"ڬRr/DΒ5Dc5"jrw2l 2GL҇$}!F 2.MʏFq+t_C~f;xM܀u,+[1= ,
]|w7<˝c8_,uާɢma؏WŌ#!r|qVzvG2)7< ߿I}ƪc[lz{1YS1ǽ|XY:q[ݎ!c s&PB]F}wb| Ø6][Eœ.VΧ$M!KXK?{S"vzwirix[)D.ںvm2qAFKWb6]26 SvAyW7;fYElSa ˏTG{ʨ|QgSe= 6^b vq}uÂDl(q.B+o c3F >o~p=@g`ڙ1.Dx,
'\+CĽ39Y c۽ 7;PO6Z_)?4yXŸm]!^tF9Vg# Ϙp%uXOuGW &Me8P3X #Ǚ绲1{8f2؊asҧ"K&}D\!}'$ p,ƒ,9KQTԘcel%{*%Dӿ9<r过}K/ve#ЍOM)yן@ I,S ǿ틹0_ի^ U}(= ~[bIuWFg:pîG-.D(5>>kɶj' *-坈+ *6'i_Y^QGj:-j qLK:%ҩ26g&5 d2> -A*"L.Jdz^"-2// I f4GStlK'R~}k<+g4%~43d"Ml~6ݚLsmL෦AuLS
F A< dԏX&"h"-8nJmi$ dm3ԌY'95U
_ȅD\&~l4*1 s<8g-J?fFF Y̶9z9Tw` גTrc})
}_m7DFsX=jz 夆;*k63--SW_SEUXyW%V #OĦ[a;`Z 'Uc3~L:wv&'lcg]qMhCM*jqEդD#(BHV6<Ɖ#!!#* "Q !
˹w*9߽|{YoD ȋ^幅`۰? 7-C EɏoJw` C2 TF~71`.KenZG! AX] @a:2[gdzMvMJL]#Ík9lzk un} w5y7m @R@ I~
1{.99 7EjP>b.2l` u-iu?ezk-eo|q3q׃bj]fX9)Hiw
sЈ
GݥXfH3fPڠl2_iWj&mxa'9;^ؤ
k%zH b/}VՂ]ĶO1 u)i^"S ~rj[-q~(U7l 5,3
;zӻMSb[* =dDscfc*ky%Х"nSd8A
" v[f\vś~2´oƒlS\%dCg<]SzRFS4Gw)ԞϒN> r Sb6=nА+HΉQw1j@L}?)%
Cm6&fL$!V QQ)xD!{ՌRFy"3ʾɌ%l(I/BX=Boǔ;1e9|=<SS>SbhL+x #Bok|By߅L.!wf\=<9 ٍ^e DQ XE,Rg v P9]x<
E}TPZV;$}CT^
X3niG&7?Vf[
SQ)?B沿Z]Gj.a|oVfv+u{72|Lήk^ ӂ.g735? Yײ`K-6i SfTb XnK ylW lLlze/[lH `%ۘOOvRJ_RIai4(ť~S!y&Ȳ 25nBg0!: !5(!X&kYKK4Qp'5:Fir㯕qɹyT\G&p "@vW=Mz#N:ᝓ:Wz9OR.u"cA Zƽ+bsQt }咳k"v`r 'G1E]>A4461NN@_ ): 2Go*T "32䂮Ce =_ I*:6U*3Y Q&Ȩ|d>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0554.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/99-0554.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:40 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
(offense" covered by an SOR allegation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
16.098 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR Case No. 94-1213 \(January 16, 1996\) at p. 6. Applicant's content\
ion)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(that he was prejudiced by faulty)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(wording of the SOR allegations is totally unpersuasive with respect to S\
OR 2.a.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's argument also fails to demonstrate any violation of due proc\
ess with respect to SOR 2.b., which alleged that)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(he misused a government computer in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. )Tj
27.08 0 Td
(The language of SOR 2.b. clearly placed Applicant)Tj
-27.08 -1.125 Td
(on notice that the government was alleging he had misused a government)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(computer. )Tj
33.879 0 Td
(Merely because the Administrative)Tj
-33.879 -1.125 Td
(Judge found Department Counsel failed to meet its burden of proving the \
controverted allegation does not mean)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that)Tj
T*
(Applicant was misled or otherwise prejudiced in his ability to respond t\
o it. )Tj
30.383 0 Td
(Furthermore, Applicant's argument on this)Tj
-30.383 -1.125 Td
(point ignores the simple fact that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant had told an investigator in June 1999 that he had "view[ed] se\
xually explicit)Tj
T*
(material on government time and with government equipment" \(Exhibit)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(3 at p. 2\). )Tj
33.039 0 Td
(Having made such a statement to a)Tj
-33.039 -1.125 Td
(government investigator, it is not reasonable for Applicant to complain \
now that the government alleged in SOR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2.b.)Tj
T*
(that he had misused a government computer.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(5. )Tj
(Whether the Board should reverse the Administrative Judge's formal findi\
ngs under Criterion E because the Criterion)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 581.25 cm
0 0 m
563.672 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 568.5 Tm
(E allegations are duplicative of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(allegations under Criterion D and Criterion M)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 567.75 cm
0 0 m
390.551 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 406.5508 568.5 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the)Tj
-32.546 -1.125 Td
(Administrative Judge's adverse formal findings under Criterion E should \
be reversed)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(because they are duplicative of the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(allegations under Criterion D and Criterion M. )Tj
18.885 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues that Criterion E does no\
t)Tj
-18.885 -1.125 Td
(provide any independent basis for an adverse decision in his case, and n\
one of the Criterion E Disqualifying Conditions)Tj
T*
(is applicable to his case. )Tj
9.941 0 Td
(Applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(contention is not persuasive.)Tj
-9.941 -2.125 Td
(An SOR allegation may rationally be included under more than one Criteri\
on. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
31.409 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, DISCR Case No. 93-1251 \(July)Tj
-31.409 -1.125 Td
(29, 1994\) at p. 4 \("[A]n applicant's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(security related conduct can be alleged under more than one Criterion an\
d, in an)Tj
T*
(appropriate case, can be given independent weight by an Administrative J\
udge)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(under different Criteria."\). )Tj
42.477 0 Td
(So long as)Tj
-42.477 -1.125 Td
(there is a rational basis for an SOR allegation to be included under mor\
e than one Criterion, it is legally permissible for)Tj
T*
(a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge to consider an applicant's conduct under different Criteria. )Tj
26.81 0 Td
(Furthermore, the mere presence or absence of any)Tj
-26.81 -1.125 Td
(Adjudicative Guidelines Disqualifying or)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(itigating Condition is not dispositive of a case. )Tj
35.689 0 Td
(Rather, a Judge must consider)Tj
-35.689 -1.125 Td
(applicable Adjudicative Guidelines in light of the record evidence as a \
whole. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
31.35 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0500 \(May)Tj
-34.682 -1.125 Td
(19, 2000\) at p. 4.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's argument seeks to divide the facts and circumstances of his \
misconduct into separate categories and then)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(have them considered in an artificial,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(piecemeal fashion. )Tj
22.824 0 Td
(Applicant's argument runs afoul of the "whole person" concept)Tj
-22.824 -1.125 Td
(that must be applied in evaluating an applicant's security eligibility. \
)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
27.257 0 Td
(See,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0350 \(March 31, 1999\))Tj
-30.588 -1.125 Td
(at p. 3 \(discussing "whole person" concept\). )Tj
17.84 0 Td
(The security significance of Applicant's conduct must be evaluated)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(in light)Tj
-17.84 -1.125 Td
(of the totality of the facts and circumstances of his case, not by consi\
dering each SOR allegation in isolation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
43.794 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
-47.125 -1.125 Td
(ISCR Case No. 99-0122 \(April)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(7, 2000\) at p. 4 \(Administrative Judge should not engage in piecemeal \
analysis of an)Tj
T*
(applicant's conduct, but should consider the security significance of th\
e)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(totality of the applicant's conduct\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(6. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by failing to consider that Appli\
cant voluntarily reported the information)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 28 261.75 cm
0 0 m
545.174 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 249 Tm
(which served as the basis for the SOR)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 248.25 cm
0 0 m
182.297 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 198.2969 249 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends the Administrative Judge failed to apply in Applicant\
's favor)Tj
-15.191 -1.125 Td
(the fact that Applicant voluntarily reported the information which serve\
d as the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(basis for the SOR in this case.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant's )Tj
(argument is not persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant correctly notes that the Directive indicates an adjudicator sh\
ould consider, among other things, whether an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(applicant has voluntarily reported)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(information \(Section E2.2.5.1.\) )Tj
26.465 0 Td
(or was truthful and complete in responding to)Tj
-26.465 -1.125 Td
(questions \(Section E2.2.5.2.\). )Tj
12.054 0 Td
(However, )Tj
(taken to its logical extension,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Applicant's argument would turn the applicability)Tj
-12.054 -1.125 Td
(of a mitigating factor into total exoneration of misconduct. )Tj
23.716 0 Td
(The Directive does not require such a result. )Tj
17.966 0 Td
(As)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(noted earlier)Tj
-41.682 -1.125 Td
(in this decision, the mere presence or absence of a mitigating factor is\
not dispositive of a case. )Tj
38.266 0 Td
(An Administrative)Tj
-38.266 -1.125 Td
(Judge must consider the record)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs \
the)Tj
T*
(unfavorable evidence or )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.912 0 Td
(vice versa)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
4.025 0 Td
(.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
( )Tj
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.832 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0608 \(June 27,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(2000\) at p. 2. )Tj
(Absent a showing that the)Tj
-17.769 -1.125 Td
(Judge weighed the record evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, caprici\
ous, or contrary to law, the Board will not)Tj
T*
(disturb the Judge's weighing of the favorable and unfavorable evidence. \
)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
28.976 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 98-0380 \(March 8,)Tj
-32.308 -1.125 Td
(1999\) at p. 5. )Tj
(Applicant's disagreement)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence in this case falls shor\
t of)Tj
T*
(meeting his burden of demonstrating the Judge weighed the evidence in a \
manner that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(is arbitrary, capricious, or)Tj
T*
(contrary to law.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
[46 0 R 47 0 R 48 0 R]
endobj
45 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0554.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/99-0554.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:40 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
(be preferable for a Judge to cite)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(pertinent provisions of the Directive in a decision to enable the partie\
s and this Board to)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(better understand the Judge's reasoning and analysis of a case. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.089 0 Td
(See,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0018 \(December 6, 1999\) at)Tj
-28.42 -1.125 Td
(p. 2 \("An Administrative Judge's decision must set forth findings and c\
onclusions with sufficient specificity)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(and clarity)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(that the parties and the Board can discern what the Judge is finding and\
concluding."\). )Tj
34.704 0 Td
(However, there is no requirement)Tj
-34.704 -1.125 Td
(that a Judge must expressly)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(cite or explicitly quote every single provision of the Directive that is\
applicable or pertinent)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(to a case. )Tj
3.942 0 Td
(In this case, the Board's reading of the Judge's decision in)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(its entirety)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 393.8887 689.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 393.8887 688.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 407.6948 684.75 Tm
( persuades the Board that the Judge)Tj
-32.641 -1.125 Td
(considered the pertinent provisions of the Directive sufficiently. )Tj
25.854 0 Td
(Applicant's appeal argument on this issue is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(not)Tj
-25.854 -1.125 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(3. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant is likely to\
engage in future misuse of information)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 631.5 cm
0 0 m
539.197 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 618.75 Tm
(technology systems)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 618 cm
0 0 m
94.324 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 110.3242 618.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(The Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge found that Applicant is "very unlikely to access pornographic web \
sites)Tj
-7.86 -1.125 Td
(from an office computer in the future." )Tj
15.791 0 Td
(Despite that finding, the Judge concluded)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
("there remains a substantial risk that)Tj
-15.791 -1.125 Td
(some other kind of abuse of office computer capability in violation of a\
pplicable rules, procedures, guidelines, or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(regulations." )Tj
(Applicant contends the Judge erred because the Judge's adverse conclusio\
n: \(a\) is not supported by the)Tj
T*
(record evidence; \(b\) is a vague conclusion)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(that covers a variety of possible situations that do not necessarily imp\
licate)Tj
T*
(the security concerns of Criterion M; and \(c\) is "completely speculati\
ve and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(conjectural." )Tj
35.915 0 Td
(Applicant's contention is)Tj
-35.915 -1.125 Td
(persuasive.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(An Administrative Judge's conclusions must follow rationally from the Ju\
dge's factual findings. )Tj
38.549 0 Td
(Having found that)Tj
-38.549 -1.125 Td
(Applicant is "very unlikely" to misuse an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(office computer to access pornographic web sites in the future, the Judg\
e)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(failed to articulate any rational basis to infer that Applicant is at su\
bstantial risk to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(abuse an office computer in the future)Tj
T*
(for some different, unidentified purpose. )Tj
16.467 0 Td
(It would be one thing if the Judge had concluded Applicant was at risk t\
o)Tj
-16.467 -1.125 Td
(misuse an office computer to access pornographic web sites in the future\
. )Tj
29.574 0 Td
(Such a conclusion would have fallen within)Tj
-29.574 -1.375 Td
(the permissible bounds of his authority.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 205.9785 446.25 Tm
( \(3\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 205.9785 445.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 219.7847 441.75 Tm
( )Tj
(It is quite another thing for the Judge to speculate as to the possibili\
ty that)Tj
-16.982 -1.125 Td
(Applicant might commit some other, unidentified misuse of an office comp\
uter that)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(has no connection with or)Tj
T*
(resemblance to the kind of computer misuse that was the subject of the S\
OR in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(4. )Tj
(Whether Applicant was denied due process by not receiving notice as to t\
he nature of the allegations against him)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 388.5 cm
0 0 m
541.16 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 375.75 Tm
(under Criterion M)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 375 cm
0 0 m
87.316 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 103.3164 375.75 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant contends he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(was denied due process because he did not receive adequate written notic\
e of)Tj
-7.276 -1.125 Td
(the allegations against him. )Tj
11.192 0 Td
(In support of this contention, Applicant argues: \(a\) the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(SOR alleged that he misused a)Tj
-11.192 -1.125 Td
(government computer to access pornographic sites on the Internet, \(b\) \
the Administrative Judge found that he misused a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(company computer, not a government computer, and \(c\) Applicant's abili\
ty to prepare a defense was materially)Tj
T*
(prejudiced by the faulty wording of the SOR. )Tj
18.357 0 Td
(Applicant's contention is not persuasive.)Tj
-18.357 -2.125 Td
(It is well-settled that administrative pleadings are not judged by the s\
trict standards of a criminal indictment. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
43.6 0 Td
(Citizens)Tj
-43.6 -1.125 Td
(State Bank of Marshfield, Missouri v.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(FDIC)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
17.554 0 Td
(, 751 F.2d 209, 213 \(8th Cir. 1984\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. v.)Tj
-17.554 -1.125 Td
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
16.192 0 Td
(, 611 F.2d 951, 959 n.7 \(4th Cir. 1979\);)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
/TT1 1 Tf
(Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics)Tj
-16.192 -1.375 Td
(Board)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 598 F.2d 250, 262 \(D.C. Cir. 1979\).)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 224.6699 257.25 Tm
( \(4\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 224.6699 256.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 238.4761 252.75 Tm
( )Tj
(To the contrary, administrative pleadings should be liberally construed)Tj
-18.54 -1.125 Td
(and easily amended. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.386 0 Td
(See, e.g., New York State Electricity & Gas Corp. v. Secretary of Labor)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
28.606 0 Td
(, 88 F.3d 98, 104 \(2d Cir.)Tj
-36.992 -1.125 Td
(1996\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(Donovan v. Williams Enterprise,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Inc.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
17.775 0 Td
(, 744 F.2d 170, 177 n.10 \(D.C. Cir. 1984\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(Donovan v. Royal Logging Co.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
29.61 0 Td
(,)Tj
-47.385 -1.125 Td
(645 F.2d 822, 826 \(9th Cir. 1981\). )Tj
(The purpose of an SOR is to give an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(applicant adequate notice of the allegations)Tj
T*
(against him or her so that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to\
respond to them. )Tj
35.463 0 Td
(DISCR Case No. 89-1079)Tj
-35.463 -1.125 Td
(\(September 13, 1990\) at p. 3. )Tj
11.914 0 Td
(In assessing the sufficiency of an SOR, it is necessary to balance the n\
eed for fair notice to)Tj
-11.914 -1.125 Td
(an applicant against the need to avoid)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(transforming SOR pleadings into a game of wits in which a minor or techn\
ical)Tj
T*
(misstep is decisive. )Tj
7.999 0 Td
(DISCR Case No. 88-2577 \(February 22, 1991\) at pp. 7-8;)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(DISCR Case No. 89-1529 \(February 7,)Tj
-7.999 -1.125 Td
(1991\) at p. 6; DISCR Case No. 89-1122 \(October 30, 1990\) at p. 4. )Tj
27.135 0 Td
(As long as there is fair notice to the affected party)Tj
-27.135 -1.125 Td
(and the affected party has a reasonable opportunity to respond, a case s\
hould be adjudicated on the merits of relevant)Tj
T*
(issues and not concerned with pleading)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(niceties. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.495 0 Td
(See, e.g., Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Martin)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
18.829 0 Td
(, 954 F.2d 353, 358 \(6th)Tj
-38.324 -1.125 Td
(Cir. 1992\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The language of Criterion M is broad enough to cover misuse of governmen\
t computers )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
35.436 0 Td
(or)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( private computers. )Tj
8.831 0 Td
(The)Tj
-44.267 -1.125 Td
(identity of a computer as a government-owed computer or an employer-owed\
computer is not critical under Criterion M.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(The SOR placed Applicant on fair notice of what conduct constituted the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(gravamen of the Criterion M allegations.)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(Furthermore, the Board has held that Administrative Judge can find an ap\
plicant has engaged in a "lesser included)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/BS<