%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-24T15:33:35-04:00
2021-06-24T15:33:35-04:00
2021-06-24T15:33:35-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
03-20327.a1
uuid:2d5af820-5cf6-4197-ae8a-8d6fd22968df
uuid:6157529b-d3ca-4071-a467-e179349f4067
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
(03-20327.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/03-20327.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:33:35 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: October 26, 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. 03-20327)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
12 0 0 12 247.375 518.25 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-4.72 -2.125 Td
(Jennifer I. Campbell, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.498 -2.125 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.346 -2.125 Td
(E. Rick Watrous, Esq.)Tj
-19.713 -2.125 Td
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On June 20,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons \(SOR\) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision-securi\
ty concerns)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(raised under Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\), pursuant to Depar\
tment)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.993 0 Td
(of Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992,)Tj
-30.993 -1.125 Td
(as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
10.162 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On March 31, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.633 0 Td
(Judge)Tj
-44.262 -1.125 Td
(Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
27.725 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the)Tj
-27.725 -1.125 Td
(Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge made decisions that wer\
e arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(regarding: )Tj
4.359 0 Td
(\(1\) whether Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.08 0 Td
(established that several SOR debts were duplicated by other SOR debts; \(\
2\) whether)Tj
-13.439 -1.125 Td
(the Judge made a legal error by considering a non-SOR delinquent debt;)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.159 0 Td
(and \(3\) whether Applicant established: )Tj
15.745 0 Td
(\(a\) that)Tj
-44.904 -1.125 Td
(he acted in good faith in the resolution of several debts, and \(b\) tha\
t many of the SOR debts had lapsed. )Tj
41.628 0 Td
(Applicant also)Tj
-41.628 -1.125 Td
(requests that the case be remanded to allow consideration of additional \
evidence pertaining to his debts. For the reasons)Tj
T*
(that follow, the Board)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.026 0 Td
(affirms the decision of the Judge to deny Applicant's clearance.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-9.026 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether Applicant established that several SOR debts were duplications o\
f other SOR debts.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant had thirteen delinquent debts, and th\
e Judge found against Applicant on nine)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(SOR debts, involving six different)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.999 0 Td
(creditors. )Tj
3.999 0 Td
(The Judge found for Applicant in SOR \266 1.k \(amount $10,553-creditor)Tj
-17.998 -1.125 Td
("PC"\). )Tj
2.873 0 Td
(This favorable finding was based on PC's acknowledgment of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.98 0 Td
(satisfaction of judgment. )Tj
10.165 0 Td
(The acknowledgment)Tj
-38.018 -1.125 Td
(noted PC was assignee of creditor, "CH." )Tj
(The acknowledgment did not list an account number or amount, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.723 0 Td
(even the)Tj
-43.723 -1.125 Td
(date of the judgment. )Tj
8.748 0 Td
(The Judge found against Applicant on the SOR debts in \266\266 1.f \(amo\
unt $6,476-creditor CH\) and)Tj
-8.748 -1.125 Td
(1.h \(amount $8,863-creditor)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.525 0 Td
(CH\). )Tj
(Applicant asserted that the SOR debts in \266\266 1.f and 1.h were dupli\
cations of the SOR)Tj
-11.525 -1.125 Td
(debt in \266 1.k, and therefore the satisfaction of PC resulted in the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.752 0 Td
(satisfaction of the two CH debts. )Tj
13.359 0 Td
(The Judge discussed)Tj
-39.111 -1.125 Td
(the duplication issue and decided there was insufficient evidence to est\
ablish the CH debt liquidated by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.544 0 Td
(PC's judgment)Tj
-41.544 -1.125 Td
(was the same as the CH debts listed in SOR \266\266 1.f and 1.h. )Tj
23.709 0 Td
(Decision at 6.)Tj
-23.709 -2.125 Td
(The Judge found against Applicant in SOR \266 1.b \(amount $3,043--credi\
tor CI\), \266 1.d \(amount $1,272--creditor CI\), )Tj
46.258 0 Td
(\266 1.g)Tj
-46.258 -1.125 Td
(\(amount $3,827--creditor CI\), and \266)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.588 0 Td
(1.l \(amount $4,435--creditor M\). )Tj
13.358 0 Td
(Applicant claims all three of CI's debts are)Tj
-27.946 -1.125 Td
(actually one debt duplicated three times. )Tj
16.411 0 Td
(Additionally, he said that creditor M, is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.025 0 Td
(an assignee for collection on behalf of)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
(ti ^M'YE)
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0Ezlg4ӂ +=ɝإpn
},vK3e.>ܯSi(ڕ?uJwcx,g{{xt6nv]8FWeO.){}i.\Ǧ
Pԋ|]ub_xj4+