%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:59:52-04:00
2021-07-02T15:59:51-04:00
2021-07-02T15:59:52-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
96-0869.a1
uuid:dd6370c5-9fe6-46fc-b823-8e976e7332d1
uuid:ae21ea4e-fcd0-4999-a267-23aacfa1c338
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]
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
(96-0869.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/96-0869.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:59:51 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 11, 1997)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. 96-0869)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.641 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION AND REVERSAL ORDER)Tj
8.793 -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
-4.539 -2.2 Td
(Michael H. Leonard, Esq, Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.317 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.402 -2.2 Td
(Joshua R. Treem, Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(Administrative Judge Robert R. Gales issued a decision, dated April 24, \
1997, in which he concluded it is not clearly)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consistent with the national interest to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. )Tj
36.515 0 Td
(Applicant appealed. )Tj
8.247 0 Td
(For the)Tj
-44.762 -1.125 Td
(reasons set forth below, the Board reverses the Administrative 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 was biased against Applicant; \(2\))Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(whether the Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(misapplied the Directive by requiring abstinence; and \(3\) whether the \
Administrative)Tj
T*
(Judge failed to apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guideline\
s.)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 to Applicant a Stateme\
nt of Reasons \(SOR\) dated December 9,)Tj
T*
(1996. )Tj
(The SOR was based on Criterion G)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(Alcohol Consumption\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(A hearing was held on March 20, 1997. )Tj
16.107 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge subsequently issued a decision is which he conc\
luded)Tj
-16.107 -1.125 Td
(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
42.736 0 Td
(The case is)Tj
-42.736 -1.125 Td
(before the Board on Applicant's appeal from that adverse decision.)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 was biased against Applicant)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 132 cm
0 0 m
307.582 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 335.582 132.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge)Tj
-26.632 -1.125 Td
(demonstrated bias against him because: \(a\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge based his adverse decision, in part, on conduct that was not a\
lleged)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(in the SOR; \(b\) the Judge made a finding about a diagnosis of Applican\
t in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contravention of the Judge's earlier ruling)Tj
T*
(about that diagnosis; \(c\) the Judge acted as a prosecutor when questio\
ning Applicant; and \(d\) the Judge rendered)Tj
T*
(unsubstantiated medical opinions and analysis about Applicant that are n\
ot supported by the record evidence and are in)Tj
T*
(contravention to the Directive. )Tj
12.468 0 Td
(For the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons that follow, the Board concludes that Applicant has demonstrated\
some)Tj
-12.468 -1.125 Td
(errors by the Judge, but Applicant has failed to demonstrate bias by the\
Judge.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
(ooB2Pk)
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0E
-EpDLYA~cORC#YRA-mhzǶioMK3mTm7|Sٙ,%^OphMQ#xuGZck{u?z۱],l{-Oj!my_G)/ک͇2U[++e8)YbP;N?Te4E8-MNK✜)xFف,`O9y~"?%xE^5xCNnnnnnn>>¾} xAA/BOS)t nnnnn