%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:37:31-04:00
2021-07-02T15:37:30-04:00
2021-07-02T15:37:31-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-10340.a1
uuid:64fae516-9682-4e7e-a73a-c492a3aa5584
uuid:ae40126b-88f4-45c1-a780-9230397fa063
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
(04-10340.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/04-10340.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:37:31 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 6, 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. 04-10340)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 June 24,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns rai\
sed)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline C \(Foreign Preference\) and Guideline B \(Foreign Influ\
ence\) of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.128 0 Td
(Department of Defense Directive)Tj
-32.128 -1.125 Td
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\)\(Directive\). )Tj
18.578 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On January 24, 2006, after the hearing,)Tj
-31.045 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant's request for a secur\
ity clearance. )Tj
35.113 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed)Tj
-35.113 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.375 0 Td
(E3.1.30.)Tj
-16.375 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge's unfavorable clearance decision)Tj
T*
(under Guidelines C and B is arbitrary,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.497 0 Td
(capricious or contrary to law.)Tj
-15.497 -2.125 Td
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge's unfavorable clearance\
decision should be reversed because the Judge)Tj
T*
(improperly placed the burden of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.134 0 Td
(proving refutation, mitigation or extenuation of the government's securi\
ty concerns)Tj
-13.134 -1.125 Td
(upon the Applicant, even though the Applicant had not engaged in any)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.521 0 Td
(misconduct. )Tj
5.11 0 Td
(He also contends the Judge)Tj
-33.631 -1.125 Td
(improperly weighed the evidence. )Tj
13.856 0 Td
(In support of the latter contention, the Applicant essentially reargues \
his case,)Tj
-13.856 -1.125 Td
(pointing to a number of favorable circumstances which Applicant believes\
the Judge should have found sufficient to)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(overcome the government's security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.675 0 Td
(concerns.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 237.748 221.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 237.748 220.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 251.5542 216.75 Tm
( )Tj
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments persuasive.)Tj
-19.63 -2.125 Td
(The Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to rebut, explain, e\
xtenuate or mitigate facts that the Department)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Counsel proved or that Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.581 0 Td
(admitted regarding his family and legal ties to Egypt, and the Applicant\
also had the)Tj
-13.581 -1.125 Td
(ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security clear\
ance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.46 0 Td
(decision. Directive \266 E3.1.15. )Tj
12.117 0 Td
(The)Tj
-42.577 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole, bot\
h favorable and unfavorable, evaluate)Tj
T*
(Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(past )Tj
(and current circumstances in light of pertinent provisions of the Direct\
ive, and decide whether)Tj
T*
(Applicant had met his burden of persuasion under Directive)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.187 0 Td
(\266 Item E3.1.15.)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 99.75 Tm
(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 his mitigating evidence did n\
ot lead the Judge to the decision desired by)Tj
0 -1.385 TD
(Applicant does not establish error. )Tj
12 0 0 12 152.4667 74.25 Tm
(The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Admin\
istrative Judge)Tj
-11.372 -1.125 Td
(to make a favorable security clearance decision. )Tj
19.435 0 Td
(As the trier of fact,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.83 0 Td
(the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and)Tj
-27.265 -1.125 Td
(decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence\
or )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
31.375 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
(An applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.457 0 Td
(disagreement)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(^0+DL )
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 >wIJBlC?hHt
1}G]8qwFaRZ:\,/@*oQ2XIǥӓaMw;蔞u\P{ȠmADuXx:Iyi*>wP8O#q@7Y<oq߃cM5|L5Uq:y\'"29⤭W[7]*g!6hqJw@د [
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|TT=\(63$ɋ/1%DňĂu]Q,(**6eF:?5w}z+9k>e{uοA J Ў_רrZKx}B 7}~t\a' nu{͑mPeϨFX/)7pPa=G\qTکx.P"P
<^s*
H1Vbdq1NZdT$:fqA~3oG= ]W2dFbKx.UڧLYr+T篙̖@=UVqpjש[~7 i-Zjݦ>?o]~kXxEvѳW>1}0pO6_F?1 cǍO01i))SM1s9saR/Yl
Uu7lܴymvLߵ{ތ}3~
G/6Z[EQmjg5X{MM'1$LJf)i)e)c`,U,,, CWYnЋ^^Nz z>I/t}~P?/wB
ԯ`Vuu5Z&99ݜg3ggkgǂ¢3jlް9sK9_ OR:+e2UQAr;WxTgZ9ͤBqZvA=^`6
2R% %w-8C{)z=l=ޒCx0Y}ku՚~ΆCsg+gC-y%ZȷWWx){Utsws,Oy6(}#GG=GGmG-GMG
ǎj*ʎ 9ʝ]k+ʝ$7 ]ᚹ?7LF5s
kګ-v;lM.[-öז&{lmlml-m-l6lZ+mFQݦJu٥s>H+ԁ}zU+}HuU^H[6,z}gqۦ1W3cÜny}}n