%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T16:03:54-04:00
2021-07-02T16:03:54-04:00
2021-07-02T16:03:54-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
97-0765.a1
uuid:ef0fae10-a22a-41cf-968e-3b841696eac8
uuid:73d8cc11-c1c8-4176-abbf-01c62fc02cc6
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
(97-0765.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/97-0765.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/2/2021 4:03:54 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: December 1, 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. 97-0765)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
12 0 0 12 247.375 518.25 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-4.193 -2.125 Td
(Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.971 -2.125 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.541 -2.125 Td
(Richard J. Magee, Esq.)Tj
-19.519 -2.125 Td
(Administrative Judge Jerome H. Silber issued a decision, dated July 6, 1\
998 in which he concluded it is clearly)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consistent)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for\
Applicant. )Tj
36.515 0 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
-36.515 -1.125 Td
(appealed. )Tj
4.053 0 Td
(For the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's de\
cision.)Tj
-4.053 -2.125 Td
(This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and De\
partment of Defense Directive 5220.6)Tj
T*
(\(Directive\), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel's appeal presents the following issues: \(1\) whether\
the Administrative Judge erred by excluding a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(edical Information Questionnaire; \(2\) whether the Administrative Judge\
's findings are not supported by substantial)Tj
T*
(evidence; and \(3\) whether the Administrative Judge's decision is arbit\
rary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Procedural History)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons\
\(SOR\) dated November 19, 1997 to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(The SOR was based on Criterion H \(Drug Involvement\), Criterion E \(Per\
sonal Conduct\), and Criterion J)Tj
-4.443 -1.125 Td
(\(Criminal Conduct\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(A hearing was held on February 18, 1998. )Tj
17.107 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge subsequently issued a written decision on July \
6,)Tj
-17.107 -1.125 Td
(1998 in which he concluded it is clearly consistent with the national in\
terest to grant or continue a security clearance for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(The case is before the Board on Department Counsel's appeal from that fa\
vorable decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-4.443 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by excluding a Medical Informatio\
n Questionnaire)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 115.5 cm
0 0 m
439.189 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 467.1895 116.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(At the request of the)Tj
-37.599 -1.125 Td
(Defense Security Service \(DSS\), a Medical Information Questionnaire \(\
MIQ\) was prepared by a psychologist who had)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(treated Applicant. )Tj
7.414 0 Td
(At the hearing, Department Counsel offered the MIQ as evidence. )Tj
26.657 0 Td
(Applicant objected )Tj
7.831 0 Td
(to the)Tj
-41.901 -1.125 Td
(admission of the MIQ. )Tj
(The Administrative Judge sustained Applicant's objection and excluded th\
e MIQ from evidence.)Tj
T*
(On appeal, Department Counsel contends the Judge's exclusion of the MIQ \
was error because the MIQ would be)Tj
T*
(admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 \(FRE 807\). )Tj
23.995 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
(R}mqnQ+PI)
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