%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-07T15:18:21-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:21-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:21-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
99-0435.a1
uuid:1b014a98-fcc8-4c11-9feb-c1be756867af
uuid:ed8ad91b-e923-43d5-a0c6-e870d337ce25
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
17 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
21 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
23 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
[20 0 R 20 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
<><><><><><>]/P 18 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0435.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/99-0435.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:21 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 22, 2000)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. 99-0435)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
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-4.387 -2.2 Td
(Carol A. Marchant, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.165 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.791 -2.2 Td
(Patrick K. Dunphy, Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny issued a decision, dated May 12, 20\
00, in which he concluded it is clearly)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security cl\
earance for Applicant. )Tj
36.515 0 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
-36.515 -1.125 Td
(appealed. )Tj
4.053 0 Td
(For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Ju\
dge's decision.)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 in not giving)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(sufficient weight to the testimony and documentary evidence presented by\
Department Counsel; \(2\) whether the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge erred in his evaluation of evidence that contradict\
ed Applicant's statements; and \(3\) whether the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge erred by concluding Applicant's termination by a de\
fense contractor in 1997 "has not been shown)Tj
T*
(to be a security concern.")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 a Statement of Reasons\
\(SOR\) dated December 13, 1999 to)Tj
T*
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(The SOR was based on Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) and Guideline J \(\
Criminal Conduct\).)Tj
-4.443 -2.125 Td
(A hearing was held on March 30 and March 31, 2000. )Tj
21.911 0 Td
(The Administrative Judge issued a written decision dated May)Tj
-21.911 -1.125 Td
(12, 2000 in which he concluded it is clearly consistent with the nationa\
l interest to grant or continue a security clearance)Tj
T*
(for Applicant. )Tj
5.859 0 Td
(The case is before the Board on Department Counsel's appeal from the Jud\
ge's favorable security)Tj
-5.859 -1.125 Td
(clearance decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.225 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(This case involves a strong disagreement over the meaning and significan\
ce of Applicant's actions when he was)Tj
T*
(employed by a defense contractor. )Tj
13.994 0 Td
(Department Counsel's position in this case is that \(1\) Applicant engag\
ed in acts of)Tj
-13.994 -1.125 Td
(insubordination and sabotage while working for a defense contractor that\
fired him in November 1997, and \(2\))Tj
T*
(Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(lied about his actions in a written statement he gave to a government in\
vestigator in August 1998. )Tj
43.518 0 Td
(Applicant's)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(position)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(in this case is that \(a\) he did not engage in insubordination or sabot\
age of his former employer, \(b\) his former)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
(~䴄߆UP7)
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 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