%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:41:51-04:00
2021-07-02T15:41:50-04:00
2021-07-02T15:41:51-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
05-00708.a1
uuid:12c21045-8f38-4731-9481-6e7a5a0dbfff
uuid:010c1dd7-7a37-4fe9-bd8b-b371b274eb1a
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
14 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
[17 0 R 17 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
[17 0 R 17 0 R]
endobj
17 0 obj
<><>]/P 15 0 R/Pg 12 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(05-00708.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/05-00708.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:41:51 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 21, 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. 05-00708)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
/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
(30, 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 F \(Financial Considerations\) of Depart\
ment of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.991 0 Td
(Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992,)Tj
-31.991 -1.125 Td
(as amended\) \(Directive\). )Tj
10.162 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On April 4, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.217 0 Td
(artin)Tj
-45.846 -1.125 Td
(H. Mogul denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. )Tj
24.754 0 Td
(Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive \266\266)Tj
-24.754 -1.125 Td
(E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrati\
ve Judge erred by concluding that the security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concerns raised under Guideline F had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.662 0 Td
(not been mitigated.)Tj
-15.662 -2.125 Td
(Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge erred in concluding tha\
t the security concerns raised by her history of)Tj
T*
(financial difficulties had not been)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
13.689 0 Td
(mitigated. )Tj
4.277 0 Td
(In support of that contention, Applicant essentially reargues her case w\
ith)Tj
-17.966 -1.125 Td
(respect to the evidence she presented below and also argues that the Jud\
ge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.961 0 Td
(erred with respect to his findings about when)Tj
-29.961 -1.125 Td
(she first sought counseling. )Tj
11.193 0 Td
(The Board does not find Applicant's contention persuasive.)Tj
-11.193 -2.125 Td
(The findings which Applicant challenges are permissible characterization\
s by the Administrative Judge. )Tj
41.848 0 Td
(Applicant has)Tj
-41.848 -1.125 Td
(not met her burden of demonstrating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.885 0 Td
(that the Judge's material findings with respect to her conduct of securi\
ty concern do)Tj
-14.885 -1.125 Td
(not reflect a reasonable or plausible interpretation of the record evide\
nce. )Tj
29.542 0 Td
(Considering the record evidence as a whole,)Tj
-29.542 -1.125 Td
(the Judge's material findings of security concern are sustainable.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this case, the Administrative Judge found that Applicant had a length\
y history of not meeting financial obligations. )Tj
47.268 0 Td
(At)Tj
-47.268 -1.125 Td
(the time the case was submitted for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.357 0 Td
(decision, Applicant still had significant outstanding debts. )Tj
23.469 0 Td
(In light of the foregoing,)Tj
-37.826 -1.125 Td
(the Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant's financial problems were)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.42 0 Td
(still ongoing. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
5.528 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 03-26213 at)Tj
-34.949 -1.125 Td
(2 \(App. Bd. Aug. 23, 2006\). )Tj
(The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against t\
he length)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
45.072 0 Td
(and)Tj
-45.072 -1.125 Td
(seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible app\
lication of relevant mitigating conditions. )Tj
45.851 0 Td
(The)Tj
-45.851 -1.125 Td
(Judge articulated a rational basis for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.717 0 Td
(not applying any mitigating conditions in this case, and reasonably expl\
ained why)Tj
-14.717 -1.125 Td
(the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.603 0 Td
(insufficient to overcome the government's security)Tj
-26.603 -1.125 Td
(concerns. )Tj
(The Board does not review a case )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
17.798 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.628 0 Td
(not sufficient)Tj
-42.427 -1.125 Td
(to demonstrate the Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, caprici\
ous, or contrary to law. )Tj
/TT3 1 Tf
37.726 0 Td
(See, e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(ISCR Case No.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
21 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
(L"zo6[J݈)
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\j >wId/(.?4$:Iƈ1}G]0~}n";0j$6,/@ioU[Iǹ5 AջOjS贙tGfhwP:OfpDכ (jWQyd({Dg%&qB\>DDq|N|UVdFȔ`^9=>w9L
.H` ,
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
H|XTgv΅HS݅bAH /$D@#*"v4lbÊ""b^v]bE/97wΜ3ww9:!ߴj[$7Eąg .["&hķ9