xu+ؙz?
8pUs^AQ]Ww/vy
,+ v:?fJc1IMI8MLqRII86imm#F3:߹P3ma~{λ;tF҂_A0W5ӷֵֹ.&Hmm']i}tfe[>nDHԥE!3Б+J]ihD$R.ArD!8O"7w\k.^\Dxv䬑j +Jy>FU^ ~q/7
, @ jn|C; I">z #
{MjlⰒ3gWiŐ]=>ৃ|< _6[~^aJFU%8ʬV'L]<=ȋ(Lg`#kLŊ]93
e^h_]8\ ) ʂ4(bfm^y
!g9(}*A)j|S7cF}W>
*ż ,n1K9%K9@stT[Hirݧ(kM o$I} (<*Y};֗.^1CϷQ#~r+@L[M{1l|@?Nv <˴S P u>f5թQQmOR-L3^7=p )GLAq8ܣp!c߯: cLg`_ o +h G];y s *-$B] @3m0n3MsC |s܌a%|'zH6I>G}fn1g,$:S#d sK dn%}".PTlb-)mhddeHFcy-i]
Q7Gfjix_r2kڋԯ KQ%K~O^j%)s h6ͦ1I^`p`g/"`v "!9;M@b~ ]Jh /AEl1 K ˡgb:JU" 8:;-0eoò,zخvPxeععācPSdžg!Q_˂@ `~컈[9<L!: z1z V@nYEӖg%E o< E'p+aǀBo z~m'G,0v ;
Zz567%Y&Wy֠M#%~ Xm { b_K0A=- |>|!J"t }Ŭ$?`%`
-
-
-
;W &c ?\C12@z LWʌV
c54F3*-- mirőmmnaM](5lyc/Q̲q # \D^̀9n@h=.{̋9 9q$7 kdoX cY`\ԃpfdߓ֢B9q &g"s
d>In=x9 =lrK%1K8YEn̯,IJ>)9*,٦=ڦfm* (xiAӮĴ֘V0$H4edU0#eP{>jA;Aon MY,+MJ˵smךy$.Rr`_G<7j5<)t6bȿm<_qߤ_RkA Uyl ;En%Ѓ)b0cxC?BhHBn~t_k;҅ȏP,Ȫؑ#'!#!vXLmcARo7 +b&-Ŋȇ[
vDJyl!,oRr"+.XAt9rZB}r IuEi '><&ַͿЭ45]6 U]U\$FV$O,6قWWL 줎,NQ{{amF䦘9F:[i9H |=tknʋ4`T\c*W_l%.:hF\.nFW+pp-vBۭ nM܋Zp:;_ r=s,*MԮTʻwZjSYJAR~dW[k˅Д5MR]Q;V`^˩cѲhE7'A E})"nI/V3V>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<؈!Dr$$l$Ds"m^Cl(T0}J
O`a*XmB`S*I J6\|_ l!>9o!pHXXf0̆dziZ!aY'L3O=.GqS3uߝѓ z:ru+W$[ ޓlg3"ݩ'fIwrWzI؝fgRLdrSͩo:V35ZSgS"=%jD5eNZqjKϺI<Ӽ9Ż EGy0_$˯;~k 4@bu1M*R%7˯ Ŕ Ez %_I< 48X ,ܼyeXF2;*iY=Vg' zowѪ[[' Q=VG' z}~u |1(?e6^c5ƍY
)Poh84̈́Tؗj㡿 D:O2!;şh cvU > {i8{0eze,˜x]@5c :-uNS ڠjڡ'1uBc.=e~o5m^'wQbMKMpgJ{ ./S;XۜH7ޏ)s'-OgCA>r"X]아Lx\uyh灂-hrm $&{c.G~`Sa<ķbVf#f#ᥐ<YPS"K FP))f aPv'RmF\X\P\ L]@
,Z V
a (2E +z
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-02983.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/04-02983.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:26:41 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 648 591.75 117.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 754.5 Tm
(business downturn, unexpected medical )Tj
16.19 0 Td
(emergency, or a death, divorce or separation\)" \(Directive, Adjudicativ\
e)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(Guidelines, Item E2.A6.1.3.3\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
("The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors\
or otherwise resolve debts" \(Directive,)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Adjudicative Guidelines, Item E2.A6.1.3.6\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
(Applicant's contention in this regard is predicated in part on the offer\
of new evidence that was not before the Judge.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(The Board cannot consider new )Tj
12.968 0 Td
(evidence on appeal. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.163 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.29.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-02983.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/04-02983.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:26:41 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(Case No. 02-05110 \(March 22, 2004\) at pp. 4-6. )Tj
(Accordingly, )Tj
25.078 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge's finding that many of the)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(Applicant's original financial problems could be traced to conditions th\
at were largely beyond her control )Tj
42.417 0 Td
(did not)Tj
-42.417 -1.125 Td
(compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. )Tj
26.683 0 Td
(Even if Applicant's financial difficulties initially)Tj
-26.683 -1.125 Td
(arose due to circumstances outside )Tj
14.134 0 Td
(her control, the Judge could consider whether Applicant acted in a reaso\
nable)Tj
-14.134 -1.125 Td
(manner when dealing with her financial difficulties. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.993 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0462 \(May 25, 2000\) at p. 4; ISCR)Tj
-24.324 -1.125 Td
(Case No. 99-0012 \(December 1, 1999\) at p. 4. )Tj
18.745 0 Td
(In this case, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Judge to it con\
sider)Tj
-18.745 -1.125 Td
(such factors as: \(a\) the length of Applicant's history of financial di\
fficulties, \(b\) the extent and nature of her)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(indebtedness, \(c\) the extent and effectiveness of her )Tj
20.963 0 Td
(efforts to deal with that indebtedness, \(d\) the fact that some of the)Tj
-20.963 -1.125 Td
(debts were still unpaid, and \(e\) the presence of a prior discharge in \
bankruptcy, in reaching )Tj
36.598 0 Td
(his adverse security)Tj
-36.598 -1.125 Td
(clearance decision. The Judge found in Applicant's favor with respect to\
many of the factual allegations alleged in the)Tj
T*
(SOR. )Tj
(However, )Tj
(given the record evidence, the Judge was not required to conclude, as a \
matter of law, that Applicant's)Tj
T*
(history of financial difficulties was fully mitigated under )Tj
22.938 0 Td
(Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 3.)Tj
-22.938 -2.125 Td
(Given the overall history of Applicant's financial problems, her involve\
ment with the bankruptcy process, the sizable)Tj
T*
(nature of the indebtedness, and the fact )Tj
15.883 0 Td
(that some of the debts at issue had been incurred years earlier, but had\
still not)Tj
-15.883 -1.125 Td
(been resolved at the time of the hearing, it was not arbitrary or capric\
ious for the )Tj
32.46 0 Td
(Judge to decide that the evidence was)Tj
-32.46 -1.125 Td
(insufficient for him to conclude that Applicant's efforts to resolve her\
debts warranted full mitigation of her financial)Tj
T*
(history through application of Financial Considerations Mitigating Condi\
tion 6. )Tj
32.108 0 Td
(Although the Judge gave the Applicant)Tj
-32.108 -1.125 Td
(some credit under Mitigating Condition )Tj
16.137 0 Td
(6, the Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to conclude Applicant\
's)Tj
-16.137 -1.125 Td
(history of financial difficulties was fully mitigated under that mitigat\
ing condition.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to demonstrate harmful error below. )Tj
23.02 0 Td
(Therefore, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's)Tj
-23.02 -1.125 Td
(adverse security clearance decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 409.5 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 384.75 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 307.5 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 282.75 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: William S. Fields)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 205.5 cm
0 0 m
124.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 180.75 Tm
(William S. Fields)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant w\
ith respect to SOR paragraphs 1.b, 1.c, 1.f,)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(1.g - 1.v, 1.x, 1.y, 1.aa - 1.ff, 2.a, 2.b, )Tj
(and 2.c. )Tj
(Those favorable formal findings are not issue on appeal. )Tj
41.322 0 Td
(Additionally, the)Tj
-41.322 -1.125 Td
(Judge found against Applicant with respect to Guideline E \(SOR paragrap\
h )Tj
30.409 0 Td
(2.d\) and that unfavorable finding was not)Tj
-30.409 -1.125 Td
(appealed by Applicant.)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(2. )Tj
("The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the pe\
rson's control \(e.g., loss of employment, a)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
[48 0 R 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R]
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-02983.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/04-02983.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:26:41 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(contrary to provisions of )Tj
10.109 0 Td
(Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. )Tj
28.238 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(or local law is not required because security clearance )Tj
21.851 0 Td
(adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
-21.851 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to federal law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.691 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 \(Supremacy Clause\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.828 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
(ISCR Case No. 00-)Tj
-35.519 -1.125 Td
(0423 \(June 8, 2001\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court decisions\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Boar\
d must determine whether "[t]he)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported )Tj
21.425 0 Td
(by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as)Tj
-21.425 -1.125 Td
(adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence i\
n the same record. )Tj
35.516 0 Td
(In )Tj
(making this review, the)Tj
-35.516 -1.125 Td
(Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of t\
he Administrative Judge." )Tj
39.174 0 Td
(Directive, Additional)Tj
-39.174 -1.125 Td
(Procedural )Tj
4.582 0 Td
(Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
10.775 0 Td
(The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence suppor\
ting a)Tj
-15.356 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence )Tj
20.758 0 Td
(that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those)Tj
-20.758 -1.125 Td
(findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpre\
tation of the record )Tj
36.112 0 Td
(evidence as a whole.)Tj
-36.112 -1.125 Td
(Although a Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, \
the party challenging a Judge's credibility)Tj
T*
(determination has a )Tj
8.081 0 Td
(heavy burden on appeal.)Tj
-8.081 -2.125 Td
(When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of revi\
ew is plenary. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.558 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 87-2107)Tj
-34.558 -1.125 Td
(\(September 29, 1992\) at pp. 4-5 \(citing )Tj
15.857 0 Td
(federal cases\).)Tj
-15.857 -2.125 Td
(If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Boar\
d must consider the following questions:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Is the error harmful or harmless? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.384 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 00-0250 \(July 11, 2001\) at p. 6 \(discussing harmless \
error)Tj
-16.715 -1.125 Td
(doctrine\);)Tj
T*
(Has the nonappealing party made a persuasive argument for how the Admini\
strative Judge's decision can be affirmed on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(alternate grounds? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.608 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR )Tj
(Case No. 99-0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at p. 6 \(citing federal cases\); \
and)Tj
-10.939 -2.125 Td
(If the Administrative Judge's decision cannot be affirmed, should the ca\
se be reversed or remanded? )Tj
40.333 0 Td
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items )Tj
15.912 0 Td
(E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
4.932 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issue)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 331.8137 375.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 331.8137 375 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 345.75 Tm
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that the security c\
oncerns raised by Applicant's history of)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 345 cm
0 0 m
542.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 332.25 Tm
(indebtedness had not been mitigated)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 331.5 cm
0 0 m
174.621 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 190.6211 332.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have concluded that t\
he)Tj
-14.552 -1.125 Td
(security concerns raised by her history of )Tj
16.745 0 Td
(indebtedness were mitigated by )Tj
12.885 0 Td
(application of Financial Considerations)Tj
-29.63 -1.375 Td
(Mitigating Conditions 3)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 131.3418 306.75 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 131.3418 306 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 145.1479 302.25 Tm
( and 6.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 177.4741 306.75 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 177.4741 306 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 273.75 Tm
(In support of that contention Applicant argues that: \(a\) the Judged er\
red in making )Tj
33.213 0 Td
(certain findings of fact,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 526.5098 278.25 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 526.5098 277.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 540.3159 273.75 Tm
( \(b\) the)Tj
-43.693 -1.125 Td
(indebtedness resulted from conditions beyond her control--her husband's \
loss of employment and serious medical)Tj
T*
(problems, )Tj
(and \(c\) she has paid off many of the debts. )Tj
21.466 0 Td
(For the reasons set forth below, the Applicant has not)Tj
-21.466 -1.125 Td
(demonstrated the Judge erred.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The factual findings which Applicant challenges are either permissible c\
haracterizations on the part of the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge or immaterial, in that they )Tj
19.496 0 Td
(would not be reasonably likely to change the outcome of the case.)Tj
-19.496 -1.125 Td
(Applicant has not met her burden of demonstrating that the Administrativ\
e Judge's material )Tj
36.81 0 Td
(findings with respect)Tj
-36.81 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's history of financial difficulties do not reflect a reasonabl\
e or plausible interpretation of the record evidence.)Tj
T*
(As noted above, )Tj
(the Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.132 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's)Tj
-20.132 -1.125 Td
(material findings about Applicant's history of indebtedness )Tj
23.814 0 Td
(are sustainable.)Tj
-23.814 -2.125 Td
(The application of Adjudicative Guidelines disqualifying and mitigating \
conditions does not turn simply on a finding)Tj
T*
(that one or more of them apply to the )Tj
15.135 0 Td
(particular facts of a case. )Tj
10.216 0 Td
(Rather, the application of a disqualifying or mitigating)Tj
-25.351 -1.125 Td
(condition requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the reco\
rd )Tj
28.88 0 Td
(evidence as a whole. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.524 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No.)Tj
-37.404 -1.125 Td
(01-14740 \(January 15, 2003\) at p. 7. )Tj
(Even if a Judge concludes that a particular Adjudicative Guideline )Tj
41.654 0 Td
(disqualifying or)Tj
-41.654 -1.125 Td
(mitigating condition is applicable, the Judge must still consider what w\
eight it is reasonably entitled to be given in light)Tj
T*
(of the other applicable )Tj
9.218 0 Td
(provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines and the record evidence as a w\
hole. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
31.462 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/BS<