%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:28:32-04:00
2021-07-02T15:28:32-04:00
2021-07-02T15:28:32-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-04132.a1
uuid:4cbee93b-eeb2-443a-9c20-abf55a18d47e
uuid:b96f572f-d295-4d5e-abda-85baf2b888af
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]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-04132.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/04-04132.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:28:32 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 26, 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. 04-04132)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
-5.429 -2.2 Td
(James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
6.207 -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 July 13,)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 G \(Alcohol Consumption\) and Guideline J \(Criminal Con\
duct\) of Department of Defense Directive)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\) )Tj
13.941 0 Td
(\(Directive\). )Tj
4.886 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On May 31, 2006, after the hearing,)Tj
-31.295 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant's request for a s\
ecurity clearance. )Tj
37.28 0 Td
(Applicant timely)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.999 0 Td
(appealed)Tj
-44.278 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge's fin\
dings are supported by substantial evidence; and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(whether the Judge's unfavorable clearance decision under Guidelines G an\
d)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.502 0 Td
(J is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
-30.502 -2.125 Td
(\(1\) Applicant argues, in part, that the Judge's adverse clearance deci\
sion should be reversed because it contains minor)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(errors with respect to the Judge's findings and some internal inconsiste\
ncies.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 382.4102 275.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 382.4102 274.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 396.2163 270.75 Tm
( )Tj
(The Board does not find this argument)Tj
-31.685 -1.125 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board does not review a Judge's decision against a standard of perfe\
ction. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
31.559 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 95-0319 at 3)Tj
-34.891 -1.125 Td
(\(App. Bd. Mar. 18, 1996\). )Tj
(It reviews a decision as a whole, rather than)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.492 0 Td
(focusing on isolated sentences or passages in it,)Tj
-28.492 -1.125 Td
(to discern what the Judge meant. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
13.357 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, DISCR Case No. 90-1874 at 4 \(App. Bd. July 30, 1993\). )Tj
(The Board's review)Tj
-16.689 -1.125 Td
(of a Judge's findings is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(limited to determining if they are supported by substantial evidence--su\
ch relevant evidence as a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support such a conclusion in\
light of all the contrary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.238 0 Td
(evidence in the)Tj
-39.238 -1.125 Td
(record. )Tj
(Directive \266 E3.1.32.1. "This is something less than the weight of the\
evidence, and the possibility of drawing)Tj
T*
(two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.829 0 Td
(prevent an administrative agency's finding from being)Tj
-22.829 -1.125 Td
(supported by substantial evidence." )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
14.433 0 Td
(Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
15.24 0 Td
(, 383 U.S. 607, 620, \(1966\). )Tj
(In this case, the)Tj
-29.673 -1.125 Td
(Judge's material)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.678 0 Td
(findings with respect Applicant's conduct of security concern reflect a \
reasonable or plausible)Tj
-6.678 -1.125 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence. )Tj
15.048 0 Td
(The Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
13.745 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Considering the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.248 0 Td
(record evidence as a)Tj
-39.041 -1.125 Td
(whole, the Judge's material findings of security concern are sustainable\
. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
28.949 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 96-0461 at 3 \(App.)Tj
-32.78 -1.125 Td
(Bd. Dec. 31, 1997\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(2\) Applicant also argues that the Judge should have concluded that th\
e security concerns raised by Applicant's alcohol)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consumption had been mitigated, as a matter of law, because Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.31 0 Td
(alcohol related incidents did not indicate a)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(rƑFFwOؤ)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0y
CEJP%4Vhb:@EgHh
8`.xڥ`{3wm֫eq]7䃜X=kwWX}UfBYŎ>v@HbڦeC9GH~'bhqк+bKLT?Jڥ3mPE-\8g+xG#q&1]d2r^xϜ g̢A}>0z\K6Y~dnuss\F;-c"?;|?z,~ԯ '
endstream
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
H|TT=\
ܙ`h$ɋ/1JMT(h,Xłbdž̈]G1&cЧﭷֹ{s3[U'a1ᱩK7(\18άaP ϋ1^@D~QUhkT2z
{ɅuJɸzŧ..sA@#gtp&s= -;Cx:|se
c+(qp?v`d*;4`(V̍(
TeR(CRY\Gɂ`wU
ysf(Q=we^{ @O|xI~ңJr+RX`(!7Y(nѣX%Ky.S֫\y
+Uc_Z5>
UNz4lԸIfA[|ܲU6m}>N!_o|{DȨzӯ쀁~<$~谟~>bd¨_F';.i䉓&OI:mfΙy,L[xem+VZk֮[a[nK߾#c{2Gf;~>sqq5Di$䧺
#`6t1e_Cx$OOKQBtRj)_+8e2E9
]_7.~\?_?`dw`+6ζΖn+X\n.oWCWSo3fbΰ8q0p%ERG预+IT%Gy!O SVA3kwBmvH]՞i/0G)4PK%=ҒCE0k"Cz![r$94}!ҿ
6oՖd`{ WYjjo.PpK^rt6]t1^JTnannܾ9'mތ<;\N#gߩjλnf]./ܹ; 7TFss99:M
VGeyvf[CL{ڗ[[VnY+3JOEfuVT˅j\9EZ!D Wz(W*/$Ӈp?֪XPSaU,(5c=]cϻ(+1㽟9#֊2 c1w1X i4 bf# Y/=s<,!EwD =HQ1 CNr=Sqgppy>荾A4!
1 Aq!p"0?a8~F:a$Fn9
;h&1 RJ94~şȗN*
hͧhɃQqZLKh)-dVjZCki
6fy@ɴ6JTJʠRI%/IP&}ET뱁*R%O2U!2A:nid&Y0M8K~?:Mg,CUjTj6yyo-q:o;y=3 _8>ȇ0ᣜ80<2<擲i>g|/ebxbxvvUk|oMŷ{!Ə1?ſhcx,$/NIRq+~ͿABn](RGccI dD$dcT|&>DG$BėR
RoB1#
ݙ3̿wiqwwwRkw bHqwH) $ys>In[d*r)wr+<(sɹ-:W1y\')yZg9A(?;Wkusٹ)K-$/+&ZznFnfn[Vn67Hjj%jFjƩjBZ&*H5UMS5Srsֺn;~跺=jڧ:#::N>g3`s&D%N>$^╸!^7x/>D$>H)"ULSCi#$)bHtY2Qf"JSV&EN9('ܔR>ʟi/ ʊrTPBTPQ*F)JA~:Q=TJS TSHODBFSh*M4f4fWzުwU>dRgvX0˒3{p:9=g3s8;0rNŹ9|94rW\].\ȍvcX7s.xw .%@.e]Nw-
\+w#W*\qu5:\q}n
7&Dqsn-6ܖۥf3ܑ;qg]w3Mw\чr?x <$p,3M1gsFǗ
PPEPP((DE9GTD%QUQ
Q5QQuQ
M-mD%tD'tFtE7tGoߢj鉾ºNb.KQ]Bԥt%]|mzyb摍h'b(a8F`(8L$LF"#a4S00300s0X"c1"%˰шA,XUXk ؊m؎؉]m6؇JAaQD<Ŀf>! 'y&N턋bb:$fnvfmfovm+檹fC9byv]`E6.?x'xg^%^5-=> IOHF5qs6w]s7')\77Msˏ#?_/~
_o6'dsҤTH(wA'Eӿ?=*߽3(!:g@T$F]c.")UFOKIWi ưqj)