14xlAh"e$LS(h*M4fR6};;;;+Y9ͦ9ͥy4? : OW - xDg v8X_w6N] lwբbZi)-崂V*ZMkh-6D|B[i}I+ wN{E h7xrh tQ. #t(q*B*b*tNi*2:Ct*蜮kyH?y{fH?%LW.@ױJzmMW `1D\p9fr꺺:XPH:\GFQ:UN:RGhxMb@6VUmZmdf
[ִlm[ֵ|:F7ձ:N{x{κvks> !k#ͳ=n l-ŶĞ'){ږ2{Ɩ۳Zm= _OԘ½9 rr稓;D8!NS(e(gE8'⚸.nQ)nWDBOK
dC,C P&F73/!=fH'Yu_T1ORU0EƩj#eQ̕L2S2Y0Y3ihلTȦ2Vx ̋'@=T11QřLLQ"D(kUiLiM3̤ꆺɜdڄ3mU{o7am"UYjfYiVfYk֙fh6fjDB[> dG*d'05et$() 7Mj0E@u~P LP^??a0 X]0N )Z$:!A
v uHcEY=l31 R ܻ0pɻw`2Cg^3 ZjXAЀ P*{s+)CPq[Ra4L5o%~ Dx b VVb = Ŀ^ hO{7H; tЌm4lc\(B4A cG˹ L%MK u"X]T)PkΑ̐c/?
U I`6|ϕ;V1= c~ސm
Ϡ?qH*L7s#(c2D e"+#[ ^f÷8jG 5xcag1A
_Æ [rf7XQ~}K-p' !{e #3 C9܄kXޙLX(ʙ[*Ogg癲긿O ta `}`p /k܇%xg#/E/搬';r,{.yxy=n3w>|y u㓠-wH/kGk/ ^Z Qb8$01c1w*+WabŘ&>|*S$ZLV l;Uz Rl~wy? K[ư5 vC.R}9\+/}aw&sTXUq|3m[PW8װM[<~"x6us!~$N98!CL ,H p^]
n]FV
h+zMΡQ֮Vjbvh64A+1IHcm sw9D-t;NCIQ^7?$Ύp_s*q wx/o_7 `K
6~lJ>-b"*&/OQsl1)<%-}#N. |w=
bW\ p? >uKsZn5Ug v6w;mOm&g0߅S5C>
d*7Mn>Җl
&7 2գHk
]Yrnp0M
wJ?{-| Eڿb݇1n%t7U
{gȧt eTz5=Uz + XEH Zm{<9q0]=>?0 MvA ԑna4n ֢`zGB\u8q/zъ' <ML87)#1&!/pʹ Y"zî! 3F̞
̟uE/8wB.º݈6@OUQ̧C]" p qaf\{ VgRza!,A;= VRG~z=uv uz >ʑ6 I鹌;B IbO~)UJ6by
+_PڔEnhŨjξ ޠԑ:ы 2u?QWzQwA=UE)RR_Gi
4Di0eJh8u̐CP9L4ޣ4M4& (t+͠i&͢4h.ͣrǴ'65p GxAG`GG: QG >9~9ֿM
=$Q
#Ao6Oi-lZٴrhjZCZʣ ZGqmb)mʹhm ])n
6wP}xS! t:J8Q1 :I4r:KTIUtj[T7 t.x{y4Y)ݸb[җ} q y= hx
Z%#OQ+bn=vj -a̅
F5Ԁ91XP:ʉ| yU~Cկg;WNő1~5x/({ F"yM YKͩ(0^*W{ 3K]Ds1
:(Qȗuȏ8 p]j%k*?(E=}&eTʐy[I Xg-x5H3#~'_y1A֧
|{pNt
CwR}B ' /p(;PE+ďq{)G,E>89 :I sѾ؈_+YҢU,ƕo `gl3/Tqx 7
ˀZkbV!'Oh(F;p:?0*]d Ou<, y6voa>#όA]t]Vj P.57\6m`3<`C 5/p02#\hFx_j a !6R(@{6ԍLĹ(_tw'eНNZNo{peJO(9!SMZ R ';t ?P1<= {hE4 ifi^jy}Go˟KFic[\*`uρCW {/]~DZvm~~{ 7Q #u%}6ӱmN,nLo>k'wǀ\?Y/પ+ {&14 ("!DZ $PD*T)SQZ@FA+ZGvT(*N >Q- ,($[ܜrgYg Z6uL9g 9"ݱN^=ya/C[ۀ]%ԧ#a]d-0Fzqطȩ7,
|Y38< ƹؗ)OǪ=XSa}h?9^W==ڶ FȶCtƎ\]# .ъ5`3iYOv&hbՔUzgՏVm5q"9PWo(9e'Ey#3&>+vmNpE#~\\y
Uu/jNʅO1v˝͑_ ̉V},Sx., /љy˖< =F(q6%K[ Ζ㺣.qZ {%w & ?Ǎ͖YIJ18J(|mYrafB=v,nǂʫ(wuwWYuVч?VFA>FZ~纳O]Ӏ ar3lGX O\~Z!_/XnT_g>pr$X1 RLis1~F.'gk.XfsUMj>% e\ NKw,r
˹ɗĥowkx |?K]/+uKU_a:Bg.}?< +&Ғs1{I5"4u"UYhɵU͉s0k32*z&P79"!sި_Arr mid]
s}nAfȹz<]S?N49]swq_ؓBFu+fqc'ҽd:r+8d># $F|ami+j EWr`@RGom 4dߨo9P-S݅fMHԲ!1Ma YݧkgOtwv`uD\];8a4\kl8J}_h*JYLǴH&ݿTkxePH#Z8 9[sM$w&A V8$jBJ.їR\>S7B31`S ;_{]3i|38]1sEuyO7ĨLC_qW[C qЊ mkˏϋCy-C}q;MCN:C}vC}m"a% z%"ovk_u6̡
wp f4w}y;V+
69Mrx6̭oC;쪰} M M\EX吂3VڝWy>o ( %&-7_f8Ln,H nbr2r"b~!93[.+~e37~vb2s2qSU*9rɩo_OU'G-wHD|xB$[#=M^OJ6ySO9;dl K'e?#5>f_mj҇M7P_sK_h%7^ꋤ,*qI?8R5AJRSMspVn.?']uHs$'759[(NhbFckk5.XgިQM۫#[RJ|?gE0|2]O.Dfƣi]U}F5iE\
<,X{ 0T/YFym=1|1v6ڷ_<Ε ~?$fTVǩVlg3 C=ف:.ogNtt3>/Rect[200.0 447.0 214.0 458.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
55 0 obj
[65 0 R 66 0 R]
endobj
56 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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 16 745.5 Tm
(The Government has established its case under Guideline C \(Foreign Pref\
erence\). )Tj
32.934 0 Td
(Applicant's conduct belies her claim)Tj
-32.934 -1.125 Td
(to prefer)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(her U.S. citizenship over her FC citizenship. )Tj
21.661 0 Td
(Applicant's oath when she became a naturalized U.S. citizen,)Tj
-21.661 -1.125 Td
(which includes)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(renunciation of her FC citizenship, is powerful evidence of a preference\
for U.S. citizenship. )Tj
43.541 0 Td
(The fact)Tj
-43.541 -1.125 Td
(that Applicant did not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(comply with the citizenship renunciation requirements of FC would not or\
dinarily affect the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(analysis of Applicant's preference. )Tj
14.036 0 Td
(However, Applicant reasserted her FC citizenship and her preference for \
that)Tj
-14.036 -1.125 Td
(citizenship when she applied for, received, and used)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(an FC passport to travel to FC in 1997.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant knew that FC did not recognize her U.S. citizenship and would \
not permit her to travel to FC as a U.S. citizen.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant applied for an FC passport knowing that she could not travel t\
here except as an FC citizen. )Tj
40.684 0 Td
(The fact that FC)Tj
-40.684 -1.125 Td
(law)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(requires Applicant to use an FC passport to travel to FC does not obscur\
e the fact that the choice whether to travel)Tj
T*
(to FC was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's to make. )Tj
12.762 0 Td
(Applicant's decision to travel to FC was no less voluntary merely becaus\
e it would have)Tj
-12.762 -1.125 Td
(been a difficult)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(choice for her to not travel there.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's dual citizenship is not based merely on her birth in FC, but\
on her active assertion of her citizenship rights in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(FC. )Tj
(Applicant asserted those rights after she became a naturalized U.S. citi\
zen. )Tj
31.823 0 Td
(Although Applicant's conduct is lawful,)Tj
-31.823 -1.125 Td
(there is no)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence that it is sanctioned by the United States. )Tj
24.799 0 Td
(Applicant's conditional willingness to renounce her FC)Tj
-24.799 -1.125 Td
(citizenship can be)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(given little weight under the particular facts of this case. )Tj
30.156 0 Td
(Initially, Applicant was willing to renounce)Tj
-30.156 -1.125 Td
(her FC citizenship)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conditioned on her retaining inheritance rights in FC and retaining her \
right to travel to FC. )Tj
44.324 0 Td
(Now,)Tj
-44.324 -1.125 Td
(there are no assets in FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(subject to inheritance by Applicant, but she wants to retain the right t\
o travel to FC on an)Tj
T*
(emergency basis. )Tj
7.136 0 Td
(None of the Guideline)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(C \(Foreign Preference\) mitigating conditions applies.)Tj
-7.136 -2.125 Td
(Applicant appears vulnerable to foreign influence. )Tj
20.353 0 Td
(While Applicant's father and one of her sisters have now been)Tj
-20.353 -1.125 Td
(granted)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(permanent resident status in the United States, her other sister and her\
aunt remain in FC. )Tj
39.184 0 Td
(Applicant's aunt is not)Tj
-39.184 -1.125 Td
(a member of her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(immediate family, but Applicant has close ties of affection with her aun\
t. )Tj
36.321 0 Td
(There is insufficient)Tj
-36.321 -1.125 Td
(information about Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(family members in FC to conclude they do not constitute an unacceptable \
security risk.)Tj
T*
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(does not apply.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant and her spouse have substantial investments in the financial a\
nd community life of the United States. )Tj
44.823 0 Td
(Their)Tj
-44.823 -1.125 Td
(two sons are)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(U.S. citizens by birth. )Tj
14.22 0 Td
(Applicant has a more than satisfactory work record. )Tj
20.965 0 Td
(However, serious doubts are)Tj
-35.185 -1.125 Td
(cast on Applicant's fitness)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for access to classified information by her demonstrated conduct in reas\
serting her FC)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(citizenship so soon after acquiring U.S.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizenship, her unwillingness to renounce her FC citizenship, and the r\
isk that)Tj
T*
(she may be subject to foreign influence.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.225 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether Applicant's security clearance was improperly revoked during the\
pendency of this appeal)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 281.25 cm
0 0 m
475.98 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 503.9805 282 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant)Tj
-40.665 -1.125 Td
(contends her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security clearance was improperly revoked during the pendency of this ap\
peal because it was revoked)Tj
T*
(without compliance with)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Directive, Section 6.4. or Directive, Item E2.2.5.6. )Tj
30.659 0 Td
(The Board will address the provisions cited)Tj
-30.659 -1.125 Td
(by Applicant separately.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Directive, Section 6.4)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 215.25 cm
0 0 m
104.637 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 120.6367 216 Tm
(. )Tj
(Section 6.4 covers suspension of access to classified information in cas\
es where "there is a)Tj
-8.72 -1.125 Td
(reasonable basis)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for concluding that an applicant's continued access to classified inform\
ation poses an imminent threat)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to the national interest." )Tj
9.822 0 Td
(Significantly, Section 6.4 deals with suspension actions taken by the AS\
DC3I, not security)Tj
-9.822 -1.125 Td
(clearance adjudications by DOHA)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judges. )Tj
23.466 0 Td
(There is no indication in the record that Section 6.4 was)Tj
-23.466 -1.375 Td
(invoked by the ASDC3I in Applicant's case.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 228.4609 163.5 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 228.4609 162.75 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 242.2671 159 Tm
( )Tj
(Furthermore, nothing in the Directive indicates or suggests that Section\
)Tj
-18.856 -1.125 Td
(6.4 is the sole mechanism for denial or revocation of an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant's access to classified information. )Tj
40.057 0 Td
(In view of the)Tj
-40.057 -1.125 Td
(foregoing, Applicant's reliance on Section 6.4 is misplaced.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(Directive, Item E2.2.5.6)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 16 102.75 cm
0 0 m
115.963 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 131.9629 103.5 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 134.9629 108 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 134.9629 107.25 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 148.769 103.5 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant is correct in noting the Administrative Judge's decision does \
not contain any)Tj
-11.064 -1.125 Td
(findings that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(fall under the terms of Item E2.2.5.6. )Tj
20.356 0 Td
(However, the Judge's decision does not recommend that Applicant's)Tj
-20.356 -1.125 Td
(security clearance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision be suspended. )Tj
16.882 0 Td
(Rather, the Judge's decision is an adjudication on the merits of Applica\
nt's)Tj
-16.882 -1.125 Td
(security eligibility. )Tj
7.804 0 Td
(Actions)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(taken to revoke an applicant's access to classified information after is\
suance of an adverse)Tj
-7.804 -1.125 Td
(decision by a DOHA Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge \(Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.27\) are ta\
ken by)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[228.0 161.0 242.0 172.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[135.0 105.0 149.0 116.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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
(Board." )Tj
(On April 11, 2000, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Director, DOHA issued an e-mail message that read "This is to provide fu\
rther guidance)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(as to the moratorium on dual citizenship)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(cases issued on Wednesday March 22nd. )Tj
32.992 0 Td
(Effective immediately the)Tj
-32.992 -1.125 Td
(moratorium applies only to decisions to clear or issue an SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(by a security specialist, decisions to clear or deny by an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge and decisions to affirm, reverse or remand by the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Appeal Board in cases involving an Applicant's)Tj
T*
(use and/or possession of a foreign passport." )Tj
(Copies of the March 22 and April)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(11, 2000 e-mail messages were provided)Tj
T*
(to Applicant and the processing of this appeal was held in abeyance.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(By letter dated September 1, 2000, the Board informed the parties that t\
he Deputy General Counsel \(Legal Counsel\) had)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(\(1\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(provided the Board with a copy of an August 16, 2000 memorandum by the A\
ssistant Secretary of Defense for)Tj
T*
(Command,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Control, Communications, and Intelligence \(ASDC3I\) entitled "Guidance \
to DoD Central Adjudication)Tj
T*
(Facilities \(CAF\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Clarifying the Application of the Foreign Preference Adjudicative Guidel\
ine" \(hereinafter "ASDC3I)Tj
T*
(memo"\), and \(2\) advised the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board that the moratorium imposed on March 22, 2000 had been lifted. )Tj
40.454 0 Td
(A copy of the)Tj
-40.454 -1.125 Td
(ASDC3I memo was provided to the parties)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(with the September 1, 2000 letter.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Through the September 1, 2000 letter, the Board also gave both parties t\
he opportunity to: \(1\) express their views on the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(ASDC3I)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(memo and how it applies to this case; and \(2\) to respond to the other \
party's submission. )Tj
39.258 0 Td
(Both parties made)Tj
-39.258 -1.125 Td
(submissions.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.211 -2.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's Findings)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-17.211 -2.125 Td
(Applicant was born in foreign country \(FC\) in 1960. )Tj
21.219 0 Td
(In 1987, Applicant immigrated to the )Tj
15.136 0 Td
(United States as the spouse)Tj
-36.354 -1.125 Td
(of a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(naturalized U.S. citizen who also had been born in FC. )Tj
23.911 0 Td
(Applicant immigrated to the United States to escape the)Tj
-23.911 -1.125 Td
(regime in FC and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(raise a family in a free society. )Tj
19.771 0 Td
(Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1994. )Tj
21.354 0 Td
(Applicant has)Tj
-41.125 -1.125 Td
(two children who were born in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the United States after she immigrated here. )Tj
30.379 0 Td
(Applicant and her spouse have considerable)Tj
-30.379 -1.125 Td
(financial investments in the United)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(States.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant received a college degree in 1995. )Tj
18.103 0 Td
(After graduation, Applicant got a job that lasted from June 1995 until)Tj
-18.103 -1.125 Td
(February 1997,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(when she was laid off after the project she was working on was completed\
. )Tj
36.601 0 Td
(Before seeking new)Tj
-36.601 -1.125 Td
(employment, Applicant decided to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(visit FC. )Tj
17.775 0 Td
(She applied for a U.S. passport, which she received in June 1997. )Tj
26.438 0 Td
(She also)Tj
-44.214 -1.125 Td
(applied for an FC passport because FC does)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not recognize her naturalization as a U.S. citizen and considers her to \
be a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(FC citizen. )Tj
4.638 0 Td
(Applicant received an FC passport in July)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1997.)Tj
-4.638 -2.125 Td
(Before visiting FC, Applicant applied for employment with her current em\
ployer. )Tj
32.909 0 Td
(While Applicant was enroute to FC in)Tj
-32.909 -1.125 Td
(July)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1997, the company contacted her to offer her a job. )Tj
22.631 0 Td
(Applicant accepted the job offer and proceeded to FC, where)Tj
-22.631 -1.125 Td
(she visited her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(father, two sisters, an elderly aunt, and friends. )Tj
25.021 0 Td
(Applicant returned to the United States in early)Tj
-25.021 -1.125 Td
(September 1997 and went to work)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for her current employer later that month. )Tj
30.879 0 Td
(At that time, Applicant disclosed her dual)Tj
-30.879 -1.125 Td
(citizenship and possession of an FC passport. )Tj
18.387 0 Td
(Applicant did not disclose her foreign travel, an omission she attribute\
d to)Tj
-18.387 -1.125 Td
(a mistake.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(After Applicant's 1997 trip to FC, Applicant's father and one of her sis\
ters immigrated to the United States. )Tj
43.074 0 Td
(Applicant's)Tj
-43.074 -1.125 Td
(father is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(still an FC citizen; he has liquidated his assets in FC and has invested\
heavily in property in the United States.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant's sister)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(has applied for permanent resident status in the United States, but is o\
n a long waiting list. )Tj
43.478 0 Td
(Applicant's)Tj
-43.478 -1.125 Td
(other sister and her elderly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(aunt remain in FC. )Tj
18.662 0 Td
(Applicant has a very close relationship with her elderly aunt, who)Tj
-18.662 -1.125 Td
(Applicant considers she is obligated to care)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for. )Tj
19.3 0 Td
(Although Applicant has not traveled to FC since 1997 and has no plan)Tj
-19.3 -1.125 Td
(to do so in the future, she wants to retain her FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(passport so that she can travel to FC if her elderly aunt falls ill and)Tj
T*
(requires care. )Tj
5.635 0 Td
(Applicant also wants to be able to travel to FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(for her elderly aunt's funeral \(when that happens\), and)Tj
-5.635 -1.125 Td
(wants to be able to help her father if he returns to FC and requires her\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(assistance. )Tj
32.601 0 Td
(She wants to keep her FC passport for)Tj
-32.601 -1.125 Td
(those contingencies and intends to renew it in 2002 if it expires before\
those)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contingencies occur.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant considers that she renounced her FC citizenship when she becam\
e a naturalized U.S. citizen, but recognizes)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(that FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(does not accept that renunciation. )Tj
16.884 0 Td
(Applicant has not pursued formal renunciation of her FC citizenship.)Tj
-16.884 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's supervisors consider her a good employee and have no reason \
to doubt her allegiance to the United States.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
16.489 -2.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's Conclusions)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 11/Type/Page>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 662.25 591.75 103.5 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
(cohabitant,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(or associate\(s\) in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a \
position to be exploited by a foreign)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(power in a way that could)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person\(s\) involv\
ed and the United)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(States.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(7. )Tj
("Contact and correspondence with foreign citizens are casual and infrequ\
ent.")Tj
T*
(8. )Tj
("Foreign financial interests are minimal and not sufficient to affect th\
e individual's security responsibilities.")Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>
endobj
35 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 6/Type/Page>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 7/Type/Page>>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 8/Type/Page>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 9/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 10/Type/Page>>
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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 16 754.5 Tm
(when she initially applied for a security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance, and to direct Department Counsel to produce documentary evide\
nce)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(in its possession relevant to that matter. )Tj
16.053 0 Td
(As)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(discussed earlier in this decision, the Judge's finding about Applicant'\
s)Tj
-16.053 -1.125 Td
(disclosure of her trip to FC is tangential to the Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(findings and conclusions under Guideline B and Guideline C and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(is, at most, harmless error. )Tj
10.831 0 Td
(Accordingly, no useful purpose)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(would be served by remanding this case for the purpose)Tj
-10.831 -1.125 Td
(requested by Applicant.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(Applicant has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating error that warr\
ants remand or reversal. )Tj
38.763 0 Td
(Accordingly, the Board)Tj
-38.763 -1.125 Td
(affirms)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Administrative Judge's March 3, 2000 decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 16 609.75 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 585 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 507.75 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 483 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 405.75 cm
0 0 m
120.645 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 381 Tm
(Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(1. )Tj
(The Board notes its jurisdiction under the Directive does not extend to \
review of any decisions by the ASDC3I. )Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
45.824 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-45.824 -1.125 Td
(Directive,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Additional Procedural Guidance, Items E3.1.28 through E3.1.35. )Tj
30.465 0 Td
(Accordingly, an appeal before the Board)Tj
-30.465 -1.125 Td
(would not be a proper)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(forum for challenging a decision by the ASDC3I to suspend a security cle\
arance pursuant to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Directive, Section 6.4.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
("E2.2.5. )Tj
(When information of security concern becomes known about an individual w\
ho is currently eligible for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(access to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the pers\
on: . . . E2.2.5.6. )Tj
39.351 0 Td
(Should have his or)Tj
-39.351 -1.125 Td
(her access temporarily)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(suspended pending final adjudication of the information.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
(Applicant also asserts she has not received adequate notice or a meaning\
ful opportunity to respond to the ASDC3I)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(memo)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(because: \(1\) she was not provided a copy of a Defense Security Researc\
h Center finding referred to in the)Tj
T*
(ASDC3I memo; and \(2\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(she was not provided with a copy of a cover memo from the Director, DOHA\
on the ASDC3I)Tj
T*
(memo. )Tj
3 0 Td
(Applicant's first point is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(irrelevant. )Tj
14.177 0 Td
(DOHA proceedings are not a proper forum in which to debate or adjudicate\
)Tj
-17.177 -1.125 Td
(the formulation of policy by the ASDC3I. )Tj
16.998 0 Td
(Applicant's second point lacks merit because the ASDC3I memo was issued)Tj
-16.998 -1.125 Td
(without any cover memo from the Director, DOHA.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
("Dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a \
foreign country.")Tj
T*
(5. )Tj
("Individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.")Tj
T*
(6. )Tj
("A determination that the immediate family member\(s\), \(spouse, father\
, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters\),)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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
(applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(provides full and truthful answers does not preclude the government from\
evaluating the security significance)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(of the applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(answers. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
10.76 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0601 \(January 30, 2001\) at p. 9.)Tj
-10.76 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's reliance on Item E2.2.5.3 is misplaced. )Tj
20.591 0 Td
(The Board construes Item E2.2.5.3. as dealing with situations where)Tj
-20.591 -1.125 Td
(an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant seeks and follows professional guidance in connection with the\
conduct or circumstances underlying the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(allegations. )Tj
7.027 0 Td
(Item E2.2.5.3. does not deal with an applicant seeking and following pro\
fessional guidance in)Tj
-7.027 -1.125 Td
(connection with a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security clearance adjudication itself.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board has already discussed Applicant's reliance on Item E2.2.5.6 an\
d need not repeat its discussion of that matter)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(here.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(d\) )Tj
(Whole person concept)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 610.5 cm
0 0 m
107.291 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 140.2832 611.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant correctly notes Directive, Item E2.2.1 indicates the need to u\
se the whole person)Tj
-10.357 -1.125 Td
(concept in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(adjudicating security clearance cases. )Tj
19.629 0 Td
(However, as discussed earlier in this decision, Applicant's arguments)Tj
-19.629 -1.125 Td
(concerning the Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(E2.2.1 factors fail to demonstrate the Administrative Judge erred. )Tj
34.683 0 Td
(Furthermore, the evidence cited)Tj
-34.683 -1.125 Td
(by Applicant did not compel)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge to issue a favorable security clearance decision. )Tj
35.016 0 Td
(A Judge must consider the)Tj
-35.016 -1.125 Td
(record evidence, both favorable and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(unfavorable, and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unf\
avorable)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(evidence or )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.886 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 00-0044 \(December 22, 2000\) at p. 3. )Tj
22.218 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this)Tj
-34.961 -1.125 Td
(decision, the Board does not review an applicant's case )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.229 0 Td
(de)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Applicant's ability to argue for an alternate)Tj
-22.229 -1.125 Td
(interpretation of the record evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate t\
he Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision is arbitrary, capricious, or)Tj
T*
(contrary to law.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(6. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary,\
capricious, or contrary to law)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 477 cm
0 0 m
489.68 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 517.6797 477.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant)Tj
-41.807 -1.125 Td
(contends the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge's adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or con\
trary to law. )Tj
38.669 0 Td
(In support of this)Tj
-38.669 -1.125 Td
(contention, Applicant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(argues: \(a\) there is no justification for the Judge's adverse decision\
in light of the fact that)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant was granted a security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance by the government a couple of years ago when it had knowledge \
of the fact)Tj
T*
(that she had an FC passport and had recently)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(returned from a trip to FC; \(b\) neither the government nor the Judge)Tj
T*
(explained what justification there is for revoking a security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance it granted to Applicant only two years earlier; and)Tj
T*
(\(c\) Applicant's security clearance was revoked after the Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision without compliance with Directive, Section 6.4)Tj
T*
(or Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E2.2.5.6.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The SOR issued to Applicant placed her on notice of the facts and circum\
stances relied on by the government to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(contend that she)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(should not have a security clearance. )Tj
21.714 0 Td
(Beyond the explicit requirements of Executive Order 10865,)Tj
-21.714 -1.125 Td
(Section 3.\(1\) and Directive,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Section 4.3.1., Department Counsel is not required to explain or justify\
the reasons why an)Tj
T*
(SOR was issued to her. )Tj
(The Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision in this case sets forth his findings and conclusions and his re\
asons for)Tj
T*
(concluding 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
T*
(Applicant clearly disagrees strongly with the Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(adverse decision. )Tj
28.45 0 Td
(However, that disagreement does not)Tj
-28.45 -1.125 Td
(demonstrate the decision below fails to provide an explanation for the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's adverse decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's second argument appears to be predicated on an implicit noti\
on that she is entitled to retain a security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance based)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(on a theory of equitable estoppel or vested rights. )Tj
26.545 0 Td
(That argument lack merit. )Tj
10.635 0 Td
(There is no right to a)Tj
-37.18 -1.125 Td
(security clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.689 0 Td
(Department)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of Navy v. Egan)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
11.414 0 Td
(, 484 U.S. 518, 528 \(1988\). )Tj
(A decision to grant a security clearance to an)Tj
-19.104 -1.125 Td
(applicant does not give the applicant any)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(vested right or entitlement in keeping a security clearance. )Tj
40.18 0 Td
(A prior grant of a)Tj
-40.18 -1.125 Td
(security clearance does not preclude the federal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(government from considering, at a future date, whether to continue that)Tj
T*
(grant or to revoke it. )Tj
8.442 0 Td
(Furthermore, the federal government)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(is not equitably estopped from denying or revoking a security)Tj
-8.442 -1.125 Td
(clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.274 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0511 \(December 19, 2000\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(at p. 8; ISCR Case No. 99-0481 \(November 29,)Tj
-7.605 -1.125 Td
(2000\) at p. 5.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board has already addressed Applicant's arguments concerning Directi\
ve, Section 6.4 and Directive, Additional)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Procedural)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Guidance, Item E2.2.5.6. )Tj
14.856 0 Td
(The Board need not repeat its discussion of those arguments here.)Tj
-14.856 -2.125 Td
(7. )Tj
(Whether the Board should remand the case to the Administrative Judge wit\
h instructions to reopen the record for)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 91.5 cm
0 0 m
542.18 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 78.75 Tm
(additional)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 78 cm
0 0 m
93.627 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 109.627 78.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant asks the Board to reverse the Administrative Judge's adverse d\
ecision. )Tj
33.005 0 Td
(For the reasons set)Tj
-40.807 -1.125 Td
(forth in this)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision, the Board concludes Applicant has failed to demonstrate error \
that warrants reversal. )Tj
42.931 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
-42.931 -1.125 Td
(asks, in the alternative,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that the Board remand the case to the Judge with instructions that he re\
open the record to receive)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(additional evidence pertinent to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's disclosure to the Defense Security Service of the fact of he\
r travel to FC)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
[77 0 R 78 0 R]
endobj
74 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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
(of proof\); ISCR Case No. 99-0597 \(December 13, 2000\) at p. 7 \(same\)\
. )Tj
28.799 0 Td
(In this case, Applicant argues for a plausible)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(interpretation of the record evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(concerning her family ties in FC. )Tj
28.268 0 Td
(However, Applicant's ability to make such an)Tj
-28.268 -1.125 Td
(argument falls short of demonstrating the Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. )Tj
36.571 0 Td
(The Judge expressed a doubt)Tj
-36.571 -1.125 Td
(whether there was sufficient record evidence about)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's family members in FC to conclude they do not constitute)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(an unacceptable security risk. )Tj
12.078 0 Td
(Considering the record)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence as a whole, the Board cannot conclude the Judge lacked)Tj
-12.078 -1.125 Td
(a rational basis for his expressed doubt. )Tj
16.052 0 Td
(Given that doubt, the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge did not err by resolving it in favor of the national)Tj
-16.052 -1.125 Td
(security. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
3.666 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, Directive, Item E2.2.2.\("Any doubt as to whether access to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(classified information is clearly consistent with)Tj
-3.666 -1.125 Td
(national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."\)\
)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(b\)\(v\) )Tj
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 46.9844 631.5 cm
0 0 m
199.307 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 246.291 632.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 249.291 636.75 Tm
( \(7\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 249.291 636 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 263.0972 632.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have given her)Tj
-20.591 -1.125 Td
(some)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(credit for mitigating circumstances along the lines of Foreign Influence\
Mitigating Condition 3. )Tj
40.852 0 Td
(In support of this)Tj
-40.852 -1.125 Td
(contention,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant argues: she has not traveled to FC since she was granted a sec\
urity clearance; she has no plans to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(travel to FC; her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contacts with persons in FC have become more attenuated since her father\
and one of her sisters)Tj
T*
(immigrated to the United States;)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and Applicant has made clear she would travel to FC only on an emergency\
basis and)Tj
T*
(then only if her sister in FC were not able to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(handle the emergency by herself.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The fact that Applicant's trip to FC in 1997 occurred before she was gra\
nted a security clearance does not have the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(significance)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that Applicant places on it. )Tj
16.078 0 Td
(Security clearance decisions are not limited to consideration of an appl\
icant's)Tj
-16.078 -1.125 Td
(conduct and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(circumstances while the applicant holds a security clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
29.682 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0601 \(January)Tj
-33.014 -1.125 Td
(30, 2001\) at pp. 12-13.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Furthermore, the security significance of Applicant's 1997 trip to FC ca\
nnot be evaluated)Tj
T*
(separate and apart from the record)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence that Applicant continues to hold an FC passport and has indicat\
ed that she)Tj
T*
(would use an FC passport to travel to FC in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the future under some circumstances.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant correctly notes her contacts with persons in FC were reduced w\
hen her father and one sister immigrated to the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(United)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(States. )Tj
5.86 0 Td
(However, that evidence does not negate or diminish the security signific\
ance of Applicant's remaining)Tj
-5.86 -1.125 Td
(contacts with her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(other sister and an elderly aunt in FC, especially when viewed in light \
of her retention of an FC)Tj
T*
(passport and her expressed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(willingness to use an FC passport to travel to FC in the future under so\
me circumstances.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Considering the record as a whole, Applicant has failed to demonstrate i\
t was arbitrary or capricious for the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(to not apply Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 3.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(b\)\(vi\) )Tj
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 50.3184 337.5 cm
0 0 m
199.307 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 249.625 338.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 252.625 342.75 Tm
( \(8\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 252.625 342 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 266.4312 338.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have applied)Tj
-20.869 -1.125 Td
(Foreign)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Influence Mitigating Condition 5. )Tj
17.109 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: her financial interests\
in FC)Tj
-17.109 -1.125 Td
(have diminished)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and no longer exist; and Applicant has substantial financial assets in t\
he United States.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(On its face, Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 5 would be irrelevan\
t to any foreign influence case where there is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(no evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that the applicant had or has any financial interests in a foreign count\
ry. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
33.988 0 Td
(Cf.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 97-0595 \(May)Tj
-33.988 -1.125 Td
(22, 1998\) at p. 5)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(where Administrative Judge did not make threshold finding that there w\
ere facts or circumstances)Tj
T*
(which increased applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or pressure, then it would not m\
ake sense for Judge to)Tj
T*
(apply the Personal Conduct)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(mitigating condition which dealt with reducing or eliminating such a vul\
nerability\). )Tj
44.935 0 Td
(In this)Tj
-44.935 -1.125 Td
(case, there is record evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant had inheritance rights in FC while her father lived there. )Tj
38.929 0 Td
(However, the Judge)Tj
-38.929 -1.125 Td
(specifically found Applicant's father had)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(immigrated to the United States and liquidated his assets in FC. )Tj
42.144 0 Td
(Furthermore,)Tj
-42.144 -1.125 Td
(the Judge found Applicant had substantial financial)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(investments in the United States. )Tj
34.188 0 Td
(The Judge's adverse conclusions)Tj
-34.188 -1.125 Td
(about Applicant's vulnerability to foreign influence did not rely,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(expressly or implicitly, on her past financial interests in)Tj
T*
(FC. )Tj
(Accordingly, even if the Board were to conclude the Judge should)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(have applied Foreign Influence Mitigating)Tj
T*
(Condition 5, such an error would be harmless because it pertains to a ma\
tter that was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not outcome determinative.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(c\) )Tj
(Directive, Item E2.2.5)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 124.5 cm
0 0 m
106.963 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 139.2812 125.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge failed to consider the facto\
rs set forth in)Tj
-10.273 -1.125 Td
(Directive, Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(E2.2.5. )Tj
9.414 0 Td
(Applicant specifically argues: \(i\) she gave truthful and complete answ\
ers to questions put to her)Tj
-9.414 -1.125 Td
(\(E2.2.5.1\); \(ii\) she sought)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(professional guidance of her supervisor and legal counsel upon receiving\
notice that DOHA)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(proposed to revoke her security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance \(E2.2.5.2\); and \(iii\) there is nothing in the record or th\
e Judge's findings to)Tj
T*
(suggest that she should have her security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(clearance suspended pending final adjudication of her case \(E2.2.5.6\).\
)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's honesty and candor with the government weigh in her favor, b\
ut they are not dispositive. )Tj
40.504 0 Td
(The fact that an)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[249.0 634.0 263.0 645.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
78 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[252.0 340.0 266.0 351.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
71 0 obj
[79 0 R]
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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
(in a foreign preference case. )Tj
11.548 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(government is entitled to consider the security significance of an appli\
cant's conduct)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(and circumstances after the applicant takes)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the oath of allegiance and becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
42.231 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case)Tj
-42.231 -1.125 Td
(No. 99-0424 \(February 8, 2001\) at p. 12.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant obviously cannot be held responsible for FC's refusal to recog\
nize the renunciation of FC citizenship when an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(FC-born)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizen becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.882 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 98-0592 \(May 4, 1999\) at pp. 6-7. )Tj
(Nothing in)Tj
-20.882 -1.125 Td
(the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's decision indicates or suggests that the Judge was holding Applic\
ant responsible for FC's)Tj
T*
(policy. )Tj
3 0 Td
(Rather, the Judge was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(correctly noting that FC's refusal to recognize Applicant's renunciation\
of her FC)Tj
-3 -1.125 Td
(citizenship when she became a naturalized U.S.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizen has the practical effect that Applicant cannot travel to FC)Tj
T*
(without an FC passport.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Given the record evidence that Applicant retains an FC passport because \
she wants to retain the ability to travel to FC in)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(the future)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(under some circumstances and has indicated an intention to renew the FC \
passport if necessary to retain the)Tj
T*
(ability to travel to FC,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the Administrat\
ive Judge to conclude)Tj
T*
(Foreign Preference Mitigating)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Condition 4 is not applicable. )Tj
24.412 0 Td
(And, even if the Board were to assume solely for the sake)Tj
-24.412 -1.125 Td
(of deciding this appeal that Applicant was)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(entitled to have the Judge apply Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition\
4)Tj
T*
(the Judge's failure to do so would be harmless error)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(under the particular facts of this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(b\)\(iii\) )Tj
2.916 0 Td
(Discriminatory impact)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 50.9863 516 cm
0 0 m
108.305 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 159.291 516.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant argues the Administrative Judge applied Foreign Preference Mit\
igating)Tj
-11.941 -1.125 Td
(Conditions 1)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and 4 in a manner that, "in the language of Title VII jurisprudence . . \
. had a discriminatory impact on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant just because she)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(happened to be born in [FC] as opposed to a country that recognizes U.S.\
citizenship." )Tj
45.675 0 Td
(A)Tj
-45.675 -1.125 Td
(security clearance adjudication is made)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(under Executive Order 10865 and the Directive to determine whether it is\
)Tj
T*
(clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(continue security clearances for an applicant. )Tj
40.096 0 Td
(It is not the proper)Tj
-40.096 -1.125 Td
(forum for an applicant to raise federal civil rights claims. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
23.075 0 Td
(See,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0454 \(February 8, 2001\) at p. 6)Tj
-26.407 -1.125 Td
(\("Neither Hearing Office Administrative Judges nor the Board has the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate claims)Tj
T*
(under federal civil rights statutes."\). )Tj
14.598 0 Td
(Accordingly, the Board will not address)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's argument on this claim.)Tj
-14.598 -2.375 Td
(\(b\)\(iv\) )Tj
(Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 50.3184 393 cm
0 0 m
199.307 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 249.625 393.75 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 252.625 398.25 Tm
( \(6\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 252.625 397.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 266.4312 393.75 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge should have applied)Tj
-20.869 -1.125 Td
(Foreign)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Influence Mitigating Condition 1. )Tj
17.109 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: the Judge arbitrarily)Tj
-17.109 -1.125 Td
(disregarded Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(testimony without any indication or finding that her testimony was not c\
redible; the government)Tj
T*
(never challenged the truth of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's testimony; and a fair-minded and impartial person would have\
little difficulty)Tj
T*
(concluding Applicant's family members)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(in FC are not agents of the FC government and are not in a position to b\
e)Tj
T*
(exploited by the FC government to put pressure on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant. )Tj
25.023 0 Td
(Applicant's arguments fail to demonstrate the Judge erred.)Tj
-25.023 -2.125 Td
(An Administrative Judge is not compelled to accept the testimony of a wi\
tness merely because it is unrebutted. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
44.628 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-47.959 -1.125 Td
(ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 99-0005 \(April 19, 2000\) at p. 3. )Tj
(A Judge is not required to accept a witness's testimony at face value)Tj
T*
(merely because)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Department Counsel does not specifically attack it at a hearing. )Tj
32.016 0 Td
(Furthermore, even if an Administrative)Tj
-32.016 -1.125 Td
(Judge considers an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant's testimony to be credible, such a favorable credibility deter\
mination does relieve the Judge)Tj
T*
(of the obligation to consider)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(what reasonable inferences and conclusions can be drawn from such testim\
ony. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
43.57 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-46.902 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-0601 \(January 30,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2001\) at pp. 5-6. )Tj
(And, a Judge cannot consider an applicant's testimony in)Tj
T*
(isolation; rather the Judge must consider it in light of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the record evidence as a whole. )Tj
34.24 0 Td
(Moreover, an applicant's opinion)Tj
-34.24 -1.125 Td
(as to the security significance of the applicant's conduct or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(circumstances is not dispositive and does not relieve a Judge)Tj
T*
(of his or her responsibility to evaluate the applicant's security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(eligibility. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
29.173 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0601 \(January 30,)Tj
-32.505 -1.125 Td
(2001\) at p. 9. )Tj
(Accordingly, Applicant's testimony is not dispositive, as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(a matter of law, on whether Foreign Influence)Tj
T*
(Mitigating Condition 1 should be applied in her case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(There is no record evidence that Applicant's relatives in FC are agents \
of a foreign power. )Tj
36.195 0 Td
(However, that does not end)Tj
-36.195 -1.125 Td
(the analysis)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(under Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
24.579 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 99-0511 \(December 19, 2000\) at p. 10)Tj
-24.579 -1.125 Td
(\(discussing bifurcated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(nature of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1\). )Tj
30.327 0 Td
(The Judge still had to consider whether)Tj
-30.327 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's relatives in FC are in a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(position to be exploited by a foreign power.)Tj
T*
(Department Counsel does not have the burden of disproving the applicabil\
ity of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(1. )Tj
(Rather,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant has the burden of presenting evidence to demonstrate the appli\
cability of that mitigating condition.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
T*
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 99-0601 \(January 30, 2001\) at p. 7 \(discussing Department Counsel\
's and applicant's burdens)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[252.0 396.0 266.0 407.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
69 0 obj
[80 0 R 81 0 R]
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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
(Applicant's security eligibility. )Tj
12.567 0 Td
(Under the Directive, the Board does not review an applicant's case )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
26.837 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(. )Tj
(Rather, the)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(Board is limited to reviewing a Judge's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(decision under the terms of Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, I\
tem)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(E3.1.32. )Tj
(Applicant has failed to meet her burden on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(appeal of making a specific claim as to how the Judge erred with)Tj
T*
(respect to the Item E2.2.1 factors. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.745 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0295 \(October 20, 2000\) at pp. 3-4 \(appealing part\
y must)Tj
-17.077 -1.125 Td
(raise claims of error with specificity, not merely assert a Judge erred)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(without specifying how the Judge supposedly)Tj
T*
(erred\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant also argues that the Administrative Judge's adverse decision "\
simply cannot be squared with numerous)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(decisions of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(DOHA approving security clearances for other naturalized U.S. citizens."\
)Tj
34.73 0 Td
(Applicant does not cite any)Tj
-34.73 -1.125 Td
(specific DOHA decisions in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(support of this argument. )Tj
21.802 0 Td
(If Applicant is referring to decisions by other Hearing Office)Tj
-21.802 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judges, those decisions)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(would not be binding on the Judge or on the Board. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
36.634 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-)Tj
-39.966 -1.125 Td
(0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at p. 5. )Tj
13.108 0 Td
(Furthermore, by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not identifying specific DOHA decisions in support of this argument,)Tj
-13.108 -1.125 Td
(Applicant leaves the Board unable to determine: \(i\) whether)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant relies on any decision that might be persuasive)Tj
T*
(authority, or \(ii\) whether Applicant relies on any decision that is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(distinguishable. )Tj
32.493 0 Td
(To the extent Applicant's argument)Tj
-32.493 -1.125 Td
(relies on DOHA decisions concerning legal necessity in foreign passport)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(cases that predate the ASDC3I memo, it lacks)Tj
T*
(merit for the reasons set forth earlier in this decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(b\) )Tj
(Foreign Preference and Foreign Influence mitigating conditions)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 32.9922 528 cm
0 0 m
305.912 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 338.9043 528.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends )Tj
8.498 0 Td
(the Administrative Judge erred)Tj
-35.407 -1.125 Td
(by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(concluding that no Foreign Preference or Foreign Influence )Tj
25.297 0 Td
(mitigating conditions applied to Applicant's case.)Tj
-25.297 -1.125 Td
(Applicant claims)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Judge should have applied certain Foreign Preference and Foreign Inf\
luence Mitigating)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Conditions. )Tj
(Applicant also contends)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(the Administrative Judge applied Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition\
s 1 and 4)Tj
T*
(in a manner that " had a discriminatory impact)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(on Applicant.")Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(b\)\(i\) )Tj
(Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 44.3184 445.5 cm
0 0 m
205.295 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 249.6133 446.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 252.6133 450.75 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 252.6133 450 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 266.4194 446.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant argues the Administrative Judge erred by concluding)Tj
-20.868 -1.125 Td
(Foreign)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Preference Mitigating Condition 1 was not applicable because she applied\
for an FC passport after becoming a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(naturalized U.S.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizen. )Tj
9.885 0 Td
(Applicant's contention has some merit, but it does not demonstrate harmf\
ul error under the)Tj
-9.885 -1.125 Td
(particular facts of this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When the Administrative Judge issued his decision in this case, there wa\
s Board precedent that indicated his)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(interpretation of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 1 was a permissible one. )Tj
33.381 0 Td
(A few weeks later, the Board issued)Tj
-33.381 -1.125 Td
(a decision in which it)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(changed its position concerning the interpretation and application of Fo\
reign Preference)Tj
T*
(Mitigating Condition 1. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.723 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 99-0452 \(March 21, 2000\) at pp. 2-3. )Tj
(Accordingly, the Judge's reasoning)Tj
-9.723 -1.125 Td
(concerning Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1 would be sustainable if the Board had not changed its position on)Tj
T*
(the interpretation and application of Foreign Preference)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(itigating Condition 1.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board has declined to ignore its change of position on Foreign Prefe\
rence Mitigating Condition 1 in cases where the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge's decision was issued before the Board's decision i\
n ISCR Case No. 99-0452 and the appeal was)Tj
T*
(adjudicated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(after that Board decision. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.216 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR Case No. 99-0601 \(January 30, 2001\) at pp. 11-12; ISCR Case No. 9\
9-)Tj
-15.216 -1.125 Td
(0597 \(December 13,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2000\) at p. 8. )Tj
13.996 0 Td
(However, the change in the Board's position on Foreign Preference Mitiga\
ting)Tj
-13.996 -1.125 Td
(Condition 1 does not warrant reversal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(or remand in this case. )Tj
24.605 0 Td
(The Judge's adverse security clearance decision is)Tj
-24.605 -1.125 Td
(sustainable on grounds that would not be affected by the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(application of Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 1.)Tj
T*
(Accordingly, a reversal would not be warranted and no useful purpose)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(would be served by remanding this case to the)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge for his application of Foreign Preference Mitigatin\
g)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Condition 1.)Tj
0 -2.375 TD
(\(b\)\(ii\) )Tj
(Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 4)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 47.6523 163.5 cm
0 0 m
205.295 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 252.9473 164.25 Tm
(.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 255.9473 168.75 Tm
( \(5\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 255.9473 168 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 269.7534 164.25 Tm
( )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge erred by not applying)Tj
-21.146 -1.125 Td
(Foreign)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Preference Mitigating Condition 4. )Tj
17.608 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: she renounced her FC)Tj
-17.608 -1.125 Td
(citizenship when she)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(became a naturalized U.S. citizen; FC does not recognize the renunciatio\
n of FC citizenship when)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(an FC-born citizen becomes a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(naturalized U.S. citizen; and the Judge erred by concluding Applicant pr\
eferred FC)Tj
T*
(citizenship because she did not seek to go)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(through the onerous procedures established by FC to formally renounce FC\
)Tj
T*
(citizenship.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant correctly notes that renunciation of foreign citizenship is pa\
rt of the oath of allegiance taken when a person)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(becomes a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(naturalized U.S. citizen. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.328 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0452 \(March 21, 2000\) at p. 7. )Tj
(However, Applicant's)Tj
-17.659 -1.125 Td
(renunciation of her FC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(citizenship when she became a naturalized U.S. citizen is not conclusive\
or dispositive evidence)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[252.0 448.0 266.0 459.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
81 0 obj
<>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[255.0 166.0 269.0 177.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0519.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/99-0519.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:35 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 16 754.5 Tm
(that Applicant's father and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(both sisters still reside in FC. )Tj
22.705 0 Td
(Applicant's argument is based on a misleading characterization)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(of the Judge's decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board does not review isolated sentences or passages of an Administr\
ative Judge's decision. )Tj
38.865 0 Td
(Rather, the Board)Tj
-38.865 -1.125 Td
(considers the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's decision as a whole to determine what findings were made and con\
clusions reached by the Judge.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -1.125 TD
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(No. 99-0554 \(July 24, 2000\) at p. 4 n.2; ISCR Case No. 97-0699 \(Novem\
ber 24, 1998\) at p. 4. )Tj
43.135 0 Td
(The)Tj
-46.467 -1.125 Td
(Judge specifically found that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's father and one of her sisters immigrated to the United State\
s after Applicant's)Tj
T*
(1997 trip to FC. )Tj
(Furthermore, in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evaluating Applicant's case under Guideline B \(which is predicated on S\
OR paragraph)Tj
T*
(2.a.\), the Judge specifically noted that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's father and one of her sisters had immigrated to the United S\
tates, and)Tj
T*
(focused on the one sister and aunt who remained)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(in FC. )Tj
22.495 0 Td
(Considering the Judge's decision as a whole, Applicant's)Tj
-22.495 -1.125 Td
(argument is untenable.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(c\) The Administrative Judge found Applicant did not disclose her trav\
el to FC when she applied for a security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance in 1997)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and indicated Applicant attributed the omission to a mistake. )Tj
31.852 0 Td
(Applicant contends the Administrative)Tj
-31.852 -1.125 Td
(Judge erred by making that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(finding and argues it was violative of due process for the government to\
use an unsigned and)Tj
T*
(unauthenticated document)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(Government Exhibit 1\) to impeach Applicant when signed documents in t\
he government's)Tj
T*
(possession would have shown)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant has disclosed her travel to FC when she applied for a security\
clearance.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's objection to Government Exhibit 1 on appeal is untimely. )Tj
28.036 0 Td
(At the hearing, Government Exhibit 1 was entered)Tj
-28.036 -1.125 Td
(into)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence without objection from Applicant. )Tj
19.523 0 Td
(The hearing transcript passage cited by Applicant on appeal does not)Tj
-19.523 -1.125 Td
(support her)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(claim that she challenged the weight to be given to Government Exhibit 1\
. )Tj
34.769 0 Td
(The cited passage indicates)Tj
-34.769 -1.125 Td
(Applicant was asked)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(questions by her counsel about Government Exhibit 1, including its prepa\
ration. )Tj
40.825 0 Td
(The cited passage)Tj
-40.825 -1.125 Td
(does not contain any objection)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(by Applicant's counsel to the admission of Government Exhibit 1 or any a\
rgument about)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(its weight. )Tj
4.416 0 Td
(Having failed to object to the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(admissibility of Government Exhibit 1 at the hearing, Applicant cannot n\
ow)Tj
-4.416 -1.125 Td
(complain that the document was admitted into)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence and considered by the Administrative Judge. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
40.628 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR)Tj
-43.959 -1.125 Td
(Case No. 98-0123 \(October 28, 1998\) at p. 2.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Apart from Applicant's waiver of any objection to the admission of Gover\
nment Exhibit 1, the challenged finding by the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge \(which appears in a brief footnote\) does not appe\
ar to be relied on by the Judge in his analysis of)Tj
T*
(Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(case. )Tj
6.983 0 Td
(As discussed earlier in this decision, the Board does not review isolate\
d sentences or passages of a)Tj
-6.983 -1.125 Td
(Judge's decision. )Tj
(Considering the challenged finding in the context of the Judge's decisio\
n as a whole, the Board)Tj
T*
(concludes the challenged finding is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(tangential to the Judge's findings and conclusions under Guideline B and\
Guideline)Tj
T*
(C. )Tj
(Accordingly, even if the Board were to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(assume solely for the sake of deciding this appeal that the challenged f\
inding)Tj
T*
(is erroneous, that error would be harmless. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.301 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(ISCR Case No. 00-0244 \(January 29, 2001\) at p. 6; ISCR Case No.)Tj
-20.632 -1.125 Td
(98-0657 \(November 16, 1999\) at p. 3.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(5. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by not applying pertinent provisi\
ons of the Directive)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 275.25 cm
0 0 m
447.879 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 475.8789 276 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the)Tj
-38.323 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge erred by not applying certain provisions of the Dir\
ective. )Tj
31.825 0 Td
(Specifically, Applicant argues: \(a\) the)Tj
-31.825 -1.125 Td
(factors set)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(forth under Directive, Item E2.2.1 must be resolved in her favor; \(b\) \
the Judge erred by not applying certain)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Foreign Preference)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(\(Guideline C\) mitigating conditions or certain Foreign Influence \(Gui\
deline B\) mitigating)Tj
T*
(conditions; )Tj
4.694 0 Td
(\(c\) the Judge failed to apply)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Directive, Item E2.2.5; and \(d\) the Judge's analysis does not comply w\
ith the)Tj
-4.694 -1.125 Td
(whole person analysis required by the Directive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(\(a\) )Tj
(Directive, Item E2.2.1)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 32.3184 182.25 cm
0 0 m
106.963 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 139.2812 183 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends that a review of the facts and circumstances of her c\
ase under the Item)Tj
-10.273 -1.125 Td
(E2.2.1)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(factors demonstrates it is clearly consistent with the national interest\
to continue her access to classified)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(information. )Tj
5.221 0 Td
(None of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's arguments as to each of the Item E2.2.1 factors articulates \
how the Administrative)Tj
-5.221 -1.125 Td
(Judge is supposed to have erred. )Tj
13.191 0 Td
(Rather, Applicant's arguments about the Item E2.2.1 factors set forth he\
r interpretation)Tj
-13.191 -1.125 Td
(of the record evidence and her assertion)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that consideration of each of those factors "must be resolved in favor o\
f)Tj
T*
(Applicant.")Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(As discussed earlier in this decision, there is no presumption of error \
below and the appealing party has the burden of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(demonstrating error. )Tj
8.414 0 Td
(Applicant's arguments concerning the Item E2.2.1 factors fail to raise a\
ny specific claim as to how)Tj
-8.414 -1.125 Td
(the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge erred with respect to application of the Item E2.2.\
1 factors. )Tj
34.156 0 Td
(Rather, Applicant's arguments)Tj
-34.156 -1.125 Td
(about the Item)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(E2.2.1 factors appear to ask the Board to consider those factors and mak\
e a )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
36.349 0 Td
(de novo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( decision as to)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
82 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
92 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/99-0519.a1.html)
endobj
91 0 obj
<>
endobj
93 0 obj
<>
endobj
83 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 314.0 null]
endobj
84 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 248.0 null]
endobj
85 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 196.0 null]
endobj
86 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 103.0 null]
endobj
87 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 77.0 null]
endobj
88 0 obj
[40 0 R/XYZ 0 52.0 null]
endobj
89 0 obj
[41 0 R/XYZ 0 713.0 null]
endobj
90 0 obj
[41 0 R/XYZ 0 687.0 null]
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 94
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003657 00000 n
0000220748 00000 n
0000003535 00000 n
0000003590 00000 n
0000003717 00000 n
0000003744 00000 n
0000219608 00000 n
0000219916 00000 n
0000219958 00000 n
0000219420 00000 n
0000010619 00000 n
0000165121 00000 n
0000003848 00000 n
0000003894 00000 n
0000003943 00000 n
0000004464 00000 n
0000004080 00000 n
0000004112 00000 n
0000004144 00000 n
0000004176 00000 n
0000004208 00000 n
0000004240 00000 n
0000004272 00000 n
0000004304 00000 n
0000004336 00000 n
0000004368 00000 n
0000004400 00000 n
0000004432 00000 n
0000098319 00000 n
0000098520 00000 n
0000098735 00000 n
0000098950 00000 n
0000165229 00000 n
0000165430 00000 n
0000165645 00000 n
0000165860 00000 n
0000166075 00000 n
0000166276 00000 n
0000163638 00000 n
0000005191 00000 n
0000005392 00000 n
0000010534 00000 n
0000010583 00000 n
0000010713 00000 n
0000011221 00000 n
0000045271 00000 n
0000045538 00000 n
0000011662 00000 n
0000011935 00000 n
0000012403 00000 n
0000046150 00000 n
0000155397 00000 n
0000145924 00000 n
0000145956 00000 n
0000135952 00000 n
0000135977 00000 n
0000108377 00000 n
0000099151 00000 n
0000108804 00000 n
0000109080 00000 n
0000109516 00000 n
0000145594 00000 n
0000154737 00000 n
0000155067 00000 n
0000163829 00000 n
0000210731 00000 n
0000200761 00000 n
0000200793 00000 n
0000190847 00000 n
0000190872 00000 n
0000180531 00000 n
0000180563 00000 n
0000171246 00000 n
0000166489 00000 n
0000190187 00000 n
0000190517 00000 n
0000200431 00000 n
0000210071 00000 n
0000210401 00000 n
0000219505 00000 n
0000220414 00000 n
0000220456 00000 n
0000220498 00000 n
0000220540 00000 n
0000220582 00000 n
0000220623 00000 n
0000220664 00000 n
0000220706 00000 n
0000220165 00000 n
0000220000 00000 n
0000220361 00000 n
trailer
<<7B09ED5E491C81419F8C0D45B7AC38EB>]>>
startxref
220920
%%EOF
h;ulQ L56u;{X{u&i?%I6tI?Oz !2/f&mSmIGrOR /? 9r> k+? okPGF*=~o%%Κm>ԯB 3ssAɚ4N
ndGAlW*>ﾷa]ٽ[]VRxṠOԵwϔbS?$k+umA}g?q X_+Nu{Կ)_v lmpۃC
\*|G/4~36e?cl '#7:I9~5h[6R Z+a P{BZm,iFβ_0F.?n_19/0V]CN*pv0E*VkF:&aC6/ ;uwKo4ĕ'BN'X'L[O7z' o :Usf#5_mEBo߇ZOcbJfM9D>j\[(m\dfCɥwX]+oP=º!;KqpJ^ǥ}'Yy9;wdr!_
>2yF^C'/5\mW-t@8G>A#Zᑯ,kv(i*z2$[A:Ud^ݓR~_<,orJVОM;r RkY{kSxoH / 6pnM&?mN?}]@܍o?VRm/ t*6J˖(j/ΙhX?ּNlѵ?EAW >dI' \H
G:r}y" %i%28ҋ+k
G0e&Զvjt{;tسC wwOH{V>v-sXos0W߾iOH]̵oF뽭M jOs}OθDCZb{/6oeLa[?Suϔ:z_'
旙 1Я
̠g:se Ao0:Oc
>5j#v? fʇb:@jB_"W K:lh %K#G_a~ÿ!\0|a^,rd4
K&3a4e&Tݗ<}a "Doydk72& U}Dƥ ˯^Ħ"zJҥ
2=8x?Y<9Fwӗq][Vu;| ڒ 9$a9 gתY{'XKwh%w{U9\H<R W$I@qtݻQodȓv pQ#GKqOo@2qk98st`t]t Vv!M|z#E
1E\',GDy9 &Ӝ貴r2;QA\~I)&n^XTT~-[T #T=\@߸+" wc& ̆
?^=ٕ(RtKW KmEjR;[V u=~xt,T6_>EsNb[?/HWԌ 0nt|n7>mz9q'~DuZx 5 1tǫ`UN _D [!`ND]b"@ rxNQGg1՜hZ} :kR@@>n w%A#irz"2=,%;Xn+%'$OBP` `BBї뗎4 &FU5TtSZp`MxOSV텘jZR|L{.z?Hh֡/- E?~*: UkPݔ C4C)JdUU@ p+T2T A}a-Ŕ&Cj|l܄
!#s?
p EIn
"fܞsgj `"H
wKET ȀZ ʽ MS"km@
OJ1Ӑ}#I_\WK
3;-1ڶaptTՑ>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<