܍8J
8UinZϦSc ) / ~>:N]kgHV.M1?T9\ysQB\s.P&XݠG>ZN7 6ZU6P ?H-C݁R31rd֍w=W]L 8M(QZZ%|em$A\ D] Fle
xLuH (tqJ# .H^%f4ܣ͈q 8 mhc[ R C%F;5mjAk@I PNk1CkB# {kh 6 W~
P{JhO м@{k7, ?:.a5+ n- :
zπ =[ (t O~9 ]owhyZB[}m |psiЂ\ Ы | dL /k߄;9<;C7`1+{g3xw|䁡- 0#`"0?<9_Xj;<^uT
mhsMkuќz#
.uۭN4BGkAOZ䥋VOg ? y3xF5X/p:sD'p^j"kX|El:~OMä9Qk66FvALF4Y&
;r a'lz]!#W0 :#FŨ 4!3 `R7`ۘ`1A2plg[3DE)1GקS )屔RL){SʧS攲1dC^j'\ cw ^ SnǔtLJLBL)1%x~ E>U|3ZCvzy3 ²=$2oH$@,%Rq P9]x<
E}T6mW} mo"(q7$vP C ACp4T7z-~%|O;쯖'c%ᑊ~{f.~K~{_d?ӯk ⥤ $`~>0+Z li^ #쀟aU[b6e :OL~M#ymW4E-q*9X&IV#'H§@ {H*K_fCRAQi4(ť~S!y&Ȳ 2oBg0!: !5(!X&w)LI=ΨQpwb".8W
_9R=2Ӥ.\iy^'c^g>R/ɗEL$ޱmb?
mܽ"ƿ_>ۅil_1W,8;b1L~| P^X~4h@>(ieA;DMi my
ˏW N%0s4/%8B\$@I&8O ]껏cջnwgmGs验r }\.xj5NsZ d"FSx`G @pff ڙր<{_?YhB`"CSЗA u"qk@_ґy~A>Up& z98^4# P cCPd8Ø?y mvxÙz_բ aEtZߦ'aQyK? X? q[
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
48 0 obj
[50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R]
endobj
49 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0417.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/99-0417.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:17 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 16 747.75 Tm
(\(e\) It is untenable for Applicant to assert the Administrative Judge s\
hould have applied Personal Conduct Mitigating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Condition 3. )Tj
5.25 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(engaged in separate acts of falsification in connection with his executi\
on of security)Tj
-5.25 -1.125 Td
(questionnaires in )Tj
7.054 0 Td
(January 1993, February 1996, and June)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1998. )Tj
(Furthermore, as discussed in the preceding paragraph,)Tj
-7.054 -1.125 Td
(Applicant disclosed his drug abuse history only after he was confronted \
with the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(fact that the Special Agent had learned)Tj
T*
(about it through information provided by Applicant's ex-wife. )Tj
24.98 0 Td
(Applicant's disclosures in November)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1998, made only)Tj
-24.98 -1.125 Td
(after he was confronted with the fact that his ex-wife had told the Spec\
ial Agent about his past drug abuse, do not)Tj
T*
(constitute)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(a prompt, good-faith effort to correct his multiple falsifications befor\
e he was confronted with the facts.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(f\) Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have applied Pe\
rsonal Conduct Mitigating Condition 5)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 548.248 642.75 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 548.248 642 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 624.75 Tm
(because he is no longer)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure due to his past drug a\
buse. )Tj
39.822 0 Td
(Applicant's)Tj
-39.822 -1.125 Td
(contention fails to demonstrate the Judge erred. )Tj
19.216 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge did not find that Applicant's falsifications made him)Tj
-19.216 -1.125 Td
(vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure; nor did the Judge app\
ly Personal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Conduct Disqualifying Condition 4.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 16 585.75 Tm
(\(4\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 585 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 27.3687 581.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Accordingly, the Judge was not required to apply Personal Conduct Mitiga\
ting Condition 5 in this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
41.966 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-46.245 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 97-0595 \(May 22, 1998\) at p. 5.)Tj
T*
(\(g\) Applicant contends that the Administrative Judge should have appli\
ed Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 572.582 543.75 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 572.582 543 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 525.75 Tm
(for the same reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge should have applied Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2. )Tj
37.799 0 Td
(This contention lacks)Tj
-37.799 -1.125 Td
(merit. )Tj
2.61 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge did not have to find Applicant's conduct was not recent under)Tj
-2.61 -1.125 Td
(Section F.3.b., and the Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition 2 is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not applicable to the facts and circumstances of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant's case. )Tj
6.983 0 Td
(Accordingly, the Judge was not required to apply Criminal Conduct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(itigating Condition 1.)Tj
-6.983 -2.375 Td
(\(h\) Applicant's argument about Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 3\
)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 368.1191 461.25 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 368.1191 460.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 381.9253 456.75 Tm
( lacks merit. )Tj
5.165 0 Td
(There is no record evidence)Tj
-35.659 -1.125 Td
(that indicates Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(was pressured or coerced into lying about his past drug abuse. )Tj
34.796 0 Td
(Accordingly, this mitigating)Tj
-34.796 -1.125 Td
(condition is inapplicable to Applicant's case.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(i\) Applicant's argument about Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 5\
)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 365.4531 405.75 Tm
( \(7\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 365.4531 405 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 379.2593 401.25 Tm
( does not demonstrate the Administrative)Tj
-30.272 -1.125 Td
(Judge erred. )Tj
(The Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(did not have to consider the favorable evidence cited by Applicant separ\
ately from his acts of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(dishonesty. )Tj
(The Judge had to consider the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable. )Tj
38.543 0 Td
(Directive, Section F.3.)Tj
-38.543 -1.125 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, the favorable evidence cited)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(by Applicant did not require the Judge, as a matter of)Tj
T*
(law, to conclude Applicant had demonstrated "clear evidence of successfu\
l)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(rehabilitation" with respect to his)Tj
T*
(falsifications about his drug abuse history.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or\
contrary to law)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 307.5 cm
0 0 m
417.035 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 445.0352 308.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the)Tj
-35.753 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. )Tj
30.7 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant)Tj
-30.7 -1.125 Td
(argues: \(a\) the Judge denied him due process by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(issuing a decision that used "cut and paste" methods that show she)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(failed to judge him on the merits of his own case; \(b\) the Judge faile\
d to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(consider relevant mitigating factors in his case;)Tj
T*
(\(c\) the Judge failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for her \
conclusions; \(d\) the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(failed to apply the whole)Tj
T*
(person concept when deciding his case; and \(e\) Applicant's past mistak\
es do not warrant an adverse security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance)Tj
T*
(decision in light of the mitigating factors that should be applied in hi\
s case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(a\) Applicant cites to the following passage in the Administrative Jud\
ge's decision: "The evidentiary record has been)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(reviewed, but it does not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contain sufficient evidence in mitigation that will overcome or outweigh\
the negative effects of)Tj
T*
(the Applicant's repeated false statements to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(DoD, all of which were provided under a certification of truth or a swor\
n)Tj
T*
(oath." )Tj
(Applicant then notes the Judge used the same sentence, word)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for word, in five other decisions she issued, and)Tj
T*
(contends this shows the Judge denied him due process by using a "cut and\
paste" method that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(demonstrates the Judge)Tj
T*
(did not judge Applicant's security eligibility on the merits of his case\
, but rather made a decision based on "the)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(prejudicial stereotypes of previous applicants.")Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 241.1641 122.25 Tm
( \(8\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 241.1641 121.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 92.25 Tm
(Given the Administrative Judge's use of the same sentence \(word for wor\
d\) in several different decisions, Applicant's)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(concern is not frivolous. )Tj
9.97 0 Td
(However, the Board does not review a Judge's decision based on considera\
tion of isolated)Tj
-9.97 -1.125 Td
(sentences. )Tj
4.332 0 Td
(Rather, the Board reviews a Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision in its entirety to determine what the Judge found and concluded\
.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-4.332 -1.125 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0164 \(July 12, 1999\) at p. 4. )Tj
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge made findings of fact concerning Applicant's acts)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(of dishonesty. )Tj
(The Judge specifically considered the favorable evidence presented by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant. )Tj
38.764 0 Td
(The Judge gave a)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
50 0 obj
<>/BS<