%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:36:37-04:00
2021-07-02T15:36:36-04:00
2021-07-02T15:36:37-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-09488.a1
uuid:2b71d6f9-68d2-4d4d-9ac3-f8ce8d867614
uuid:a4df81db-6d5f-45c7-8b6c-6c011e603850
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
(04-09488.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/04-09488.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:36:37 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 29, 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. 04-09488)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
-4.97 -2.2 Td
(Edward W. Loughran, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.748 -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 September)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(23, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons \(SOR\) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--secur\
ity)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concerns raised under Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) and Guideline J \(\
Criminal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.686 0 Td
(Conduct\) of Department of Defense)Tj
-32.686 -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 April 7, 2006, after the)Tj
-35.265 -1.125 Td
(hearing, )Tj
3.499 0 Td
(Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant's request for a secur\
ity clearance. )Tj
35.113 0 Td
(Applicant timely)Tj
-38.612 -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 issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's adverse clearance decision under)Tj
T*
(Guidelines E and J is arbitrary, capricious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.995 0 Td
(or contrary to law.)Tj
-16.995 -2.125 Td
(Applicant argues that the Administrative Judge's adverse clearance decis\
ion should be reversed because the Applicant)Tj
T*
(did not deliberately or intentionally make)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.829 0 Td
(false statements in )Tj
7.637 0 Td
(response to three questions on his Security Clearance)Tj
-24.465 -1.125 Td
(Application \(SOR paragraphs 1.a through 1.c\). )Tj
18.968 0 Td
(It is Applicant's contention that his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.178 0 Td
(omission of three felony charges, one)Tj
-33.146 -1.125 Td
(Driving Under the Influence charge, and one failure to appear charge, oc\
curred because he had forgotten about the)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(incidents and misinterpreted the questions. )Tj
17.33 0 Td
(Applicant also argues that his inconsistent explanations at the hearing)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 558.2031 234.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 558.2031 234 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 216.75 Tm
(were due to the stress that was imposed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.052 0 Td
(upon him in preparing a case for a security clearance that he was lookin\
g)Tj
-16.052 -1.125 Td
(forward to receiving. )Tj
8.663 0 Td
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
-8.663 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's statements about his intent and state of mind when he execut\
ed his Security Clearance Application were)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(relevant evidence, but they were not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.744 0 Td
(binding on the Administrative Judge. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
15.109 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.582 0 Td
( ISCR Case No. 01-19278 at 6-7)Tj
-33.435 -1.125 Td
(\(App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2003\). As the trier of fact, the Judge had to consi\
der)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.854 0 Td
(Applicant's statements in light of the record)Tj
-28.854 -1.125 Td
(evidence as a whole, and Applicant's denial of any intent to provide fal\
se information did not preclude the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
45.222 0 Td
(from)Tj
-45.222 -1.125 Td
(weighing the record evidence and making )Tj
16.994 0 Td
(findings that contradicted Applicant's denials.)Tj
-16.994 -2.125 Td
(Reviewing the Administrative Judge's conclusions regarding SOR paragraph\
1.d, the Board is unable to discern whether)Tj
T*
(the Judge found for Applicant or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.33 0 Td
(against him on this portion of the SOR. )Tj
15.972 0 Td
(Furthermore, the Judge failed to make a formal)Tj
-29.302 -1.125 Td
(finding with respect to SOR paragraph 1.d. )Tj
17.469 0 Td
(The Judge's failure to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.844 0 Td
(make findings and reach conclusions with respect to)Tj
-26.313 -1.125 Td
(SOR paragraph 1.d was error under Directive \266 E3.1.25. )Tj
22.752 0 Td
(However, considering the other sustainable)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.55 0 Td
(adverse formal)Tj
-40.302 -1.125 Td
(findings, the Judge's error in this aspect of the case is harmless. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
25.563 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 02-07757 at 4 \(App. Bd. Mar. 29,)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(p<\nI.o7=)
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΅HS݅Q1hL
J#*"v4ذXPDTlˮU,X,}3sΜ9sf $AH-[W6K3&.aqkj ` ˦1 m
Wq}C 4Hph38v\$ @DG>pέ\øߏ>1q .s@;K숈p6 &0ح4ĉ#F'~b_^~: Q; Da-P}(n(( LP ζ Hyw}kU սQ *h~x!I
{HLppNjqQWԒF4iڬyO}[jߦm@:v
峠ݺ_|U_|o?〟~"":,6nF'2flN8irҔߦ&O>#efjڬs2Λ`řK²+VfZf
9i-[sm߱s={?p#EG?Qr3gK/]M7eγ0 m
b3yS0ɔJhZ
!U# TCUTGT%*zzTORI=Ri4Q)I$Lz%Uk"5#5eMvv6MPStuunz:IT\[VxxkermEƲBn#ʱr,ȳ*y]ΗE)|Mh0}=}-