%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T15:30:29-04:00
2021-06-24T15:30:29-04:00
2021-06-24T15:30:29-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
03-18523.a1
uuid:5b3c4f9f-9446-437c-ac72-8cee7c0e4230
uuid:1cf17279-62ed-408a-bf01-811239a6feb9
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
18 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
25 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
26 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
<><><><><><><><>]/P 19 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-18523.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/03-18523.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:30:29 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 16, 2005)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. 03-18523)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
-3.527 -2.2 Td
(Jason R. Perry, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
-2.887 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.192 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-1.735 -2.2 Td
(Alexander M. Laughlin, Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 250.2285 394.5 Tm
(Rebecca L. Saitta, Esq.)Tj
-19.519 -2.125 Td
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) issued to Applicant \
a Statement of Reasons \(SOR\), dated March)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(18, 2004, which stated the reasons why )Tj
15.969 0 Td
(DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified information for)Tj
-15.969 -1.125 Td
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(The SOR was based on Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\). )Tj
25.718 0 Td
(Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey)Tj
-30.162 -1.125 Td
(Anderson issued an unfavorable security clearance decision, dated Decemb\
er 20, 2004.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. )Tj
27.728 0 Td
(The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order)Tj
-27.728 -1.125 Td
(10865 and Department of Defense )Tj
14.023 0 Td
(Directive 5220.6 \(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.)Tj
-14.023 -2.125 Td
(The following issues have been raised on appeal: \(1\) whether it was ar\
bitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge to conclude )Tj
13.719 0 Td
(Department Counsel had met its burden of presenting sufficient evidence \
to raise)Tj
-13.719 -1.125 Td
(security concerns under Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\); and \(\
2\) )Tj
29.02 0 Td
(whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary)Tj
-29.02 -1.125 Td
(to law for the Administrative Judge to conclude Applicant had not mitiga\
ted the security concerns raised by his )Tj
44.766 0 Td
(history)Tj
-44.766 -1.125 Td
(of financial difficulties. )Tj
9.663 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge'\
s decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.022 -2.125 Td
(Scope of Review)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.685 -2.125 Td
(On appeal, the Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
17.993 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the)Tj
-17.993 -1.125 Td
(parties to determine whether there is factual )Tj
17.798 0 Td
(or legal error. )Tj
5.719 0 Td
(There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing)Tj
-23.517 -1.125 Td
(party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the A\
dministrative )Tj
33.963 0 Td
(Judge committed factual or legal)Tj
-33.963 -1.125 Td
(error. )Tj
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
25.797 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 00-0050 \(July 23, 2001\) at pp.)Tj
-25.797 -1.125 Td
(2-3 )Tj
(\(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specifici\
ty\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenge\
d, the Board must consider whether they are:)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(1\) arbitrary or capricious; or \(2\) )Tj
13.328 0 Td
(contrary to law. )Tj
6.553 0 Td
(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. )Tj
24.104 0 Td
(In)Tj
-43.985 -1.125 Td
(deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or cap\
ricious, )Tj
31.726 0 Td
(the Board will review the Judge's)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 39 Tm
(decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it\
fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
( t_|g,W)
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H\͊ >C1ɶ$:
#&=w҅t~2usjYI`8O7zQO5vqabR 6zq荽nۛs?8] zk7"(5fYw{:"4ήS;{E&3ZH~Pߝgq|N|&>$>.S|SSKbJ^Ed2)2P"x$JG{ja[]蚱*l+ ܒ
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
<>stream
H|XT3"M݅Kl(c4<"*((Q4Q1"(bGc
+EDbwXo}dܙ3sw @HovngBc2@ -ۼ &