%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-07T15:18:50-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:49-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:50-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
99-0703.a1
uuid:3d5c007f-7eee-472b-96c6-2ea26d4be991
uuid:25d88822-0b20-4741-bc44-cfc047219430
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
15 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 16 0 R/Pg 12 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0703.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/99-0703.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:50 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: January 26, 2001)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. 99-0703)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
-5.846 -2.2 Td
(William S. Fields, Deputy Chief Department Counsel)Tj
3.444 -2.2 Td
(Erin C. Hogan, Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
3.179 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-0.554 -2.2 Td
(William L. Enyart Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 394.5 Tm
(Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny issued a decision dated September 7\
, 2000, in which he concluded that it is)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security cl\
earance for Applicant. )Tj
39.485 0 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
-39.485 -1.125 Td
(appealed. )Tj
4.053 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision for the reasons explai\
ned below.)Tj
-4.053 -2.125 Td
(The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Dep\
artment of defense Directive 5220.6, dated)Tj
T*
(January 2,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(1992 as amended.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel's appeal presents the following issues: 1. Did the Ad\
ministrative Judge shift the burden of proof for)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(resolving)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(doubts to the government? 2. Was the Administrative Judge's decision arb\
itrary, capricious and contrary to)Tj
T*
(law?)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\
\(SOR\) to Applicant dated February 17,)Tj
T*
(2000. )Tj
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(SOR was based on Guideline E \(Personal Conduct\) and Guideline J \(Crim\
inal Conduct\). )Tj
40.021 0 Td
(Applicant requested)Tj
-40.021 -1.125 Td
(a hearing which)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(was held on Friday, July 28, 2000.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Administrative Judge issued a decision dated September 7, 2000 in wh\
ich he found for Applicant. )Tj
41.213 0 Td
(The case is)Tj
-41.213 -1.125 Td
(before the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Board on Department Counsel's appeal of that decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.225 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. Did the Administrative Judge shift the burden of proof for resolving \
doubts to the government? )Tj
39.354 0 Td
(Department Counsel)Tj
-39.354 -1.125 Td
(argues)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that they established a prima facie case of falsification under two guid\
elines against Applicant by introducing)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(two signed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(statements from Applicant: one statement in which he flatly denies out o\
f court allegations by his ex-wife)Tj
T*
(that at some point in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(their 27-year marriage he took home classified documents and another sta\
tement in which)Tj
T*
(Applicant said that it was "possible")Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that he had done so at some time with For Official Use Only \(FOUO\) and\
)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 40.5 Tm
(confidential documents and concedes at least by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(inference that this statement appears to contrast with his earlier)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(rM\)@#ٚ/)
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0E
-EqXLMZⵥi?<ËlgsuC5:F3=x\6M'[݆إpΩ
v}4v};]=6)y{9MḉԵ->t4y]5[B|؞_88ٙ].m?-rݦ~iOesi.Ʀ
`K[4!vknmKf(+cf]L]3\K W
,d{ߓ0[2O<՚?/d]\s:t1CNlلGa^X/z {%z ^/y"?%z ^/3GNϜ9=sz̠1:{sJ:nyaqv4 c͂
endstream
endobj
31 0 obj
<>stream
H|y\TG5o^p rxÛxDFj$^5ƍQ7P(jk<O</[>fۨ1~4f`&=bS]U]^_w x!{~ѢU1}s*$2:1*_
rGRn\Թ%Hl(p nv.@Q1C
$?mC&vSAI|KJMnyorȁB)? 9ix3AH?yXl&"xM1drk
u+!NKFtܹ,nBЫGgY%vt:# r:",ww=
5i~G
h\cYwsS?Nz4l5M/[|Uڦm>[GбSOt{OY翾/{էo|?"2
D
8(~pBÆ|;bdc;.-}2&0i̬ӦϘ9k,XKr/[b*5kI7l,ܴymۋvܵxO}qP#G?qTyN9{|bZy
Z)T,UP#Ơ K=R)MrKSn!)GȓLy|X~ ?Fԥ蝁t-
I P.JG|U*YŢr