%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:22:47-04:00
2021-07-02T15:22:47-04:00
2021-07-02T15:22:47-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-00536.a1
uuid:ac745721-faea-40f3-a9bb-96035f3851e1
uuid:200b62a0-9b60-4536-9eb4-f09228be2f62
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
16 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
[31 0 R 32 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-00536.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/04-00536.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:22:47 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: January 29, 2007)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. 04-00536)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
-4.499 -2.2 Td
(Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.276 -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 April 27,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis\
for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.549 0 Td
(that decision--security concerns raised)Tj
-31.549 -1.125 Td
(under Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) and Guideline J \(Criminal Conduc\
t\), of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(Jan. 2, 1992\), as amended)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.941 0 Td
(\(Directive\). )Tj
4.886 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On June 16, 2006, after the hearing,)Tj
-28.295 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant's request for a\
security clearance. )Tj
37.89 0 Td
(Applicant timely)Tj
-37.89 -1.125 Td
(appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant identifies errors on the part of the Administrative Judge. )Tj
26.91 0 Td
(He argues that the record does not support the)Tj
-26.91 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings and conclusions against him. )Tj
18.484 0 Td
(He maintains that because the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.19 0 Td
(Judge found some of the allegations against)Tj
-30.674 -1.125 Td
(him to be mitigated, the Judge should have applied mitigating conditions\
to the remaining allegations and granted him a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(security clearance. )Tj
7.689 0 Td
(We will)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.443 0 Td
(interpret Applicant's brief as raising the following issue on appeal: wh\
ether the)Tj
-11.133 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to\
law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Guideline E allegations against Applicant involve: a job termination\
related to drug use \(SOR \266 1.a\); falsifications)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(on a 2002 security clearance application regarding drug use \(\266 1.d\)\
and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.637 0 Td
(financial delinquencies \(\266\266 1.f and 1.g\);)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 550.1172 234.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 550.1172 234 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 213.75 Tm
(falsifications on a 1987 security clearance application involving drug u\
se \(\266\266 1.b and 1.c\);)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 447.7422 218.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 447.7422 217.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 461.5483 213.75 Tm
( )Tj
(and falsification of a)Tj
-37.129 -1.125 Td
(signed, sworn statement to an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.109 0 Td
(investigator in 2003 \(\266 1.e\). )Tj
11.312 0 Td
(The Guideline J allegation involves the behavior listed under)Tj
-23.421 -1.125 Td
(Guideline E.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant first points out that in the synopsis of the decision the Admi\
nistrative Judge appeared to make a finding in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant's favor as to SOR \266 1.a and then found against him in the b\
ody of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.017 0 Td
(decision. )Tj
3.833 0 Td
(The Board has found that, in)Tj
-35.849 -1.125 Td
(the absence of unusual circumstances, a misstatement in the synopsis of \
a decision is not indicative of harmful error.)Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
T*
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.582 0 Td
( ISCR Case No. 02-23336 at 3-4 \(App. Bd. May 10, 2004\). )Tj
(Applicant also finds ambiguity regarding \266 1.a)Tj
-3.582 -1.125 Td
(elsewhere in the decision. )Tj
10.58 0 Td
(The Judge unambiguously stated his findings and conclusions as to \266 1\
.a in the body of the)Tj
-10.58 -1.125 Td
(decision. )Tj
3.833 0 Td
(The Board does not find harmful error on that point.)Tj
-3.833 -2.125 Td
(Applicant argues that the allegations in SOR \266\266 1.b-1.e all relate\
d to the same period of drug abuse, which occurred)Tj
T*
(early in his life. )Tj
6.526 0 Td
(Because the Administrative Judge found in Applicant's favor as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.702 0 Td
(to )Tj
(\2661.d due to the passage of time,)Tj
-32.228 -1.125 Td
(Applicant maintains that the Judge should have concluded that )Tj
25.299 0 Td
(\266\266 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e had been mitigated as well. )Tj
18.901 0 Td
(The)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(\)̑$)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
H\j >wIJB[ȡhHt
qylOg>?y?ZyΈ=JK:04J.b-$ٰAͻLxdItJ/p#j=dж q^F:O#q@7Yhy2_e,Gǚ"g.qB\>D*L8WL\ׁωuqA[W:9w_9$~C"4
0 ;
"
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgv΅HS݅Q1hL
J#*"v4ذXPDTlˮU,X,}3sΜ9sf $AH-[W6K3&.aqkj ` ˦1 m
Wq}C 4Hph38v\$ @DG>pέ\øߏ>1q .s@;K숈p6 &05ĉ#F'~b_^~: Q; Da-P}(n(( LP ζ Hyw}kU սQ *h~x!I
{HLppNjqQWԒF4iڬyO}[jߦm@:v
峠ݺ_|U_|o?〟~"":,6nF'2flN8irҔߦ&O>#efjڬs2Λ`řK²+VfZf
9i-[sm߱s={?p#EG?Qr3gK/]M7eγ0 m
b3yS0ɔJhZ
!U# TCUTGT%*zzTORI=Ri4Q)I$Lz%Uk"5#5eMvv6MPStuunz:IT\[VxxkermEƲBn#ʱr,ȳ*y]ΗE)|Mh0}=}-