋxe 2FN7*I]AtQJv .'t+'<2y`'u7%0I}Y<;FzI :b&6ƻr}A氯֒sMz{|S37to69]sw;I_X=h!MhuY]_tt/ YErLd2Ϸ_[ڊC .5p<4(=Z/7[h"3mHO3e]b|?N:wftNo36Z^fv^lVoDSKww" 6X(MfƜDXfN2ӿo
B°Tce d2[ٚ'~%`<T }>{!\%65{j*Oy`Ǡ]9|ƞ Yg 7"}..?՞ӒWm]$IW;% S
Q]1?KB#GV''~z7(6CP??f$~F?iƾA 3 nKv?p-a-kCW_86y=]$<&5 _Zak7D4ώi:_7%`}4[߈ն;*Qwo46z%?|΅,
c0h^rmqAvrƊMr]XZL̯"'
O_?# b{/ji&b9Pdb_[xޏLԼklqA FTm/}'_20 ,QqAҿuh7%.i9}Sp?&-yC *e$qzj:i9B~l@'ZМ[F.Q ~ Z<ޖA4]3yn%S&%y> ; o)~clx,s8Wz8ź3R{G76I]tTLSN:ˍXm7ew Ȭ%JZSpPj2X?g0ʂ/e\~Ξ3rOstvtKғA 4KX pҶzeLʍpY_߲Emo 4"VD# ש̭Cl^we Gfp'ADžѩNG3h;c}֗^Xm-_#
lY%uua;ngrRwb<bjPgLrV?%Ʉ0XO:C&ndZ==ꌀ Ws/0XB6*J+YR vudz`)@yw}Yˑ|ÙZO)ބFy nǞ^-/4n{`'.֧>&EٱyXhg .CH.(+.^b-%bxIX~8T/,wdb.q } 1*N>e~3,G7_FF'3upe\`8~Rm VbP@hPi T.U,ܜd%a`
l!\.c. e a" E2s _ݺ%_s<'C/ms;\6b@@7x/mx Հ^n\O$* %[x VS H|ZDiD V`;AgwjN/QGoȻ:{Ϻo1g \矱)=RŞn
J]YƳ%0tp>payw[ Kl'F'ၸ]wTQ Tq63lxXjs˰psV3Gu1TmKre}+ؚ@22$fq5_&$9Ϲ%lc.i$~|(lȺ;GllKvFcwҸAqa6V yPaQܗ$}j{wL=ý+ؾӣ4|$o[GnV Z%W F@uβ,s
Zd⏡Ҁ\}s I_QT+oAuw7~ ]+n_gMJۺ;w,!u[۬!yíVӳp
ѿZuT ~|A4<^+է}Ius¡֏Cm?hY r%5GW ک[BX_iNt~PA'neM죚i_t~ ľ71]Sb?4 ,`~#k"l^KCc?N ekdOtGbMHHsקG'%7\ʹ8AkƵ"ƷCMc|JfNRO<2ߒ [CmP D7d2Tǎs!ؤG7tKRy3RijrT3(Kolݬ<+U˨]Ӛb?O(w_ pr=hm1x~\s<w LRNa/OAV"5o[@ 9|%'
; Oͥ :trڏ}]>E:K7ax Υ+ ;K#}a
LtoitSpmz& sH]uVb={ (ۗ6zoYL[=_ID>~ sw6{uvOf =x{x]E'ػyw< >+< lܞs cDOg:w 35wmC>,|Ǵ]̯<KdwwU=ȁFA4zV߶ݵY Eɇt,
pW`0,
ژz VjuQ vZ~qӎ4XHiv;'FY
K86Ak祁ƪNyDo[M5
3Rfޑ2bRɕ:'"H f>'IgbDr"N?NgK r"S;g t V3Kf{j53
K3 )cc[;Vu &8I4?U{ڌ"vx'*b~ mGjs2 1y,ոq4f"|DC{6|鄸6)&Ҟئ/l+WdѠ%|gԸ' s:HJ_ 6ryVy ^URoJDeǥ_mސOq}J> ynp(&.ҡ eD6DWEpgLK=th^z
hV9ڶd'l"&괲bCn,ib>4EPǿpBy83eKC2Z sC~kT`߄YKg.9UOrً[ Qfkne9" T94<:t^Gex8w&2 pI,xmp[0s`{SI{Zj'̱ \++,; G6rzXس)\u/>ʫ<ڇҖnc}\)pv-]323XB qdDn:[PH4Ye0J .!119m>;) BF20~K>yRDﱯdsw8,: twZ9G+7LGD l<00$61Kb{ꡝ)}bG p kbla؏qse\^{)uṽJ T?!c/G= vK_3R|g9kν;h6 *?9'W@9hj}+ee=i[Q璉ke_M@Ӥ&a$~'nq6ܥ=7Pf 17!8xK籈]A\L?;(}㉻bSo;b*{Lg-ޥv+)!/PJד jlM ӷ3qmY\0w8<~=#oM%p6@VBn&gky[
H'v3X?}`V-3F|ͫdw@9W]q 3(0_0PW2b݊3b | cE^/er;]_>M3|E`+}q`f ¹ũ;~f 4YwUȲAaO
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP#Ur nh* `0 Wnd!ph/ٲY+c˜{J>bڊ$ejů!٢5D'˶
IZlA2uB?Kڥ(ǝzLQgq%&1'g_zJ哹%sSCmM8BG ;e kvu: i MwF%n_cFO^)Gcm@Wz}r&'c=$ҶdKAk3hk$K;8Q,B왤|"6{-lX_RXޞ< 1uKL_eƢ@2WX
Ţ5fc8lvf;`lu'~=nE}O ֗2ñm)֛"YRmv^
;X!5I174÷%̦Pw8M{DqP3K,&=~2A+a:̖P&efҲL+mV gJ͠ $Bq@9FJCdM{ƶ֮*_(b%۬X rY`ĔEb~3?Ìe-Q>G3l$B- #/E6O6>,Wr' /' yO?\ׯ1(ӯ
ӯe
o9
1F8GgI>&F~adZcLjd:\]Q1<{]gȚMM#ar\c~ M?CEHEzc s8PW_-a˽~3Opɢۉ/oLHnI}q'1kMD < 1yvY }1tCī -t> 3{h/[wF[诊lH,$/^| h NSJsFbF.Hlvn;7B H
? /|^Dz%`i:bV}yG 2D˰ʻ ؊m+ qT/=s|eFWRNZjx kmzՑmk meMG9;(5tYc7A̲ # \Ā>̂9n@ h@ z\,s">!sLop^-=Dz" .ʸ+mEs>L=E@ @ v㽻[@?0 8 fK\dQS[%Kj/_}\TcͲíoj?ݪĉRo* 4=qr\kkq
=ODSKVӿJ&9j.
j_A~P;ԾДE=i[%0=\=vskqN%WILMx:$0ZW6fȿm _qߠ_Rׂ>bw!9BfĠaǶg\i&vU U߱=iGO@~iGA찘AxZ VLZA7:'WAVYޠ:i席EV]r$,z570z9|Ӹ.NA9
o[ǫbl~++uls~gcy==%:VՒڠjکquRuN9a>O1=k
U>gJ] ./!҃co: '3 oO 9au.%! oR?k5i\v/hǞ&Ԉ7&{c.G~`Sa<ķbVf#f#ᥐ<YPS"K FP))f aPv'RmF\X\P\ L]@
,Z V
a (2E z
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-07839.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/03-07839.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:14:12 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 83.25 591.75 682.5 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
(Judge engaged in reasoning that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to\
law when he evaluated that incident in assessing)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(Applicant's security eligibility. )Tj
12.567 0 Td
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, Applicant has not demonstrat\
ed that the)Tj
-12.567 -1.125 Td
(Judge was compelled, as a matter of law or logic, to apply Criminal Cond\
uct Mitigating Conditions 1, 2, and 6 to his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 02-02195)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(April 9, 2004\) at p. 4 n.3 \(noting that the application of the Adjud\
icative)Tj
T*
(Guidelines is not reducible to a simple formula, but rather requires the\
exercise of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.961 0 Td
(sound judgment within the parameters)Tj
-32.961 -1.125 Td
(set by the Directive\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(The Board affirms the Administrative Judge's security clearance decision\
because Applicant has failed to demonstrate)Tj
T*
(error below.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 597 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 572.25 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 16 495 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 470.25 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael D. Hipple)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 393 cm
0 0 m
129.311 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 368.25 Tm
(Michael D. Hipple)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge also found that Applicant did not falsify the s\
ecurity clearance application by providing)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(incorrect dates for his college education. )Tj
16.465 0 Td
(That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.)Tj
-16.465 -2.125 Td
(2. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
("The falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the ind\
ividual has subsequently provided correct)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(information voluntarily" \(Directive,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.571 0 Td
(Adjudicative Guidelines, Item E2.A5.1.3.2\).)Tj
-14.571 -2.125 Td
(4. )Tj
("The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the falsifica\
tion before being confronted with the facts")Tj
T*
(\(Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines, Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.883 0 Td
(E2.A5.1.3.3\).)Tj
-16.883 -2.125 Td
(5. )Tj
("The criminal behavior was not recent" \(Directive, Adjudicative Guideli\
nes, Item E2.A10.1.3.1\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(6. )Tj
("The crime was an isolated incident" \(Directive, Adjudicative Guideline\
s, Item E2.A10.1.3.2\).)Tj
T*
(7. )Tj
("There is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation" \(Directive, Adju\
dicative Guidelines, Item E2.A10.1.3.6\).)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
41 0 obj
[43 0 R 44 0 R 45 0 R 46 0 R 47 0 R 48 0 R]
endobj
42 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-07839.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/03-07839.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:14:12 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 16 751.5 Tm
(state of mind in a falsification case\). )Tj
14.772 0 Td
(Giving due deference to the Judge's credibility determinations,)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 494.0078 756 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
Q
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 494.0078 755.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 507.814 751.5 Tm
( the Board)Tj
-40.984 -1.125 Td
(concludes that the Judge's finding of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.844 0 Td
(falsification reflects a plausible, legally permissible interpretation o\
f the record)Tj
-14.844 -1.125 Td
(evidence as a whole. )Tj
8.524 0 Td
(Applicant's strong disagreement with the Judge's finding)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.884 0 Td
(of falsification is not sufficient to)Tj
-31.408 -1.125 Td
(persuade the Board that the finding is not sustainable in light of the r\
ecord evidence in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(In the alternative, whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding\
Applicant's falsification of a security)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 684.75 cm
0 0 m
528.322 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 672 Tm
(clearance application was not mitigated)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 671.25 cm
0 0 m
189.92 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 205.9199 672 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends, in the alternative, that if the Administrative Judge\
's finding)Tj
-15.827 -1.125 Td
(of falsification is sustainable, the Judge should have concluded that Ap\
plicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.95 0 Td
(falsification was mitigated. )Tj
11.108 0 Td
(In support of)Tj
-43.058 -1.125 Td
(this contention, Applicant argues: \(a\) the Judge should have concluded\
his falsification was mitigated under Personal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 2; \(b\) the Judge erred by concluding Pers\
onal Conduct Mitigating Condition 3 does not)Tj
T*
(apply; and \(c\) the Judge erred by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.412 0 Td
(concluding that Applicant's reference to his 2002 reckless driving citat\
ion as merely)Tj
-13.412 -1.125 Td
(speeding was evidence of his propensity for untruthfulness.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel correctly notes that Applicant's theory about the sig\
nificance of his disclosures to the investigator)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(who interviewed him does not warrant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.663 0 Td
(application of Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 474.9238 567 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 474.9238 566.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 488.73 562.5 Tm
( but rather raises the)Tj
-39.394 -1.375 Td
(question of whether the Administrative Judge should have applied Persona\
l)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.438 0 Td
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 3.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 538.5918 550.5 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 538.5918 549.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 552.3979 546 Tm
( )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See,)Tj
-44.7 -1.125 Td
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 01-06166 \(October 25, 2001\) at p. 3 \(in cases involvi\
ng correction of a falsification, Personal)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 3, not Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditio\
n 2, is the relevant mitigating condition to be)Tj
T*
(considered\); ISCR Case No. 00-0671)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(August 15, 2001\) at p. 3 \(noting that Personal Conduct Mitigating Co\
ndition 2)Tj
T*
(and Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 3 apply to different situation\
s\). )Tj
30.357 0 Td
(Furthermore, given the record evidence in)Tj
-30.357 -1.125 Td
(this case, the Judge reasonably could conclude that the facts and circum\
stances of Applicant's disclosures to the)Tj
T*
(investigator did not warrant application of Personal Conduct Mitigating \
Condition 3.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board is not persuaded that the Administrative Judge erred by conclu\
ding that )Tj
33.297 0 Td
(Applicant minimized the seriousness)Tj
-33.297 -1.125 Td
(of his reckless driving offense by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.552 0 Td
(describing it as a speeding incident. )Tj
14.524 0 Td
(The Board does not review isolated sentences in a)Tj
-28.076 -1.125 Td
(Judge's decision. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
10.316 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-10215 \(January 30,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2004\) at p. 6 n.4. )Tj
(Reading the decision below in its)Tj
-10.316 -1.125 Td
(entirety, the Board concludes the Judge's challenged statement forms a p\
art of the Judge's evaluation of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.014 0 Td
(overall facts)Tj
-43.014 -1.125 Td
(and circumstances surrounding Applicant's disclosures to the government \
about his past conduct. )Tj
39.088 0 Td
(Furthermore, in)Tj
-39.088 -1.125 Td
(evaluating Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.178 0 Td
(falsification of the security clearance application, the Judge reasonabl\
y could consider whether)Tj
-9.178 -1.125 Td
(there was record evidence that shed light on whether Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.06 0 Td
(falsification was an isolated incident or otherwise)Tj
-26.06 -1.125 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.277 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-23365 \(March 22, 2004\) at p. 5 \(Judge can consider\
record evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.768 0 Td
(of conduct)Tj
-43.376 -1.125 Td
(or circumstances not alleged in the SOR to assess an applicant's credibi\
lity; evaluate an applicant's evidence of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(extenuation, mitigation or changed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.19 0 Td
(circumstances; consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful\
)Tj
-14.19 -1.125 Td
(rehabilitation; or decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudica\
tive)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.045 0 Td
(Guidelines is applicable\). )Tj
10.441 0 Td
(Considering the)Tj
-40.486 -1.125 Td
(record as a whole, and giving due deference to the Judge's assessment of\
the credibility of Applicant's testimony, the)Tj
T*
(Board concludes Applicant has not shown that it was arbitrary or caprici\
ous for the Judge to conclude that Applicant)Tj
T*
(was minimizing the seriousness of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.498 0 Td
(2002 reckless driving offense by characterizing it as a speeding inciden\
t.)Tj
-15.498 -2.125 Td
(3. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that Applicant's pa\
st criminal conduct was not mitigated)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 237.75 cm
0 0 m
536.684 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 564.6836 238.5 Tm
(.)Tj
-45.724 -1.125 Td
(Applicant contends the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.719 0 Td
(Judge should have concluded that his 2002 reckless driving offense was)Tj
-15.719 -1.375 Td
(mitigated under Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 297.6426 213 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 297.6426 212.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 311.4487 208.5 Tm
( Criminal Conduct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.694 0 Td
(itigating Condition 2,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 506.7769 213 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 506.7769 212.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 520.583 208.5 Tm
( and Criminal)Tj
-42.049 -1.375 Td
(Conduct Mitigating Condition 6.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 173.3359 196.5 Tm
( \(7\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 173.3359 195.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 187.1421 192 Tm
( )Tj
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: \(a\) the 2002 reckless\
driving)Tj
-14.262 -1.125 Td
(incident is more than two years old; \(b\) the record evidence concernin\
g the facts and circumstances of the 2002 reckless)Tj
T*
(driving incident show it was not serious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.193 0 Td
(or aggravated in nature; \(c\) the 2002 reckless driving incident was is\
olated; and)Tj
-16.193 -1.125 Td
(\(d\) the 2002 reckless driving incident occurred ten years after the 19\
92 incident)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.072 0 Td
(that resulted in grand larceny and)Tj
-32.072 -1.125 Td
(burglary charges against Applicant.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Given the Administrative Judge's sustainable finding that Applicant fals\
ified the security clearance application, the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Judge properly concluded that Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.092 0 Td
(falsification was a violation of )Tj
12.413 0 Td
(18 U.S.C. 1001, a felony. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See United States v.)Tj
-29.505 -1.125 Td
(Yermian)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 468 U.S. 63 \(1984\)\(case involving conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1001 f\
or falsification of a security clearance)Tj
T*
(application\). That conclusion by the Judge undercuts Applicant's argume\
nt concerning the isolated nature of the 2002)Tj
T*
(reckless driving incident. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments concerning\
the nature, seriousness, and recency of the)Tj
T*
(2002 reckless driving incident reflect an alternate interpretation of th\
e record evidence, but they fail to demonstrate the)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[494.0 753.0 508.0 764.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[474.0 564.0 488.0 575.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[538.0 548.0 552.0 559.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[297.0 210.0 311.0 221.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[507.0 210.0 521.0 221.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[173.0 194.0 187.0 205.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
49 0 obj
[51 0 R]
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-07839.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/03-07839.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:14:12 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 \(citing Supreme Court\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.72 0 Td
(decision\).)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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
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 \(citing)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.857 0 Td
(federal cases\).)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
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(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
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.912 0 Td
(E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
5.313 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant falsified a \
security clearance application)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 321 cm
0 0 m
491.812 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 519.8125 321.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(The)Tj
-41.984 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge found that Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.358 0 Td
(falsified a security clearance application in December 2000 by not discl\
osing)Tj
-17.358 -1.375 Td
(that he had been charged in December 1992 with grand larceny and burglar\
y, both)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.182 0 Td
(of which were felony charges.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 559.123 296.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 559.123 295.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 572.9292 291.75 Tm
( )Tj
(On)Tj
-46.411 -1.125 Td
(appeal, Applicant challenges the Judge's finding of falsification. )Tj
25.895 0 Td
(In support of that challenge, Applicant argues: \(a\) the)Tj
-25.895 -1.125 Td
(Judge failed to properly consider Applicant's state of mind when he comp\
leted the security clearance application; )Tj
45.553 0 Td
(\(b\) the)Tj
-45.553 -1.125 Td
(Judge's finding of falsification does)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.483 0 Td
(not reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record )Tj
20.545 0 Td
(evidence as a whole; and \(c\) the)Tj
-35.028 -1.125 Td
(Judge's finding of falsification is based on invalid premises and errone\
ous)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.812 0 Td
(reasoning.)Tj
-29.812 -2.125 Td
(There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge considere\
d all the record evidence unless the Judge)Tj
T*
(specifically states otherwise. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.718 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 99-9020 \(June 4, 2001\) at p. 2. )Tj
(That presumption is not rebutted)Tj
-15.05 -1.125 Td
(or overcome by Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's assessment of t\
he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.77 0 Td
(credibility of Applicant's hearing)Tj
-30.77 -1.125 Td
(testimony, or the Judge's choice to weigh the record evidence differentl\
y from how Applicant would have liked the)Tj
T*
(Judge to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(weigh it.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(There is conflicting record evidence concerning Applicant's intent or st\
ate of mind when he completed the security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance application. )Tj
8.967 0 Td
(However, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(presence of conflicting record evidence does not diminish the Administra\
tive)Tj
-8.967 -1.125 Td
(Judge's responsibility as the trier of fact. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
16.398 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 02-09892 \(July)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(15, 2004\) at p. 5 \(Board noting that it)Tj
-19.73 -1.125 Td
(is not unusual for a Judge to be faced with the need to consider and wei\
gh conflicting record evidence, and then make)Tj
T*
(findings of fact\). )Tj
6.942 0 Td
(The Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole, assess the cre\
dibility of the testimony of)Tj
-6.942 -1.125 Td
(Applicant and the investigator who)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.302 0 Td
(interviewed Applicant, and make a finding as to Applicant's intent or st\
ate of mind)Tj
-14.302 -1.125 Td
(when he completed the security clearance application. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.879 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 02-15935 \(October 15, 2003\) at p. 6)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(\(discussing need for Judge to consider record evidence as a whole to ma\
ke a finding of fact about an applicant's intent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
47.415 0 Td
(or)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[559.0 294.0 573.0 305.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
52 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
61 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-07839.a1.html)
endobj
60 0 obj
<>
endobj
62 0 obj
<>
endobj
53 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 302.0 null]
endobj
54 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 263.0 null]
endobj
55 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 237.0 null]
endobj
56 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 198.0 null]
endobj
57 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 159.0 null]
endobj
58 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 134.0 null]
endobj
59 0 obj
[16 0 R/XYZ 0 108.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 63
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003658 00000 n
0000146680 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003591 00000 n
0000003731 00000 n
0000003758 00000 n
0000145717 00000 n
0000145941 00000 n
0000145983 00000 n
0000145527 00000 n
0000004394 00000 n
0000136261 00000 n
0000124226 00000 n
0000120347 00000 n
0000003861 00000 n
0000003907 00000 n
0000003956 00000 n
0000004147 00000 n
0000004019 00000 n
0000004051 00000 n
0000004083 00000 n
0000004115 00000 n
0000004605 00000 n
0000010589 00000 n
0000010638 00000 n
0000010673 00000 n
0000011183 00000 n
0000011606 00000 n
0000066966 00000 n
0000067233 00000 n
0000035495 00000 n
0000035768 00000 n
0000012005 00000 n
0000012281 00000 n
0000012668 00000 n
0000036207 00000 n
0000067847 00000 n
0000120558 00000 n
0000124440 00000 n
0000124500 00000 n
0000134317 00000 n
0000134641 00000 n
0000134965 00000 n
0000135289 00000 n
0000135613 00000 n
0000135937 00000 n
0000136486 00000 n
0000136511 00000 n
0000145203 00000 n
0000145612 00000 n
0000146386 00000 n
0000146428 00000 n
0000146470 00000 n
0000146512 00000 n
0000146554 00000 n
0000146596 00000 n
0000146638 00000 n
0000146191 00000 n
0000146025 00000 n
0000146333 00000 n
trailer
<<17B4EE0141F68F43BD97A3CF9CDF59D6>]>>
startxref
146853
%%EOF