%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:28:12-04:00
2021-07-02T15:28:12-04:00
2021-07-02T15:28:12-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-04004.a1
uuid:418ac7b8-18f5-413b-9151-b6cfa68ec251
uuid:794559c7-3f7e-4e75-934f-9e7ee7e91e66
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
(04-04004.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/04-04004.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:28:12 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: July 31, 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. 04-04004)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 March 31,)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--secur\
ity concerns)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(raised under Guideline B \(Foreign Influence\) of Department of Defense)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.989 0 Td
(Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\))Tj
-28.989 -1.125 Td
(\(Directive\). )Tj
4.886 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On December 30, 2005, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.63 0 Td
(E.)Tj
-45.984 -1.125 Td
(Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
25.892 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
-25.892 -1.125 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's unfavorable clearance decision)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.939 0 Td
(contrary to law.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 306.9062 314.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 306.9062 313.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 285.75 Tm
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge's unfavorable clearance\
decision should be reversed because it is Applicant's husband's family)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(members, not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.693 0 Td
(her family members, that are citizens and residents of Yemen. )Tj
25.046 0 Td
(Applicant also argues that her evidence was sufficient, as a matter of)Tj
-30.74 -1.231 Td
(law, to mitigate the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.97 0 Td
(government's security concerns under the whole person concept. )Tj
26.033 0 Td
(In support of her arguments, Applicant cites to a number of)Tj
-34.003 -1.231 Td
(Hearing Office decisions in which)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.968 0 Td
(applicants with ostensibly similar cases were granted clearances. )Tj
26.129 0 Td
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments)Tj
-40.097 -1.231 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.462 TD
(The decisions in other DOHA Hearing Office cases cited by Applicant on a\
ppeal do not demonstrate error by the Administrative Judge in this case.\
)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(A decision)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(by a Hearing Office Judge is not legally binding precedent on that Judge\
's colleagues in other cases, even if Applicant establishes close)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(factual similarities)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.664 0 Td
(between the cited cases and the instant case. )Tj
17.909 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 03-23776 at 3 \(App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2006\). )Tj
(Likewise, the cited cases)Tj
-25.573 -1.231 Td
(are not legally binding)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.275 0 Td
(precedent on the Board. )Tj
9.802 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 01-22606 at 3-5 \(App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2003\).)Tj
-19.077 -2.462 Td
(Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to rebut, explain, exten\
uate or mitigate facts that Department Counsel proved or that Applicant)Tj
T*
(admitted)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.749 0 Td
(regarding her family ties to Yemen, and Applicant also had the ultimate \
burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security clearance)Tj
-3.749 -1.231 Td
(decision. Directive \266)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.506 0 Td
(E3.1.15. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole,\
both favorable and unfavorable, evaluate)Tj
-8.506 -1.231 Td
(the facts and circumstances of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.3 0 Td
(Applicant's past )Tj
6.624 0 Td
(and current circumstances in light of pertinent provisions of the Direct\
ive, and decide whether)Tj
-18.924 -1.231 Td
(Applicant had met her burden of persuasion)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.8 0 Td
(under Directive \266 E3.1.15.)Tj
-17.8 -2.462 Td
(There is a rebuttable presumption that the Administrative Judge consider\
ed all of the evidence presented. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
42.264 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 2)Tj
-42.264 -1.231 Td
(\(App. Bd. Jun.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(4, 2001\). )Tj
(The fact that Applicant's explanations and her mitigating evidence did n\
ot lead the Judge to the decision desired by)Tj
T*
(Applicant does not establish)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.554 0 Td
(error. )Tj
(The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge\
to make a favorable security)Tj
-11.554 -1.231 Td
(clearance decision. )Tj
7.856 0 Td
(As the trier of fact, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.302 0 Td
(Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favora\
ble evidence outweighs the)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(PU\)j)
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 >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
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgv΅HS݅Q1Xc
%/јH(FTEh,XaEذ]XDKE/97wfΙ3w ԁ$ e&yI|%,".<>su p1:A#]jp\?(Oh mŎvZ$HyL|1|¹kr'&.!1s%hg7 DrQ\xb|5\߹ ld?Ǐx?}Zf D(ޔ
7
&( g[$Y<>4تŽAe 4Bm?
DUΏ[ؐû$d
=_$&88JZ8uqusWӫAFUjIy4mּǾ-Zo6];~Ӡ.]u^e>_|owC#"246n#G%R?4A!I%Tz)Uk"5#4隥Mvv6M@Stuunz:IT\KVxxkermEƲBn#ʱr,3yJyMΗEI|UhP|=}͆