ÿWPC:  ^8ƒì>À¹LjiÀèA#ûèII;žø‚úPvðI~—´óÃ2vàÜ£O :(YrL«Ö°Ä^ÅÖÆ.ÇD¬êœPŽaô& ×í‹•#‡ê~¯UÛð C¸§? Øå4k'Î'Ez»”‰Ü[{~¡ê/™’\EW+‘}ˆÝê*пHEkðŽ’5ÝòêŒÂHP `/ˆ¢j´ªìSÜ!N…M”„x¨š7?¯ñk”ýº<² äРϨ„€{çq;‰“´_¬`»I¡-[ò>_ÃØ(d±ôØüè¢#h™ÒEl£ûê´¬…Ú9äK÷‡G„Ôm€6i'ãËvÁëo óÌe·Û‡ú€ Ir…F+&=d¹ùxÑÀŠ7°QûIPhìéÁ=Ðû»&qUÝ-Y+N‰€œÆ9‹P›½vrEvÚx3sõFe•Œ]2c·unP0‚V èß}œ×êÉ‹üžjßΓo­ÿí¾bÕ¥è»Lµg÷­âÁ¿o­9S`ËäL:Œ €îÌ/é ñ­š–2‰l®t#!âé~áù7QôRIÑ[†B”ÉâSwz±“z©¦¹†z¦€ñáz{qyk®EXaÒŽU3 ñl zµ•ºUOW#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß àZ ^ s w 4ƒ — ¦ m¨ N¿ ¿ àZÁ E                                                                       B ˜HP LaserJet 400 color M451dn UPD PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE&d2J¹+J3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€€Guideline€E;€Guideline€J;€Guideline€FÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€Applicant€cites€to€some€minor€errors,€such€as€the€timing€of€theft€charges.€€These€errorsÐ ˆØ Ðdid€not€likely€affect€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€Therefore,€they€are€harmless.€€Adverse€decisionÐ tÄ Ðaffirmed.Ð `° ÐÌCASE€NO:€14„04190.a1Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌDATE:€01/18/2017Ð  ` ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDATE:€January€18,€2017Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÒ.؉ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€V) °°xdE°ƒgAßÐ „Ô  ÐÌIn€Re:Ð Ï ÐÌà  à„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìà  à€Ð C“ ÐÌApplicant€for€Security€ClearanceÐ k ÐÌßA€V) °°xdE°ògAßÐ óC Ð)Ð „Ô  Ð)Ð pÀ Ð)Ð \¬ Ð)Ð H˜ Ð)Ð 4„ Ð)Ð  p Ð)Ð  \ Ð)Ð øH ÐÐ ä4  ÐÓp°œXÓÌÌÌà p àÔ_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€14„04190Ð H˜# ÐÐ 4„$ ÐÒ.؉ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓÐ ¼ $ Ðò òÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ ¨ø% ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ l¼( Ðó óÌÔ‡&õc%XXÔò òFOR€GOVERNMENTó óÐ D!”* ÐJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselÐ "l+ ÐÌò òFOR€APPLICANTó óÐ Ì#- Ðòòò òPro€seó óóóÔ#†XúÀX%&õcè#ÔÐ ¤$ô. ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€security€clearance.€€OnÐ f&¶!0 ÐDecember€22,€2014,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€forÐ R'¢"1 Ðthat€decisionð!ðsecurity€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€E€(Personal€Conduct),€Guideline€J€(CriminalÐ >(Ž#2 ÐConduct),€and€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€of€Department€of€Defense€Directive€5220.6Ð *)z$3 Ð(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€€On€October€25,€2016,€afterÐ *f%4 Ðthe€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)€Administrative€Judge€Arthur€E.Ð +R&5 ÐMarshall,€Jr.,€denied€Applicantððs€request€for€a€security€clearance.€€Applicant€appealed€pursuant€toÐ î+>'6 ÐDirective€ðððð€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.Ð Ú,*(7 ÐÐ Æ-)8 Ðà  àApplicant€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€whether€the€Judge€failed€to€consider€all€ofÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€and€whether€the€Judgeððs€whole„person€analysis€was€erroneous.€€Consistent€with€theÐ œì Ðfollowing,€we€affirm.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÔ_Ôà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Findings€of€Factó óÐ `° ÐÌà  àApplicant€has€worked€for€Defense€contractors€since€2009.€€He€earns€about€$98,000€a€year,Ð 8 ˆ Ѐand€his€wife€earns€between€$150,000€and€$160,000.€€In€2000,€Applicant€discovered€that€a€formerÐ $ t Ðwife€had€been€unfaithful€to€him.€€As€a€result€of€their€argument,€Applicant€was€charged€with€assaultÐ  ` Ðand€battery.€€He€pled€guilty€and€was€sentenced€to€90€days€confinement,€which€was€suspended.€€AÐ ü L  Ðcouple€of€years€later,€he€was€charged€and€convicted€of€driving€under€a€suspended€license.€€Later,€heÐ è 8  Ðwas€disciplined€at€work€for€failing€to€comply€with€regulations€concerning€the€submission€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcustomer€paperwork.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€2008,€Applicant€worked€in€a€secure€facility.€€He€was€experiencing€difficulty€in€making€hisÐ ˜è  Ðfamilyððs€mortgage€payments€and€did€not€disclose€this€to€his€wife.€€Instead€of€seeking€herÐ „Ô  Ðcontribution,€he€made€out€checks€to€himself€from€his€employerððs€account€and€used€the€funds€to€payÐ pÀ Ðhis€mortgage.€€All€totaled,€he€took€about€$52,000€from€his€employer.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àUpon€being€confronted€with€the€evidence,€Applicant€confessed€to€his€employer€andÐ 4„ Ðsubsequently€to€Federal€investigators.€€Applicant€was€terminated€from€his€job.€€Officials€chargedÐ  p ÐApplicant€with€embezzlement,€a€felony,€and€a€theft€scheme€exceeding€$500,€also€a€felony.€€ApplicantÐ  \ Ðpled€guilty€to€the€theft€scheme€and€was€sentenced€to€probation€and€restitution.€€After€completing€theÐ øH Ðprobation,€Applicant€was€granted€a€probation€before€judgment€determination,€a€conditionalÐ ä4 Ðavoidance€of€sentence€imposition.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWhen€he€completed€his€security€clearance€application€in€2013,€Applicant€stated€that€he€hadÐ ¨ø Ðleft€his€prior€employment€through€mutual€agreement€following€charges€of€misconduct.€€This€was€notÐ ”ä Ðtotally€correct,€insofar€as€he€had€actually€been€fired.€€In€2015,€Applicantððs€theft€record€was€expunged.€Ð €Ð ÐHe€currently€lives€within€his€means€and€accepts€his€wifeððs€contribution€to€the€household€finances.€Ð l¼ ÐApplicant€has€undergone€therapy€as€a€consequence€of€his€criminal€acts€and€has€employed€a€financialÐ X ¨ Ðadvisor.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Analysisó óÐ #l! ÐÌà  àApplicantððs€conduct€was€alleged€under€Guidelines€E€and€J.€€His€theft€of€funds€and€itsÐ ô$D # Ðsubsequent€legal€consequences€were€the€basis€for€the€Guideline€F€concerns.€€The€Judge€enteredÐ à%0!$ Ðadverse€findings€for€all€of€the€SOR€allegations.€€Among€other€things,€he€noted€that€Applicant€did€notÐ Ì&"% Ðdisclose€his€criminal€conduct€until€he€was€confronted€with€it€by€his€employer.€€He€stated€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐApplicantððs€theft€and€its€legal€consequences€occurred€several€years€ago.€€However,€he€concluded€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€severity€of€the€misconduct€was€such€that€the€passage€of€several€years€was€not€enough€toÐ )à$( Ðdemonstrate€mitigation.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€also€cited€to€Applicant€having€received€early€release€from€probation.€€However,Ð T,¤'+ Ðhe€concluded€that€the€ð ðegregious€natureðð€of€the€theft€remained€a€concern.€€Decision€at€7.€€He€alsoÐ @-(, Ðnoted€that€Applicantððs€conduct€was€rooted€in€financial€problems€and€entailed€ð ðan€extraordinaryÐ ° Ðbreach€of€the€fiduciary€trust€extended€to€him€by€his€former€employer.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€The€Judge€noted€that,Ð œì Ðdespite€his€objectively€false€SCA€answer,€Applicant€had€placed€the€Government€on€notice€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€history.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€the€whole„person€analysis,€the€Judge€stated€that€Applicantððs€assault€and€battery€convictionÐ L œ Ðwas€troubling€but€that€the€couple€had€since€divorced.€€He€also€described€the€driving€offenses€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðminor.€€However,€the€2007€and€2008€incidents€of€work„related€misconduct,€especially€the€theft€thatÐ $ t Ðled€to€job€termination€and€prosecution,€were€serious.€€He€repeated€his€conclusion€that€the€passageÐ  ` Ðof€several€years€was€not€sufficient€to€demonstrate€mitigation.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àò òDiscussionó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àApplicant€contends€that€the€Judgeððs€whole„person€analysis€did€not€incorporate€significantÐ ¬ü  Ðrecord€evidence.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€he€cites€to€the€length€of€time€since€his€last€offense,€theÐ ˜è  Ðexpungement€of€his€theft€record,€his€employment€record,€his€therapy,€his€admission€of€all€theÐ „Ô  Ðallegations€against€him,€etc.€€The€Judge€made€findings€about€these€matters€and€discussed€them€in€hisÐ pÀ Ðanalysis.€€Applicantððs€argument€is€not€enough€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€the€Judge€considered€allÐ \¬ Ðof€the€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€15„02854€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Nov.€22,€2016).€Ð H˜ ÐThe€Judgeððs€whole€person€analysis€complies€with€the€requirements€of€Directive€ðð€6.3,€in€that€heÐ 4„ Ðconsidered€the€totality€of€the€evidence€in€reaching€his€decision.€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€ISCR€Case€No.€14„06653Ð  p Ðat€3€(App.€Bd.€Nov.€18,€2016).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àApplicant€cites€to€some€minor€errors,€such€as€the€timing€of€theft€charges.€€These€errors€didÐ ä4 Ðnot€likely€affect€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€Therefore,€they€are€harmless.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.Ð Ð  Ð14„03601€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Jul.€1,€2015).€€Applicant€states€that€his€loss€of€a€clearance€has€affected€hisÐ ¼  Ðability€to€earn€money€and€has€caused€strain€on€his€family.€€We€are€not€permitted€to€consider€theÐ ¨ø Ðimpact€of€an€unfavorable€decision.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„02619€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Apr.€7,€2016).€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€evidence€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theÐ l¼ Ðdecision.€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€ð ðThe€general€standard€is€that€a€clearance€mayÐ X ¨ Ðbe€granted€only€when€ððclearly€consistent€with€the€interests€of€the€national€security.ðððð€€òòDepartmentÐ D!” Ðof€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Directive,€Enclosure€2€ðð€2(b):€€ð ðAny€doubtÐ 0"€  Ðconcerning€personnel€being€considered€for€access€to€classified€information€will€be€resolved€in€favorÐ #l! Ðof€the€national€security.ððÐ $X" ÐÐ  ô$D # Ðà@ââ(ìàò òOrderó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Decision€is€ò òAFFIRMED.ó ó€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€Michael€Raððanan€€€€€€€€óóÐ < Œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMichael€RaððananÐ ( x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ  d Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ  P  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€óóÐ °  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€E.€MoodyÐ œì  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ ˆØ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ tÄ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ $t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€F.€DuffyÐ ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ üL Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ è8 ÐÌ