%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T15:14:44-04:00
2021-06-24T15:14:44-04:00
2021-06-24T15:14:44-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
03-08336.a1
uuid:f45bb76a-d259-4558-a1c4-fc23318c81b7
uuid:854c8443-9e68-4999-828b-ae1ebb40e2e7
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
(03-08336.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/03-08336.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:14:44 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: July 21, 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. 03-08336)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 February 20,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2004, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons \(SOR\) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--secur\
ity concerns)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(raised under Guideline J \(Criminal Conduct\) of Department of Defense)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.769 0 Td
(Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\))Tj
-28.769 -1.125 Td
(\(Directive\). )Tj
4.886 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On January 17, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.716 0 Td
(Elizabeth M.)Tj
-42.069 -1.125 Td
(Matchinski denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
25.365 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
-25.365 -1.125 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's unfavorable clearance decision)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline J is arbitrary, capricious or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.661 0 Td
(contrary to law.)Tj
-17.661 -2.125 Td
(Applicant argues that the Administrative Judge should have concluded tha\
t the security concerns raised under Guideline)Tj
T*
(J had been mitigated, as a matter of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.412 0 Td
(law, because his criminal conduct is not recent and he has demonstrated \
he is now)Tj
-14.412 -1.375 Td
(rehabilitated.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 78.9707 261.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 78.9707 261 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 92.7769 257.25 Tm
( )Tj
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
-6.398 -2.125 Td
(The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn\
simply on a finding that one or more of them)Tj
T*
(apply to the particular facts of a case. )Tj
15.188 0 Td
(Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in l\
ight of the)Tj
-15.188 -1.125 Td
(record evidence as a whole. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
11.328 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 \(App. Bd.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Jan.15, 2003\). )Tj
(Thus, the presence of)Tj
-14.659 -1.125 Td
(some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favor\
able security clearance decision. )Tj
43.234 0 Td
(As the trier)Tj
-43.234 -1.125 Td
(of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether \
the favorable evidence outweighs the)Tj
T*
(unfavorable evidence, or )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
10.162 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
(An)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence, or a\
n ability)Tj
-14.187 -1.125 Td
(to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficie\
nt to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.044 0 Td
(demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or)Tj
-29.044 -1.125 Td
(reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contra\
ry to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this case, the Administrative Judge made sustainable findings that Ap\
plicant had pled guilty in 1989 to Theft by)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Unauthorized Taking or Transfer, a felony. )Tj
17.493 0 Td
(That offense had involved multiple breaches of Applicant's fiduciary dut\
y as)Tj
-17.493 -1.125 Td
(a broker for an insurance company--the misappropriation of funds from ei\
ght)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.129 0 Td
(clients. )Tj
3.11 0 Td
(The Judge weighed the mitigating)Tj
-34.239 -1.125 Td
(evidence offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifyi\
ng conduct and considered the possible)Tj
T*
(application of relevant mitigating conditions. )Tj
18.273 0 Td
(The Judge articulated a rational basis for not favorably applying any)Tj
-18.273 -1.125 Td
(mitigating conditions in this case, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.415 0 Td
(reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented \
in)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(_t~n\)wAN)
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\j >wIJB[ȡhHt
qylOg>?y?ZyΈ=JK:04J.b-$ٰAͻLxdItJ/p#j=dж q^F:O#q@7Yhy2_e,Gǚ"g.qB\>D*L8WL\ׁωuqA[W:9w_9$~C"4
0 ;
"
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|XT3"M{wDQlh$K^1"*(*Q4X.bÊbAQa/.vW`yb\¾Y{sϜ3gf u BmٺI^1q\S; \6EIЈosW Z E/A2C㢝&I