%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:58:45-04:00
2021-07-02T15:58:44-04:00
2021-07-02T15:58:45-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
96-0710.a2
uuid:cadd2e9d-e592-4bed-b7a0-c3b43ec17389
uuid:648411ec-a080-436a-8fb6-1daf15d04289
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
[29 0 R 30 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(96-0710.a2)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/96-0710.a2.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:58:45 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(DATE:)Tj
( October 10, 1997)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 51.3262 748.5 cm
0 0 m
86.648 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 723.75 Tm
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(--------------------)Tj
T*
(SSN: -----------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
T*
(ISCR Case No. 96-0710)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.947 -2.125 Td
(Appearances)Tj
-2.016 -2.125 Td
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 250.7061 544.5 cm
0 0 m
110.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 246.2207 519.75 Tm
(Mathew E. Malone, Esq.)Tj
0.847 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
0.276 -2.125 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 259.7002 468 cm
0 0 m
92.35 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 249.2148 443.25 Tm
(James G. Smalley, Esq.)Tj
-19.435 -2.125 Td
(The government has appealed the June 30, 1997 Remand Decision of Adminis\
trative Judge Robert R. Gales that it is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearly consistent with the national interest)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. For the reasons\
set)Tj
T*
(forth below, the Board affirms the Remand Decision of the Administrative\
Judge.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and De\
partment of Defense \(DoD\) Directive 5220.6)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's appeal presents the issues of whether the Administrative Jud\
ge failed to comply with the Board's directions)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(on remand, specifically whether \(1\) the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(finding that Applicant has met his burden of proof on mitigation is supp\
orted by)Tj
T*
(the record evidence and \(2\) whether the Administrative Judge erred in \
his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(application of Mitigating Guideline 3 of the)Tj
T*
(Criminal Conduct Criterion \(Criterion J\).)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.032 -2.125 Td
(Procedural History)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.032 -2.125 Td
(A procedural history of this case may be found in the Board's June 20, 1\
997 Decision and Order for Remand. Following)Tj
T*
(issuance of the Administrative Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Remand Decision, Department Counsel lodged a timely appeal and filed an)Tj
T*
(appeal brief. Applicant filed a reply brief and the matter is now ready \
for final)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision by the Board.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.906 -2.125 Td
(Discussion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.906 -2.125 Td
(The Administrative Judge's original decision in this case resulted in a \
favorable determination for the Applicant. The)Tj
T*
(Judge's decision was based in large part)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(upon his conclusion that Applicant had successfully rehabilitated himsel\
f. On)Tj
T*
(appeal the Board ruled that the record evidence in the case did not reas\
onably)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(support that conclusion and that the)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(Judge's reliance on Criminal Conduct Mitigating Guideline 5)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 309.1094 117.75 Tm
(\(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 309.1094 117 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 320.478 113.25 Tm
( to find that the Applicant had overcome the)Tj
-25.373 -1.125 Td
(government's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(case was erroneous. In his remand decision the Judge coupled a finding o\
f some evidence of rehabilitation)Tj
T*
(with other Criminal Conduct Mitigating Guidelines)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 262.9727 87.75 Tm
(\(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 262.9727 87 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
/Span<>> BDC
12 0 0 12 274.3413 83.25 Tm
( )Tj
EMC
(and considerations under paragraph F.3 of the Directive to)Tj
-21.528 -1.125 Td
(support his favorable finding.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel asserts that the Administrative Judge failed to compl\
y with the Board's instructions on remand and)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
("g8>R)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\j@\,BќEhuƸ;_>ЀM&IVםMCSWA/5jz~5Iܼ]:=1ynx>-JCOkdm=c|KѾgImz݆qVm_)J/mQj(IM>x̍dmc]xx4'O}S씝' zʞ3v~f?gz^Wzޠ3z2x2222NSx_ lB&c;4,0˒D,0˚F/w;:Nh'|'fQ^Cяc?cbۦq~W )
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
H|y\TG5o^p xxEY5YWtͮFvjԍ"(ITP/D[</[>fDu\5?~~ ^H7oYba
fʢ
jDI2$|}7I&g0ďi\:@0 Sbֱ৭/#%&$>qS6Wm"%6\sxhnjlo8bt3 G]?qTtfBoB4Őȭ*/^ɲF@s? A
JJtFt:EYzjZ?_=/DxmFE8%:W
o~jש[~h
VC5nf
m>s6m?/a>nߡcΟtn{|3zorA3$vhܰ#GO)SwӦHK9+cv朹/Zhd/Ybkk nܴymwܵ{Oޒ}P#G?q
9{pz:b!b:`295M_M$JR4SʓʥZ/mO[(OSߦ߫w8p< TcqqIcbTTߤ3u3E4A>AFFT}TP
Vajՙ<5OWbT=WԻ!a!B:
2YrhNfy\dvnlcomlh~zVݾijG#ɑrVvSh~B)X
&HSR^hkhrr۽>RZ[!zMw;ܜn*oߣc8dV~6oast66ɦ]>"r2p}ʬ@zʑ֢Ce`kWkkCkkk+kko%#rrre)쳔XDee%b-$N(4VֆE/Tnnn5~(G^R\,
A3ak-]$L/w+=u~ܷ_uxlmHxd{FyN,,"W;~x|L-^Y^Θo^Pt.O4ӯ7N +o]|ca|& N<