%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:44:39-04:00
2021-07-02T15:44:38-04:00
2021-07-02T15:44:39-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
05-02373.a1
uuid:0ed95bb1-4988-436a-b3dc-9edac3718e6d
uuid:c348828d-4179-4150-aeca-04687ee5ad9b
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
[28 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(05-02373.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/05-02373.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:44:38 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: September 13, 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. 05-02373)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
-6.414 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.192 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-4.262 -2.2 Td
(Henry L. Young, Personal Representative)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 July 29,)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 J \(Criminal Conduct\), Guideline G \(Alcohol Consumptio\
n\) and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.356 0 Td
(Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) of)Tj
-32.356 -1.125 Td
(Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended\) \(Di\
rective\). )Tj
32.377 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On)Tj
-44.844 -1.125 Td
(March)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(28, 2006, after the hearing, )Tj
13.912 0 Td
(Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant's request for a \
security)Tj
-13.912 -1.375 Td
(clearance.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 64.2871 353.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 64.2871 352.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 78.0933 348.75 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant timely appealed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.052 0 Td
(pursuant to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 324.75 Tm
(Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Administrat\
ive Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised by)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(Applicant's history)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.791 0 Td
(of criminal conduct and alcohol consumption had not been mitigated; and \
whether the Administrative Judge erred in concluding)Tj
-7.791 -1.231 Td
(that Applicant had deliberately)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
12.606 0 Td
(falsified material facts on her security clearance application and in a \
statement to a government investigator.)Tj
-12.606 -2.462 Td
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have concluded that t\
he security concerns raised by her criminal conduct and alcohol)Tj
T*
(consumption were)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.609 0 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
4.277 0 Td
(In support of that contention, Applicant essentially reargues her case w\
ith respect to the evidence she presented below)Tj
-11.886 -1.231 Td
(and provides additional)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.637 0 Td
(explanations as to the circumstances and dispositions of several of the \
criminal incidents at issue. Applicant also contends)Tj
-9.637 -1.231 Td
(that she did not deliberately falsify)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.163 0 Td
(material facts on her security clearance application and in a statement \
to a government investigator. )Tj
40.04 0 Td
(In support of)Tj
-54.202 -1.231 Td
(that contention, Applicant argues that the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.745 0 Td
(omission of material information was due to confusion or forgetfulness. \
)Tj
28.966 0 Td
(The Board does not find)Tj
-45.711 -1.231 Td
(Applicant's contentions persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.462 TD
(The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.714 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(Directive \266 E3.1.29. )Tj
9.922 0 Td
(Accordingly, we may not consider Applicant's additional)Tj
-31.636 -1.231 Td
(explanations, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.248 0 Td
(they do not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.)Tj
-7.248 -2.462 Td
(The Applicant has not met her burden of demonstrating that the Judge err\
ed in concluding that the security concerns presented by her criminal)Tj
0 -1.231 TD
(conduct and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
5.109 0 Td
(alcohol consumption had not been mitigated. )Tj
18.246 0 Td
(Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge's conclusions, she \
has not)Tj
-23.355 -1.231 Td
(established that those)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.804 0 Td
(conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
22.63 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive \266 E3.1.32.3.)Tj
-31.434 -2.462 Td
(Applicant's statements about her intent and state of mind when she execu\
ted her security clearance application, and when she was interviewed by)Tj
T*
(the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(government agent, were relevant evidence, but they were not binding on t\
he Administrative Judge. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
41.209 0 Td
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 01-19278 at 6-7)Tj
-41.209 -1.231 Td
(\(App. Bd. Apr. 22,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2003\). As the trier of fact, the Judge had to consider Applicant's stat\
ements in light of the record evidence as a whole, and)Tj
T*
(Applicant's denial of any intent to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.788 0 Td
(falsify material facts did not preclude the Judge from weighing the reco\
rd evidence and making findings that)Tj
-13.788 -1.231 Td
(contradicted Applicant's denials.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(F4\(JcA"Dj?)
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
Cq5 (Y9 t1{OK3$!K;=w7=(|sWmX^w/2N~]