%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:39:05-04:00
2021-07-02T15:39:05-04:00
2021-07-02T15:39:05-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-11571.a1
uuid:f8627532-221d-4704-9bf4-c0ec145acc62
uuid:345f431b-19a1-44f6-ba81-c78680a000b9
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
17 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
21 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
<><><><><><>]/P 18 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
25 0 obj
[32 0 R]
endobj
26 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-11571.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/04-11571.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:39:05 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: February 8, 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. 04-11571)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
-4.109 -2.2 Td
(D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.887 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0.07 -2.2 Td
(David P. Price, 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 August 11,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security conc\
erns raised)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline C \(Foreign Preference\) and Guideline B \(Foreign Influ\
ence\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.045 0 Td
(of Department of Defense Directive)Tj
-31.045 -1.125 Td
(5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992\), as amended \(Directive\). )Tj
18.828 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On June 22, )Tj
(2006, after the hearing,)Tj
-31.295 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant's request for a\
security clearance. )Tj
37.919 0 Td
(Applicant timely)Tj
-37.919 -1.375 Td
(appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.484 0 Td
(and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 298.4629 353.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 298.4629 352.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 323.25 Tm
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge's mat\
erial findings are supported by substantial)Tj
T*
(evidence; whether the Judge erred in taking)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.687 0 Td
(administrative notice of Government Document XV-- the decision of the)Tj
-17.687 -1.125 Td
(United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the\
case of )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
30.992 0 Td
(United)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(States v. Kim)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
8.221 0 Td
(, Criminal No. 97-)Tj
-39.213 -1.125 Td
(117-A; whether the Judge erred by )Tj
14.162 0 Td
(concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline B had not b\
een)Tj
-14.162 -1.125 Td
(mitigated.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(1\) Applicant argues generally that the Judge's findings of fact with \
respect SOR paragraphs 2.a through 2.d are not)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(supported by substantial evidence. )Tj
14.024 0 Td
(Applicant also specifically identifies two errors in the Judge's finding\
s--that)Tj
-14.024 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's stepfather is not employed by the U.S. government in South K\
orea, he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
33.118 0 Td
(is employed as a U.S. government)Tj
-33.118 -1.125 Td
(contractor located there, and that in the text of the decision, the Judg\
e mistakenly states that the allegation set forth in)Tj
T*
(paragraph 2.b of the SOR, rather than paragraph 1.b, was resolved in App\
licant's favor. )Tj
35.142 0 Td
(The Board does not find)Tj
-35.142 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's argument persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board's review of a Judge's findings is limited to determining if th\
ey are supported by substantial evidence--such)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(relevant evidence as a reasonable mind)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.881 0 Td
(might accept as adequate to support such a conclusion in light of all th\
e contrary)Tj
-15.881 -1.125 Td
(evidence in the record. )Tj
9.356 0 Td
(Directive \266 E3.1.32.1. "This is something less than the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.997 0 Td
(weight of the evidence, and the possibility)Tj
-31.354 -1.125 Td
(of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not preve\
nt an administrative agency's finding from)Tj
T*
(being supported by substantial evidence." )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
16.904 0 Td
(Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
15.24 0 Td
(, 383 U.S. 607, 620, \(1966\). )Tj
(The Board)Tj
-32.145 -1.125 Td
(does not review a case )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
9.246 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge's material finding\
s with respect)Tj
-9.246 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's circumstances of security concern reflect a plausible)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.947 0 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence and are supported)Tj
-25.947 -1.125 Td
(by substantial evidence. )Tj
9.831 0 Td
(They are therefore sustainable. )Tj
12.577 0 Td
(The two specific errors noted by the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.689 0 Td
(Applicant are harmless in)Tj
-37.097 -1.125 Td
(that they did not materially affect the outcome of the case.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
(A~R;w)
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H\ϊ0>EhmL(<q
k|ɔ.l@K&qY*"~a]o[xnh{3?VoE1&4Pn\9~C;^aoۛX}Zݹ"E!ZPq "i~^68iXoٌ[\c7Q(D~QD`Ӯn|$8!kfM\2',wqBV̊xϼ'>2YSdMI5%iff1gj'dQ$$x,؏"?=("=(.xNu5\WS]u5|A~BtE_+ vK
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
<>stream
H|T=ņ]{/Ea#hė$D@E%֨QQ,Xb^cA슽+ؽ?5^>}oٳgͷ7@ Ău_UM+vi!aQIK
1ko6,J; ݣ:ghf3NvE{#fRerd!2)cQ1Ctr:U} ?è!3'7
ȩ9 ڈ~c
<.]sbܐBSP"ߞ!UQTVjbq%cHY,g