%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:58:13-04:00
2021-07-02T15:58:12-04:00
2021-07-02T15:58:13-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
96-0587.a1
uuid:2f986c05-4caa-45ba-9117-b0341587e5b9
uuid:a0b410ab-a062-47bb-b8b3-ed9d96d06a34
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
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(96-0587.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/96-0587.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:58:13 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
( March 24, 1997)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 51.3262 748.5 cm
0 0 m
79.318 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 723.75 Tm
(__________________________________________)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In Re:)Tj
T*
(----------------------- ISCR Case No. 96-0587)Tj
T*
(SSN: -----------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
T*
(__________________________________________)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 519 cm
0 0 m
110.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 251.21 494.25 Tm
(Martin H. Mogul, Esq.)Tj
0.431 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
0.276 -2.125 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 259.7002 442.5 cm
0 0 m
92.35 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 241.5508 417.75 Tm
(William H. Cashman, Esq.)Tj
-18.796 -2.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski issued a decision, dated De\
cember 2, 1996, in which she concluded it is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(not clearly consistent with the national)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applic\
ant)Tj
T*
(appealed. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Adminis\
trative Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and De\
partment of Defense Directive 5220.6)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992, as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(amended.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: \(1\) whether the Admi\
nistrative Judge erred by presuming a police)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(officer reported a conversation accurately)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(merely because he was acting within the scope of his official duties; an\
d \(2\))Tj
T*
(whether the Applicant met his burden of demonstrating mitigating circums\
tances)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(sufficient to warrant a favorable)Tj
T*
(security clearance decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.032 -2.125 Td
(Procedural History)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.032 -2.125 Td
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons\
\(SOR\) dated August 26, 1996 to Applicant.)Tj
T*
(The SOR was based on Criterion J)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(Criminal conduct\) and Criterion D \(Sexual behavior\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(A hearing was held on October 24, 1996. The Administrative Judge subsequ\
ently issued a decision in which she)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concluded it is not clearly consistent with the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applican\
t.)Tj
T*
(The case is before the Board on Applicant's appeal from that adverse dec\
ision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.225 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by presuming a police officer rep\
orted a conversation accurately merely)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 91.5 cm
0 0 m
541.107 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 78.75 Tm
(because he was acting within the scope of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(his official duties)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 78 cm
0 0 m
287.244 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 303.2441 78.75 Tm
(. The Administrative Judge found that Applicant engaged in)Tj
-23.937 -1.125 Td
(sexual misconduct with a minor boy as alleged in the SOR. In reaching th\
at)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(finding, the Judge stated "The [police])Tj
T*
(officer was acting within the scope of his official duties and it is pre\
sumed, absent proof to the contrary, that he reported)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(accurately what Applicant told him during the interview." Applicant cont\
ends the Judge erred because there is no such)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
(ػA_GP0x)
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0E
-EqXL $-d~cORC#Y\5:F3hn7{ݱmKMv7}s=doQϻx쳪r_ۼm,M.fuqt3ZVgukmomPWLs4}n4Y5gg{VbɰñSV8