%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:34:36-04:00
2021-07-02T15:34:36-04:00
2021-07-02T15:34:36-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-08824.a1
uuid:48353ef4-1298-42d8-9428-917b5307f255
uuid:6348394d-5363-4df0-bee7-49d7b36ac6fd
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
[30 0 R 31 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-08824.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/04-08824.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:34:36 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: November 16, 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. 04-08824)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
/TT0 1 Tf
0.208 -2.2 Td
(John L. Tison, Esq.)Tj
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 May 31,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(SOR\) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security conc\
erns)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(raised under Guideline F \(Financial Considerations\) and Guideline E \(\
Personal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.826 0 Td
(Conduct\) of Department of Defense)Tj
-31.826 -1.125 Td
(Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
22.798 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On May 31, 2006, after the)Tj
-35.265 -1.125 Td
(hearing, )Tj
3.499 0 Td
(Administrative Judge James A. Young denied Applicant's request for a sec\
urity clearance. )Tj
36.335 0 Td
(Applicant timely)Tj
-39.834 -1.125 Td
(appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.123 0 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-15.123 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Administrat\
ive Judge erred by concluding that the security)Tj
T*
(concerns raised under Guideline F had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.662 0 Td
(not been mitigated; whether the Administrative Judge erred in concluding\
)Tj
-15.662 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's falsification of his security clearance application was deli\
berate; and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.39 0 Td
(whether the Administrative Judge erred)Tj
-32.39 -1.375 Td
(in concluding the security concerns raised under Guideline E had not bee\
n mitigated.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 424.2051 287.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 424.2051 286.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 257.25 Tm
(\(1\) Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge erred in concludi\
ng that the security concerns raised by his history)Tj
T*
(of financial difficulties had not been)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.772 0 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
4.277 0 Td
(In support of that contention, Applicant argues that he is making regula\
r)Tj
-19.049 -1.125 Td
(payments to his creditors on each of his debts and the creditors are)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.853 0 Td
(accepting those payments. )Tj
10.774 0 Td
(It is Applicant's position)Tj
-37.627 -1.125 Td
(that his actions constitute a formal payment plan--in the form of a cont\
ract based upon an offer and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
39.875 0 Td
(acceptance, as)Tj
-39.875 -1.375 Td
(contemplated in the case of )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
11.19 0 Td
(Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
16.526 0 Td
(1 Q.B. 256 \(C.A. 1893\).)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 464.9277 204.75 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 464.9277 204 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 478.7339 200.25 Tm
( )Tj
(The Board does not)Tj
-38.561 -1.125 Td
(find this argument)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.582 0 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
-7.582 -2.125 Td
(The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole per\
son factors does not turn simply on a finding)Tj
T*
(that one or more of them apply to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.135 0 Td
(particular facts of a case. )Tj
10.216 0 Td
(Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound)Tj
-25.351 -1.125 Td
(discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.187 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(01-14740 at 7 \(App. Bd. Jan.15, 2003\).)Tj
-21.187 -1.125 Td
(Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the\
Judge to make a favorable security clearance)Tj
T*
(decision. )Tj
3.833 0 Td
(As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and\
decide whether the favorable evidence)Tj
-3.833 -1.125 Td
(outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT2 1 Tf
15.994 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
(An applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the)Tj
-20.02 -1.125 Td
(evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the e\
vidence, is not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.125 0 Td
(sufficient to demonstrate the Judge)Tj
-33.125 -1.125 Td
(weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrar\
y, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this case, the Administrative Judge found that Applicant had a length\
y history of not meeting financial obligations,)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(}֑Pl)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0yC%Q%V?tH#DxqIE_$U}]?=Yv\{'66CE20ԮEQlD,]Wլdܼ,SYBzik;Lbٺe5Ń~fhaк+"U⌫|Kg ibO']y3j2kTw9sN5yO|`>7EԑH>Tgf