Q4}`//j Ui
PE:ڨq9;5gaJVuu '~{m\9>-22~KS%jemA/R^/*߄t䩭V]c 4`zS"D*
"-.憾ɼA{'Db Z:`b4U=m~uS|@cT%^1},9O1P3]m\HՈ4\<
y"^Q>%'WKd -A<^uh 4O.ZWujƑp@_i= W 9f q!ĝp^9k rO9h<G[W au /cн9ƼkeGz3y :Xqj?} ,`⽒]e_xS!^v[]`% W__wGߔP h[[5 sDsךQOe$8r~ʹ)0ENy A9r>\ZBBl_Պ^s$~Ys; ENq{>}y7]9ߧ:=&:5moĖ}7ܫo(,{ de;5\c
L A.toNm߶i>9jBE
Χyӧ:- }SjU r6>5 %#ޠ9~6߁-si0HwzVg z$
1ǔ T@zt6jHus3AvE?rW}іNT ~ Xwl%fAn|g=VX 9%(yx(눳Nû#CF5h5eS|Wfx3E8Hě.33ꛍi?5So DK2GS:mhMI!QBo|c M| X4;>~?z45)=~@v.w/3C ?|='z֭B#_=
z [@aSCs@7Y ogm(a\א 2 8ho`+ eno# i@W^YUG|P)%5
*8дa @ ,i-,1F1!!(kBlBYR!"Kʚ#"zXT7Ghs/2wܙ pHdN/{߇FB.ugFd:Sucsvq~-y<<0@f`s[&I2
<_$ |3yf/.1!_%;c}&E_Ez2= OwK>JOj)Y;:gll]"cE=m>p4O}@bBAȔ{y&oYi O/ rHw&4YK5KC~Y:yNGE8EU= 73_DE[dMxoN>jȎL%8q]i넟9 p&51g Jp x̟goYw-[F@DY)|Y%5Jc_y(&v ce
_;;cڪpBiSTq dWmlp
yt-%DZ2%+h_j:~};YUCq!82>_iJE}ֆ.D/kI}[a ~8}(5)\`{%Z6)X%Q>zE@el-MJIθس ^W&Zt<8)GmpO U>{1*jIAh- ?
wmݽ]kȃwTY է
5BWR|[ -q P"PHND-oQ*K
{ÇLbiMUrj,jnľ\X0DĚx2]S|:}*s n
RָF j.Uh~Fa4G
N=
}j7Dcuf i&|cB9lGT6Nz5@ ђr$ggc{iu^&}=0MTi4n
l;2 g /ڽ#k0-cycw4M^bdj'
Ww;8woΰ>d>1tz7;G~)C>P9:uQ'W9kJ|d=ߨ>g]qO;' x- dO IE
*<kϔMdKoƠۓ/UmS4j5W^x7'L~E=TY|PޛJ
;=>Mߌu+U%H>frB -\^o{ϼ\,~c7 4 OP5g0o>xIu {?D 5_MRO/aGVZfB`|kuҀ"2桾_ 9*čp{s#}pL6;B H<>C<
y6PD?~X
!VSP}&Iq ŷ ׁO/MB{5\Ug
32LϺ|aN/XŴs _ـLC˨ ?vڂtb:`<~wНij&ZI- {}8/t+g@Wé&{KEFwW{\o* ۀx,q)^Zjr_E}v3.UŷԹhΧj?e9ghvx]dWYW3!l5: OB]nv5l/GCA{-7:mnh}Cl֩v a
4JllĞ1>.B ^}~ҀӼÜYgM5yt>*]y'G3
o"'+m|e# gtf0qe==sYxLN2b@ @@wk⿲kiܷΣ);(~
!'ϑ=4Jr~ 5 =s97 #5@ Q*VB)g4Jx(G @a+ 201cxSB HEJyC+Mn{"NOع={v{~!Ipo9VvUp?dWc!}b Ge1Jdu^Ur
z {e8]TF9/߇: r X՜T_j0E֧v7zv"wz]"=ZSy7]К>x4I,8½}'dK Ͽn{rZUG몑7CB5}h]sG
U$2WTr#XOCʝv9٣Q 6pǢV4}XGҐ긫:g!/g8.?Ry} K釪FZ=wa6:uF/@Gcƽؿ-9f9Cd }!>z \ pMp>s?7UkU_ e~Um
ZQ5V]]f!&1~70s` $c(B q S>A&;eM8sk]rGulr xgua7Y"I1EVuȴʵI{! IC~HE~:awU'z}'~fmTۙ{ 12N1p\tvlU u;CZ. +@ x/|b{f Zo7
O^Y|
#+s ~Ou̔K~ѹ -cќgOy?
\ab;8.Ә{6ҽX8 'D;EH Cw;zMPHna< =0JwoO$cL2+\-a%]2VyVX[:m!)zKuIj9tuw K ArM$$9eʇ|D T%^*yPX~h %-F=W8)L[6-:>- x-e]rƵMf-u>J4 !-#*+++ 'BJжAۡ?lLH)$)&92JGPW5|ޕ*Ƕ<WB۞:kmeNᆵJ9Bv2ojT1E]g Wu.Ho k wXu]rv[R<êHN2c8KQu]r[s/s5Ч\٭F?apr=} l1Lg WƸ. +w$<^u9D}Odw:&4>/g,9B~vKO< ܷbC6)bjIX/ثv|n\x>aL%eV Q3R7{S9qo qǵ=q'vSw:`yrQ>Ϡp[!nv;yysNΏdo mZ핝5_ #M\wI9$Jߟ&Haҁz3iWU:sYќ阊xZ/_7 cQ]}^ ;D,
N 3%b {>hC'+s+wܛe!OBXM%./.D ";H
QEawP P`0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 b1UX6j!Ys u&6_؏_05˯ÊeP]ʟei=-'c6rڇe l[ ʟe^|X>sXA+F
L@~1d<&#oZ>eG=ZI7g682'?_o^fk&?/G̱'p;cPC)Y~< ڷB[JMk)HuxW}lS=~ yĄb$?; |5/ċ{vC"H]贏nn$FX<
H&M b&:ƦI-4Mν6 ZMZUs~;s3dH B0a9Fx
Fc`eicQOl GgEA J|BxSʫLwF0&eXrV[(ka V:5-!r{
,l>
f Mv{_ɇ},ٞ9.y~U[t`̠;# vƓx2<Ozh }уcS)g!#⡲84] crl OOX`tG,-U}Xbn OG->6ILGRX4EcO'i0z h"pP`tp8iɈSt{tĘLi01qD4bFkSh,Lo{ :avSa1NA5SpĘ'i| (z?zO #CҋQowj 6$?㓽hAрxSȠZx OŷEoe)ݪt{8k֪ܱJQ ,- ,@$ ,Z5<*gśmlcz;P&}ẢhM!*ƣ %鯉0uQ/'vR.$@XavYt>H Ă*ų/k<__GJX/'iKDH iQ^%\97ƪQqb7qP0kz5=ᐅu⨬.`OQ^~)rG(bZ(lҡ^_`jEi /w. D'`NqٚU;ޫ3ܹ[gy ReZ $SX٨U2jkZ ;աUޫ]Or]op5i͚
9O\zmmb
^XjsY'\ɓ/aiѠg o8r:l YP 盡/^wXKisơ-JtP:`1NK_ھKUuZ,F݀vBdߣ:6,GCإ Ҹq/%I2C:7&~N~lhKZ dsΐ=W
q [y[6j t[mVo-*%X*$IJI,|Y -.0
Xm/T ` }6w(Sڻwp/P
?;slg2% TPh X
F9g'k2s/0 :Zq_ܴdCOׇOum櫡̹ڡnC~op^8&<5/ e048{c}̎{ `C lZ9
vwhbhg42l3ƛ!]sp%f8gƒ(p\s N {%v^Sm` 5sng}>ݓZ}>nc; ġ9 :p=%;\O@C2g0D~)>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
[48 0 R 49 0 R]
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0109.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/99-0109.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:46 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(and reliability inherent in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(such a responsibility."\).)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm
(Finally, nothing in the Directive, as it is currently written, gives an \
Administrative Judge or this Board the kind of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(authority that would be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(necessary to monitor or enforce any conditional or probationary security\
clearance. )Tj
43.04 0 Td
(The)Tj
-43.04 -1.125 Td
(Directive should be construed in a manner that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(effectuates the purposes of the industrial security program, including t\
he)Tj
T*
(protection of classified information. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.635 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0395 \(June 24, 1999\) at p. 4 n.2. )Tj
(The protection of)Tj
-17.966 -1.125 Td
(classified information would not be served by interpreting the Directive\
\(including the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Adjudicative Guidelines\) to)Tj
T*
(fashion a conditional or probationary clearance for an applicant when th\
ere is no practical way under the current)Tj
T*
(Directive to monitor or enforce the conditions or terms of such a condit\
ional or probationary security clearance.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(iii\) Applicant also relies on the following passage from the Adjudica\
tive Guidelines: "If after evaluating information of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(security concern, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(adjudicator decides that the information is not serious enough to warran\
t a recommendation of)Tj
T*
(disapproval or revocation of the security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance, it may be appropriate to recommend approval with a warning th\
at)Tj
T*
(future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(access." )Tj
28.537 0 Td
(Applicant's reliance on that passage is misplaced.)Tj
-28.537 -1.125 Td
(The information of security concern in this case is serious enough to wa\
rrant a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(recommendation of disapproval or)Tj
T*
(revocation. )Tj
4.72 0 Td
(Given Applicant's track record of repeated security violations, a warnin\
g would be a toothless)Tj
-4.72 -1.125 Td
(countermeasure. )Tj
6.83 0 Td
(Accordingly, the Administrative Judge did not err by choosing not to iss\
ue a security clearance with a)Tj
-6.83 -1.125 Td
(warning.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding Applicant's securit\
y violations warranted an adverse security)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 502.5 cm
0 0 m
558.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 489.75 Tm
(clearance decision)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 489 cm
0 0 m
88.277 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 104.2773 489.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant does not challenge the Administrative Judge's findings about h\
is security violations in)Tj
-7.356 -1.125 Td
(May 1985 \(SOR 1.a\), December 1990 \(SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1.b.\), May 1992 \(SOR 1.c.\), February 1994 \(SOR 1.d.\), and June 1994\
)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(\(SOR 1.e.\).)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 70.6621 464.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 70.6621 463.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 84.4683 459.75 Tm
( )Tj
(Indeed, Applicant )Tj
7.664 0 Td
(indicates he "generally concurs with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the findings of fact by the Administrative Judge)Tj
-13.37 -1.125 Td
(on each of the reported security violations." )Tj
17.736 0 Td
(However, Applicant contends the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge erred by concluding)Tj
-17.736 -1.125 Td
(his security violations warranted an adverse security clearance decision\
. )Tj
29.044 0 Td
(In support of this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contention, Applicant argues:)Tj
-29.044 -1.125 Td
(\(a\) the security violations involved were inadvertent, not deliberate;\
\(b\) the security violations were caused by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(preoccupation with his work, not any cavalier attitude about security; \(\
c\) adverse security clearance decisions in other)Tj
T*
(cases were based on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(more serious security violations; \(d\) he always cooperated with the in\
vestigations of his security)Tj
T*
(violations; \(e\) there is no likelihood that his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security violations will recur or lead to an unauthorized disclosure of)Tj
T*
(classified information; \(f\) his superiors vouch for his trustworthines\
s)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and have implemented special measures to prevent)Tj
T*
(future security violations; and \(g\) the Judge should have applied Secu\
rity Violations)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(itigating Condition 1 \("[Actions])Tj
T*
(were inadvertent"\) and Security Violations Mitigating Condition 2 \("[A\
ctions] were isolated or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(infrequent"\) in)Tj
T*
(conjunction with Applicant's positive security attitude. )Tj
22.093 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes Applicant has)Tj
-22.093 -1.125 Td
(failed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(to demonstrate the Judge committed harmful error.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(The fact that most of Applicant's security violations were not deliberat\
e)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 359.3887 287.25 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 359.3887 286.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 373.1948 282.75 Tm
( does not make the Administrative Judge's)Tj
-29.766 -1.125 Td
(adverse security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. )Tj
30.514 0 Td
(The federal government must be able to)Tj
-30.514 -1.125 Td
(repose a high degree of trust and confidence in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(persons granted a security clearance. )Tj
33.902 0 Td
(Evidence that an applicant has)Tj
-33.902 -1.125 Td
(failed to properly carry out his or her security responsibilities is hig\
hly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(relevant to making an assessment of that)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applicant's current security eligibility. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.37 0 Td
(See, e.g)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.082 0 Td
(., ISCR Case No. 96-0457 \(December 8, 1997\) at p. 4. )Tj
21.968 0 Td
(Failure to properly)Tj
-40.42 -1.125 Td
(secure classified documents is not a minor matter, but rather a violatio\
n of basic security requirements. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
41.376 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, DISCR)Tj
-44.708 -1.125 Td
(Case No 92-1606 \(January 5, 1995\) at p. 8. )Tj
(A history of negligent or inadvertent security violations can provide a)Tj
T*
(rational basis for having)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(serious reservations about an applicant's suitability for a security cle\
arance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
40.306 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, DISCR)Tj
-43.637 -1.125 Td
(Case No. 89-0299 \(February 19,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1992\)\(affirming adverse security clearance decision based on applicant\
's negligent or)Tj
T*
(careless security violations\); DISCR Case No. 89-0062)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(October 30, 1991\)\(same\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
33.187 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 88-2773)Tj
-33.187 -1.125 Td
(\(January 30, 1990\) at p. 5 \("Deliberate )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.653 0 Td
(or negligent)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.86 0 Td
( security violations provide)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(a very strong nexus for a decision to)Tj
-20.513 -1.125 Td
(deny or revoke an applicant's access to classified information."\)\(ital\
ics added\). )Tj
31.688 0 Td
(Applicant's history of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security violations)Tj
-31.688 -1.125 Td
(provided a rational basis for the Judge to have doubts about Applicant's\
ability to properly handle and safeguard)Tj
T*
(classified)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The negative security implications of Applicant's history of security vi\
olations are not reduced or diminished by the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(absence of malicious)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(motives on Applicant's part, his cooperation with the investigations of \
those security violations, or)Tj
T*
(the fact that no compromise of classified)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information occurred. )Tj
25.491 0 Td
(An applicant who has engaged in a series of careless or)Tj
-25.491 -1.125 Td
(negligent security violations does not demonstrate the high)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(degree of judgment and reliability required of persons)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[70.0 462.0 84.0 473.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[359.0 285.0 373.0 296.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0109.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/99-0109.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:17:46 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(security clearance. )Tj
7.689 0 Td
(In the decision being appealed, the Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(noted that evidence and stated "[w]ith the)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(new system in place, I believe that [A]pplicant does not pose a risk, an\
d if I had the authority to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(base this clearance)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(decision on the condition that this new system remains in place, I would\
do so, and I would conclude that [A]pplicant)Tj
T*
(should have access to classified information. )Tj
18.134 0 Td
(However, I do not have the authority to place conditions on an applicant\
's)Tj
-18.134 -1.125 Td
(access to classified)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(On appeal, Applicant contends the Administrative Judge erred. )Tj
25.437 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant: \(i\) argues that)Tj
-25.437 -1.125 Td
(provisions of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual \(NISPOM\) which r\
equire defense contractors)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to ensure that classified information is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(properly handled and safeguarded will ensure that Applicant's employer k\
eeps)Tj
T*
(special precautions in place with respect to him as long as he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(has a security clearance; \(ii\) the Department of Defense)Tj
T*
(has the authority under the Federal Acquisition Regulations \(FAR\) to i\
mpose on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's employer a contractual)Tj
T*
(requirement to continue the special security precautions with respect to\
him; and \(iii\) the Judge should)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(have relied on a)Tj
T*
(specific provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines to grant Applicant a s\
ecurity clearance on condition that his employer)Tj
T*
(continue the special precautions. )Tj
13.301 0 Td
(For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes Applicant's contention \
lacks merit.)Tj
-13.301 -2.125 Td
(\(i\) It is obvious and indisputable that Applicant's employer, as a def\
ense contractor, has obligations to ensure that)Tj
T*
(classified information is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(properly handled and safeguarded. )Tj
23.992 0 Td
(That fact has no probative value as to Applicant's suitability)Tj
-23.992 -1.125 Td
(for a security clearance. )Tj
9.799 0 Td
(Indeed, as this case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(shows, the security obligations of Applicant's employer did not prevent)Tj
-9.799 -1.125 Td
(Applicant from committing several security violations over a period)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of years.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Furthermore, four of the NISPOM provisions cited by Applicant \(Sections\
1-200, 1-202, 2-200d, and 5-308\) have -- on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(their face -- )Tj
4.913 0 Td
(no)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(relevance to Applicant's suitability for a security clearance. )Tj
25.17 0 Td
(Applicant's reliance on the first sentence of)Tj
-30.083 -1.125 Td
(NISPOM Section 5-100 \("Contractors)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(shall be responsible for safeguarding classified information in their cu\
stody or)Tj
T*
(under their control"\) is misplaced for two reasons. )Tj
20.319 0 Td
(First, as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(noted in the preceding paragraph, the security obligations of)Tj
-20.319 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's employer have no probative value as to Applicant's suitabili\
ty for a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security clearance. )Tj
39.542 0 Td
(Second, Applicant's)Tj
-39.542 -1.125 Td
(argument sidesteps the second sentence of NISPOM Section 5-100 \("Indivi\
duals are responsible for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(safeguarding)Tj
T*
(classified information entrusted to them"\). )Tj
17.182 0 Td
(Under the industrial security program, an applicant's responsibility for\
)Tj
-17.182 -1.125 Td
(properly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(handling and safeguarding classified information entrusted to him or her\
cannot be delegated to other)Tj
T*
(employees of a defense contractor.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(ii\) Applicant's argument about the FAR is misplaced. )Tj
21.871 0 Td
(Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Department of)Tj
-21.871 -1.125 Td
(Defense \(DoD\) could)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(use FAR Section 52.204-2 to impose a contractual requirement on Applican\
t's employer to impose)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(special security precautions with respect to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant, it does not follow that the Administrative Judge or this Boar\
d)Tj
T*
(would have any authority to do so. )Tj
14.109 0 Td
(Hearing Office Judges and this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board have authority to adjudicate industrial security)Tj
-14.109 -1.125 Td
(clearance cases under the Directive. )Tj
14.603 0 Td
(Neither a Hearing Office Judge nor this Board has)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(any authority to take action)Tj
-14.603 -1.125 Td
(under the FAR. )Tj
(Nor does a Hearing Office Judge or this Board have any authority to dire\
ct other DoD personnel)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(to)Tj
T*
(initiate or take action under the FAR. )Tj
15.163 0 Td
(To accept Applicant's argument, the Board would have to conclude that ei\
ther: \(a\))Tj
-15.163 -1.125 Td
(Hearing Office)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judges and this Board have the authority to take any action that any DoD\
official is authorized to take,)Tj
T*
(or \(b\) Hearing Office Judges and this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board have the authority to order or direct other DoD officials to take \
actions )Tj
46.346 0 Td
(with)Tj
-46.346 -1.125 Td
(respect to matters that fall under their authority. )Tj
19.354 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board declines to reach either of those untenable conclusions.)Tj
-19.354 -2.125 Td
(Nothing in the Directive, as it is currently written, authorizes an Admi\
nistrative Judge or this Board to grant a)Tj
T*
(conditional security clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.438 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0435 \(September 16, 1999\) at pp. 3-4 \(no authority\
to grant)Tj
-15.77 -1.125 Td
(clearance on probationary basis\); ISCR Case No. 97-0630 \(May 28, 1998\)\
at p. 3 \(no authority to grant security)Tj
T*
(clearance on condition applicant enroll in alcohol awareness program\); \
DOHA)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 96-0228 \(April 3, 1997\) at p. 3)Tj
T*
(\(no authority to grant or continue security clearance on conditional or\
probationary basis\); ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 96-0311)Tj
T*
(\(December 12, 1996\) at p. 3 \(no authority to grant security clearance\
on condition applicant participate in random)Tj
T*
(alcohol)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(or drug testing\). )Tj
9.859 0 Td
(Indeed, the Board has specifically rejected a request that an applicant \
be granted a security)Tj
-9.859 -1.125 Td
(clearance on condition that other)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(persons at the applicant's place of employment would exercise physical c\
ontrol and)Tj
T*
(handle storage of any classified document he works with. )Tj
23.216 0 Td
(DISCR Case No. 88-2773 \(July 19, 1990\) at p. 3. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-23.216 -1.125 Td
(DISCR Case No. 88-1944 \(March 28, 1990\) at p. 2 \("The fact that [the \
applicant's])Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(employer has instituted special)Tj
T*
(security procedures does not eliminate the root of the problem: Applican\
t's propensity toward careless and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(negligent)Tj
T*
(handling of classified information. )Tj
14.08 0 Td
(These procedures merely mask the symptoms but do not cure the malady its\
elf. . . .)Tj
-14.08 -1.125 Td
(An)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(individual permitted access to classified information must, without outs\
ide assistance, exhibit the trustworthiness)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
51 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
56 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/99-0109.a1.html)
endobj
55 0 obj
<>
endobj
57 0 obj
<>
endobj
52 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 218.0 null]
endobj
53 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 193.0 null]
endobj
54 0 obj
[17 0 R/XYZ 0 154.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 58
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003657 00000 n
0000151597 00000 n
0000003535 00000 n
0000003590 00000 n
0000003737 00000 n
0000003764 00000 n
0000150910 00000 n
0000151022 00000 n
0000151064 00000 n
0000150722 00000 n
0000004501 00000 n
0000141429 00000 n
0000130982 00000 n
0000100264 00000 n
0000096010 00000 n
0000003867 00000 n
0000003913 00000 n
0000003962 00000 n
0000004194 00000 n
0000004034 00000 n
0000004066 00000 n
0000004098 00000 n
0000004130 00000 n
0000004162 00000 n
0000004715 00000 n
0000004740 00000 n
0000009832 00000 n
0000009881 00000 n
0000009916 00000 n
0000010424 00000 n
0000095687 00000 n
0000042638 00000 n
0000042905 00000 n
0000010855 00000 n
0000011128 00000 n
0000011577 00000 n
0000043517 00000 n
0000096210 00000 n
0000100464 00000 n
0000109349 00000 n
0000109734 00000 n
0000110010 00000 n
0000110376 00000 n
0000131196 00000 n
0000131228 00000 n
0000140785 00000 n
0000141106 00000 n
0000141629 00000 n
0000150807 00000 n
0000151471 00000 n
0000151513 00000 n
0000151555 00000 n
0000151271 00000 n
0000151106 00000 n
0000151418 00000 n
trailer
<<9D93A6315C5EC94BB575D5DAACDAD0A9>]>>
startxref
151769
%%EOF