%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:33:15-04:00
2021-07-02T15:33:14-04:00
2021-07-02T15:33:15-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-07703.a1
uuid:37e41fb1-6036-42cd-8583-1be52b2da55e
uuid:67c4a69d-0e75-4036-a748-c46eb9439e34
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 33 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-07703.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/04-07703.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:33:14 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 17, 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. 04-07703)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 or\
continue a security clearance for Applicant.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(On August 5, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons \(SOR\) advising)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant of the basis for that decision-)Tj
T*
(security concerns under Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\), of Department \
of Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992\), as)Tj
T*
(amended \(Directive\). )Tj
8.746 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.193 0 Td
(requested a hearing. )Tj
8.274 0 Td
(On June 19, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joan)Tj
-21.213 -1.125 Td
(Caton Anthony denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
27.004 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.995 0 Td
(Directive)Tj
-43.999 -1.125 Td
(\266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Judge made extensive findings of fact which are a matter of record a\
nd need not be repeated in detail here. )Tj
44.647 0 Td
(They)Tj
-44.647 -1.125 Td
(will be cited as necessary in addressing material issues raised by Appli\
cant on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.463 0 Td
(appeal. )Tj
3.109 0 Td
(The Judge found against)Tj
-34.573 -1.125 Td
(Applicant on all eight allegations raising security concerns under Guide\
line E. )Tj
31.546 0 Td
(Six of these allegations involved)Tj
-31.546 -1.125 Td
(falsification or deliberate omission of relevant and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.41 0 Td
(material facts from her security clearance application and the other)Tj
-20.41 -1.125 Td
(two involved adverse information concerning problems with former employe\
rs. Her appeal starts by asserting)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(insufficiency of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.553 0 Td
(proof concerning the latter two issues.)Tj
-6.553 -2.375 Td
(Applicant first asserts that the Judge erred in finding against her unde\
r SOR \266 1.h,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 409.3516 234.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 409.3516 234 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 423.1577 230.25 Tm
( because there was insufficient)Tj
-33.93 -1.125 Td
(evidence to prove she was the person who made the unauthorized calls fro\
m her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.267 0 Td
(employer's phone. )Tj
(The Judge chose to)Tj
-32.267 -1.125 Td
(base her findings on the contemporaneous substantiating documentation su\
pplied by this previous employer over)Tj
T*
(Applicant's inconsistent denials and stated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.149 0 Td
(inability to remember making the calls. )Tj
15.968 0 Td
(She next asserts that the proof of her)Tj
-33.117 -1.375 Td
(being terminated, as alleged in SOR \266 1.a,)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 218.0547 177.75 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 218.0547 177 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 231.8608 173.25 Tm
( was false. )Tj
(In support of this position she merely restates her version of the)Tj
-17.988 -1.125 Td
(reasons she was fired, a version noted and rejected in the decision belo\
w. )Tj
29.518 0 Td
(The Judge again chose to base her findings on)Tj
-29.518 -1.125 Td
(the contemporaneous substantiating documentation from the former)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
27.409 0 Td
(employer rather than accept Applicant's otherwise)Tj
-27.409 -1.375 Td
(uncorroborated version of events.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 177.2793 134.25 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 177.2793 133.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 104.25 Tm
(The Appeal Board's review of the Judge's findings of fact is limited to \
determining if they are supported by substantial)Tj
T*
(evidence - "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.229 0 Td
(adequate to support such a conclusion in light)Tj
-29.229 -1.125 Td
(of all the contrary evidence in the record." )Tj
17.15 0 Td
(Directive \266 E3.1.32.1. )Tj
9.034 0 Td
("This is something less than the weight of the)Tj
-26.185 -1.125 Td
(evidence, and the possibility of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.719 0 Td
(drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent \
an)Tj
-12.719 -1.125 Td
(administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evid\
ence." )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
31.858 0 Td
(Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
15.24 0 Td
(,)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(!\ntA.m6Z)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
H\j@}l.lhNE4B]e5}gC
t?Ysv]]=ݷs]oodskEloӳl.%|] L!G\gᛯjv O`"٘/R^M8y%0%رdʶ+JrErmLvk//w,֏Ha;N >'eT&0)keLfSdSͦ 8QN2jZ@@Ȓf Y,!K%diIV2