%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:59:36-04:00
2021-07-02T15:59:36-04:00
2021-07-02T15:59:36-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
96-0785.a2
uuid:77eb7d61-6285-40b8-bc0d-2cb30ee81b1a
uuid:570b38f8-f2a0-4bc8-b2b6-0ff209e5668a
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
18 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
25 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
26 0 obj
[21 0 R 21 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
<><><><><><><><>]/P 19 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(96-0785.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/96-0785.a2.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:59:36 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: October 5, 1998)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. 96-0785)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
-0.861 -2.125 Td
(ON DEPARTMENT COUNSEL'S)Tj
-1.028 -2.125 Td
(MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)Tj
4.695 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 492 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 247.375 467.25 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-3.692 -2.125 Td
(Teresa A. Kolb, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
-3.847 -2.125 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.317 -2.125 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.527 -2.125 Td
(James. M. Moore, Esq.)Tj
-19.532 -2.125 Td
(On September 3, 1998, the Board issued a Appeal Board Decision and Reman\
d Order \(hereinafter "Remand Order"\) in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(this case. )Tj
3.916 0 Td
(Department Counsel submitted a Motion for Reconsideration on September 1\
0, 1998. )Tj
34.521 0 Td
(Applicant submitted a)Tj
-38.437 -1.125 Td
(Response )Tj
(to Department Counsel's Motion. )Tj
17.623 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes Department Counsel's)Tj
-17.623 -1.125 Td
(otion for Reconsideration is not well-founded.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Nothing in Executive Order 10865 or Department of Defense Directive 5220\
.6 addresses the question of whether the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Board has the authority to reconsider its decisions. )Tj
20.468 0 Td
(However, even in the absence of a pertinent statutory or regulatory)Tj
-20.468 -1.125 Td
(provision, an agency has the inherent authority to reconsider its decisi\
ons. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
29.854 0 Td
(Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Foundation v.)Tj
-29.854 -1.125 Td
(U.S. Postal Service)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.72 0 Td
(, 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 \(10th Cir. 1980\); )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(United States v. Sioux Tribe)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
27.249 0 Td
(, 616 F.2d 485, 493 \(Ct. Cl.)Tj
-34.969 -1.125 Td
(1980\),)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT2 1 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.553 0 Td
(, 446 U.S. 953 \(1980\). )Tj
(Furthermore, the Board has held that it has such authority in industrial\
security)Tj
-7.553 -1.125 Td
(clearance cases, DISCR Case No. 86-1802 \(September 23, 1988\), and spec\
ial education cases. )Tj
37.988 0 Td
(DDESS Case No. 97-001)Tj
-37.988 -1.125 Td
(\(April 9, 1998\). )Tj
(Accordingly, the Board has the authority to consider Department Counsel'\
s Motion for Reconsideration.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel contends the Administrative Judge's exclusion of poly\
graph evidence did not affect a substantive)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 166.5 cm
0 0 m
566.684 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 153.75 Tm
(right of Applicant)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 153 cm
0 0 m
85.98 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 101.9805 153.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(In support of that contention, Department Counsel argues: \(a\) Applican\
t does not have a right to a)Tj
-7.165 -1.125 Td
(security clearance; and \(b\) the Judge's exclusion of Applicant's proff\
ered polygraph evidence did not adversely affect a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(substantial right of Applicant. )Tj
12.192 0 Td
(The fact that Applicant has no right to a security clearance is irreleva\
nt to her procedural)Tj
-12.192 -1.125 Td
(rights under Executive Order 10865 and the Directive to respond to the e\
vidence against her and to have a reasonable)Tj
T*
(opportunity to present evidence in her behalf during the proceedings bel\
ow. )Tj
30.546 0 Td
(Even in the absence of a substantive right to)Tj
-30.546 -1.125 Td
(a security clearance, an applicant has procedural rights under Executive\
Order 10865 and the Directive which could be)Tj
T*
(impaired to the applicant's prejudice by an erroneous evidentiary ruling\
.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel contends, in the alternative, that )Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 46.5 cm
0 0 m
258.258 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 274.2578 47.25 Tm
(the Administrative Judge's exclusion of Applicant's proffered)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 274.2578 46.5 cm
0 0 m
294.252 0 l
h
S
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
(XRjJz)
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
-EqJ`iBd&54QE~t|JƐ31f~r4{ܱ]pMX,+y7f,|xLvPԵ+˔nn
/Ǔr;[Vcߛr>~?O~Iv26&Z-_b߾