%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-07T15:18:38-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:37-04:00
2021-07-07T15:18:38-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
99-0525.a1
uuid:622c198b-7b7b-4004-ab11-597775242c84
uuid:86ce98fe-1232-4b80-955c-315ea94d7414
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
16 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
[29 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(99-0525.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/99-0525.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([7/7/2021 3:18:38 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: June 5, 2000)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(--------------------)Tj
T*
(SSN: -----------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(ISCR Case No. 99-0525)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
-6.414 -2.2 Td
(Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.192 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-2.969 -2.2 Td
(------------, )Tj
(Personal Representative)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(Administrative Judge Jerome H. Silber issued a decision, dated November \
30, 1999, in which he concluded that it is not)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearly consistent with the national)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. )Tj
39.485 0 Td
(Applicant appealed.)Tj
-39.485 -1.125 Td
(For the reasons set forth below the Board affirms the Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Dep\
artment of Defense Directive )Tj
42.346 0 Td
(5220.6)Tj
-42.346 -1.125 Td
(\(Directive\) dated January 2, 1992, as)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(amended.)Tj
T*
(Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: 1. Were the Administra\
tive Judge's findings and conclusions supported)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(by the record evidence and mutually)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(consistent; and 2. Was the Administrative Judge's decision arbitrary, ca\
pricious or)Tj
T*
(contrary to 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\
to Applicant based on Criterion E \(Personal)Tj
T*
(Conduct\) and Criterion J \(Criminal)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Conduct\). )Tj
18.525 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing which was held on October 28, 1999. )Tj
27.409 0 Td
(On)Tj
-45.934 -1.125 Td
(November 30, 1999 the Administartive Judge issued a decision in which he\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(concluded that it is not clearly consistent)Tj
T*
(with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for\
Applicant. )Tj
32.266 0 Td
(The case is before the Board on)Tj
-32.266 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's appeal of that unfavorable decision.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.65 -2.375 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
/TT0 1 Tf
9.75 0 0 9.75 334.1487 171.75 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 334.1487 171 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 141.75 Tm
(1. )Tj
(Were the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions supported by th\
e record evidence and mutually consistent)Tj
ET
0 G
q 1 0 0 1 28 141 cm
0 0 m
558.023 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 586.0234 141.75 Tm
(.)Tj
-47.502 -1.125 Td
(Applicant argues that the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Administrative Judge's findings that Applicant committed multiple delibe\
rate falsifications are)Tj
T*
(not supported by the record evidence. )Tj
15.3 0 Td
(The Board is not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(persuaded by Applicant's argument. )Tj
21.536 0 Td
(The record evidence)Tj
-36.836 -1.125 Td
(supports findings that Applicant repeatedly gave to the federal governme\
nt information she knew to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(be false regarding)Tj
T*
(her employment history and residential history. )Tj
19.19 0 Td
(The most recent such falsification was in June of 1998, about 15 months)Tj
-19.19 -1.125 Td
(prior to the hearing. )Tj
8.192 0 Td
(The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Judge's findings and co\
nclusions are not supported)Tj
-8.192 -1.125 Td
(by the record evidence.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(cOW7)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
H\J@{6fgB
&M/~Iڬ7]fwMzϩQCyڮvӷ9C[r>*iLwl^gKj5u>VkoGµFO\SͦnXߍˠsiVOChAjfU,2`n|)
\l1 ~ ?m1.|.%ؓ=Xf;|^y^`f+ld<]<\