%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:38:08-04:00
2021-07-02T15:38:08-04:00
2021-07-02T15:38:08-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-10821.a1
uuid:4884f2a8-e9db-47d9-af69-20fea7bc04d7
uuid:98abb550-a82f-4d69-8200-b9d6cf542460
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
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-10821.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/04-10821.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:38:08 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 19, 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. 04-10821)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 July 5, 2005,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(DOHA issued a statement of reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns rai\
sed under)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Guideline B \(Foreign Influence\) and Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) o\
f)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.992 0 Td
(Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan.)Tj
-28.992 -1.125 Td
(2, 1992, as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
13.662 0 Td
(Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. )Tj
25.128 0 Td
(On January 26,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2006,)Tj
-38.79 -1.125 Td
(after considering the record, )Tj
11.522 0 Td
(Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant's request fo\
r a security)Tj
-11.522 -1.125 Td
(clearance. )Tj
4.274 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.802 0 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-15.076 -2.125 Td
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Administrat\
ive Judge's unfavorable clearance decision)Tj
T*
(under Guidelines B is arbitrary, capricious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.245 0 Td
(or contrary to law; whether the Administrative Judge erred in concluding\
that)Tj
-17.245 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's falsification of her security clearance application was deli\
berate.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant argues that the Administrative Judge's adverse clearance decis\
ion should be reversed because it resulted from)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(bias on the part of the Judge,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.775 0 Td
(discrimination against the Applicant based upon her ethnic origin, and a\
n erroneous)Tj
-11.775 -1.125 Td
(application of the relevant disqualifying and mitigating conditions. )Tj
26.966 0 Td
(Applicant also argues that the Judge erred in)Tj
-26.966 -1.125 Td
(concluding that she had deliberately falsified her security clearance ap\
plication because the omission of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
43.178 0 Td
(information)Tj
-43.178 -1.125 Td
(at issue was the result of a mistake or misunderstanding on the part of \
the Applicant. )Tj
34.075 0 Td
(Finally, Applicant requests that the)Tj
-34.075 -1.125 Td
(Judge's adverse decision)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(be reversed because it will result in irreparable harm to the Applicant \
in the form of lost)Tj
T*
(employment. )Tj
5.499 0 Td
(The Board does not find Applicant's arguments)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.148 0 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
-24.647 -2.125 Td
(There is a rebuttable presumption that federal officials and employees c\
arry out their duties in good faith. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
42.375 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-45.706 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 00-0030 at 5 \(App. Bd. Sep.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(20, 2001\). There is also a rebuttable presumption that an Administrativ\
e)Tj
T*
(Judge is impartial and unbiased. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
13.108 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-0710 at 5 \(App. Bd. Mar.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(19, 2001\). A party seeking to)Tj
-16.94 -1.125 Td
(rebut either of those presumptions has a heavy burden of persuasion on a\
ppeal. )Tj
31.824 0 Td
(The issue is not whether Applicant)Tj
-31.824 -1.125 Td
(personally)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
4.416 0 Td
(believes that she has been discriminated against, but whether the record\
of the proceedings below contains)Tj
-4.416 -1.125 Td
(any indication that the Judge acted in a manner that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.826 0 Td
(would lead a reasonable person to question the fairness and)Tj
-20.826 -1.125 Td
(impartiality of the Judge. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
10.303 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR Case No. 01-04713 at 3 \(App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2003\). )Tj
(After)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reviewing the record)Tj
-10.303 -1.125 Td
(and the Judge's decision, the Board concludes that Applicant has not met\
her heavy burden of persuasion on the issue of)Tj
T*
(bias. )Tj
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.304 0 Td
(fails to identify anything in the record below that indicated or suggest\
s a basis for a reasonable person to)Tj
-6.304 -1.125 Td
(question the fairness or impartiality of the Judge in this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.329 0 Td
(case. )Tj
(The Judge's findings about the People's Republic of)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
(0z]}X\(MF)
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
H\j >wIJB[ȡhHt
qylOg>?y?ZyΈ=JK:04J.b-$ٰAͻLxdItJ/p#j=dж q^F:O#q@7Yhy2_e,Gǚ"g.qB\>D*L8WL\ׁωuqA[W:9w_9$~C"4
0 ;
"
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgv΅HS݅Q1hL
J#*"v4ذXPDTlˮU,X,}s9sgf $AH-[W6K+&.aqkj ` ˦1 m
Wq}C 4Hph38v\$ @DG>pέ\øݏ>1q .s{@;K숈p6 &ۏ0uX ld?Ǐx/CZf T(>
7
&(g[$Q<5|U սQ *h~xaC.)v|(*jծ\ݣ^}O
5V%V#?iҴYkڿMۀv;tعgA]uѳ罿>}~?<04,EDFE2tXl#GNeq0q)MM6}FԴYd̝7E3,eWZzu
r6Ҧ[n۾cy{`ÅG;~gΖ¹.^|]7nˀ՝g'`Ef`K)f*:KY,BB0G8&<^JT6dJszJ} giS*.HFJDjFj54
@Tmv6[9tt
u.\v +ڲ!{ɍeFc$9YNgU&y/SY|_wӇ#a-&zv3h
3[yƨhuzZ.֮jo[Vf*~Tl!
9*JBVB!\)
B
8XUZ
$u%iR{R[*.K7k
h5 M Pm6WΡNC./8|!g98pW98Drae4)\CF?V=dnUs)Q7\GK!53$B:PUZuF :)\w[Z[ZY,--ZZX[ZXcYʲW ;ePnfS/SOS)o355LL&4>5-{Sbc1ώ{}:֨U`1;\0p<
^ ٫K8f:(
! "\'
8ǿp