%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:18:03-04:00
2021-07-02T15:18:03-04:00
2021-07-02T15:18:03-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
03-24245.a1
uuid:36923281-0134-4116-ac16-2d12003e7266
uuid:ad4474f8-23d9-493a-a504-4c2c7406902e
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
(03-24245.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/03-24245.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:18:03 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: November 2, 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. 03-24245)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 December)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(29, 2004, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons \(SOR\) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--secur\
ity)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concerns raised under Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\) of Depart\
ment of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.991 0 Td
(Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992,)Tj
-31.991 -1.125 Td
(as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
10.162 0 Td
(Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. )Tj
25.128 0 Td
(On April 28, 2006, after)Tj
-35.29 -1.125 Td
(considering the record, )Tj
9.441 0 Td
(Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant's request for a sec\
urity clearance.)Tj
-9.441 -1.125 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.995 0 Td
(Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-16.995 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge erred by concluding that the security)Tj
T*
(concerns raised under Guideline F had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.662 0 Td
(not been mitigated.)Tj
-15.662 -2.125 Td
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge erred in concluding tha\
t the security concerns raised by his history of)Tj
T*
(financial difficulties had not been)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.689 0 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
4.277 0 Td
(In support of that contention, Applicant argues that the Judge erred in)Tj
-17.966 -1.375 Td
(several of his findings, for example, finding Applicant's largest delinq\
uency)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.617 0 Td
(was $71,000, rather than $24,000,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 546.7012 261.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 546.7012 261 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 560.5073 257.25 Tm
( and)Tj
-45.376 -1.125 Td
(finding incorrect amounts with respect to several unspecified debts. )Tj
27.27 0 Td
(The Board does not find Applicant's contention)Tj
-27.27 -1.125 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 206.25 Tm
(Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Administrativ\
e Judge's material findings with respect to his conduct of security conc\
ern)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(do not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reflect a reasonable or plausible interpretation of the record evidence.\
)Tj
30.792 0 Td
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's material)Tj
-30.792 -1.231 Td
(findings of security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.026 0 Td
(concern are sustainable.)Tj
-8.026 -2.462 Td
(In this case, the Administrative Judge found that Applicant had a length\
y history of not meeting financial obligations. )Tj
47.268 0 Td
(At the time the case was)Tj
-47.268 -1.231 Td
(submitted for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.61 0 Td
(decision, Applicant still had significant outstanding debts. )Tj
23.469 0 Td
(In light of the foregoing, the Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant\
's)Tj
-29.079 -1.231 Td
(financial problems were)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.913 0 Td
(still ongoing. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
5.528 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.582 0 Td
( ISCR Case No. 03-26213 at 2 \(App. Bd. Aug. 23, 2006\). )Tj
(The Judge weighed the mitigating)Tj
-19.022 -1.231 Td
(evidence offered by Applicant against the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.937 0 Td
(length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct, and considered the \
possible application of relevant)Tj
-16.937 -1.231 Td
(mitigating conditions. )Tj
9.027 0 Td
(The Judge articulated a rational)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.855 0 Td
(basis for not applying any mitigating conditions in this case, and reaso\
nably explained why)Tj
-21.883 -1.231 Td
(the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.603 0 Td
(insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns. )Tj
24.561 0 Td
(The Board does not)Tj
-51.164 -1.231 Td
(review a case )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
5.635 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.628 0 Td
(not sufficient to demonstrate the Administrative Judge's decision is)Tj
-30.264 -1.231 Td
(arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
16.188 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 \(App. Bd.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(June 29, 2005\). )Tj
(Given the record that was before him, the)Tj
-20.02 -1.231 Td
(Judge's ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is sus\
tainable. )Tj
32.698 0 Td
(Thus, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge did not err in denying Applicant a)Tj
-32.698 -1.231 Td
(clearance.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(NJꤊ>yF2)
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 >wId/(.?4$:Iƈ1}G]0~}n";0j$6,/@ioU[Iǹ5 AջOjS贙tGfhwP:OfpDכ (jWQyd({Dg%&qB\>DDq|N|UVdFȔ`^9=>w9L
.H` ,
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H| TTWרȦBq
12qYDE%#*"h\p7\ADQDTp_mm(&FGgΜSn[y߹/@ @M&#ذu ikx6g5~eTܰ%u31jd )͎x8eLCy=h9