WPC  KrB*z ZθUPd_EI"? C>,B*[tsfv(ɪ]09]99X 5 5j7$iN<9%#{NU,kY5#b IfdyŶi,.^a*P{DCOdQ=tN#CUc/44Z#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z NC C NE EG 0I I  0D BHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,eJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2$ !USUS.,  <XX      0    $USUS.,<XX      1    _Ofnote,beforethehearingended,theJudgeaskedApplicantwhetherhehadanyfurtherevidencetopresent.  Hecontinuedtotestifyandpresentedanexhibitbeforeindicatingthathehadnothingfurther.TheJudgeadmittedthe t profferedexhibit.Tr.at140149.(#$  0   d !USUS.,  __DKEYWORD_:GuidelineK;GuidelineE  DIGEST:TheJudgestatedthatanyevidencemustbeintheformofdocuments,including  photographs.However,shestatedthatshecouldnotacceptvideosorothermediadevices t becauseshewasnotpermittedtouseexternalmediaonaDoDcomputer.Sheadvisedthathe ` couldtestifyastowhatwasonthevideos,buthedidnotofferanytestimonyinthatregard.The L  Judgewouldnotbeabletopreservearecordthatincludedevidencepresentedinaformatthat 8  couldnotbeaccessedthroughDoDcomputersystems.Otherthanthis,theJudgeadmittedthe $ t evidencethatApplicantoffered,includingadocumentsenttoherafterthehearing.Her  ` evidentiaryrulingswerenotarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed.  L  _CASENO_:1503162.a1 $  DATE:07/25/2017      `     h      p DATE:July25,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdE3gA 4 InRe: /      C ApplicantforSecurityClearance  AY) xdEgA  ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  ! )  " ) #  $ pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1503162 H'  4( .؉7r. \XXp l(    APPEALBOARDDECISION X ) APPEARANCES #l,  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  $D . John_Bayard_Ԁ_Glendon_,Esq.,DeputyChiefDepartmentCounsel %!/  FORAPPLICANT  |'"1  Prose #XX%&ۘ# T(#2     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On +>'6 November23,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor ,*(7 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineK(HandlingProtectedInformation)and -)8 GuidelineE(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,as  amended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnApril6,2017,afterthehearing,Defense  OfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeCarolG._Ricciardello_Ԁdenied  Applicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28 t andE3.1.30. `   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgewasbiasedagainsthim; 8  whethertheJudgeerredinherevidentiaryrulings;andwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas $ t arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.  `   TheJudgesFindingsofFact   8    Applicanthasabachelorsdegreeandhascompletedcourseworktowardamasters.   Applicantwascommissionedasamilitaryofficerin1979,transferringtotheReservesin1980.In   2003,afemaleenlistedmemberallegedthatApplicantbrushedherneckandkisseditwithouther   consent.Aninvestigationintotheallegationconcludedthatthemisconductoccurred.Applicant   receivedareprimandfromageneralofficer.Applicanttestifiedthattheofficialwhoconductedthe p investigationwasbiasedagainsthim. \   In2004,anadministrativeboardrecommendedthatApplicantbedischargedfromthe 4 Reservesunderotherthanhonorableconditions.Ultimately,theservicesecretaryawardedApplicant  p ageneraldischargeunderhonorableconditions,althoughinhisanswertothe_SOR_Ԁhestatedthathe  \ hadreceivedanhonorabledischarge.Healsoprovidedinconsistentstatementsabouthismilitary H rank.TheJudgestatedthatshewouldconsiderthesestatementsinanalyzingApplicantscredibility, 4 hiscaseformitigation,andinperformingawholepersonanalysis.     TheJudgemadeextensivefindingsoffactconcerning_SOR_ԀallegationsthatApplicant  violatedsecurityrulesonnumerousoccasions,thelatestbeinginlateNovember2012.Hebrought  acameraintoarestrictedareawherecameraswerenotallowed;hediscussedsensitiveinformation  withaforeignnationalinanunsecuredarea;heleftaforeignnationalunattendedatacomputer l whichcouldbeswitchedtoaclassifiedsystem;hefailedtostoreharddrivesproperly;andhewas X  evictedfromacompoundinanoverseasareaduetohisbehaviorandlaxsecuritypractices. D! Applicantcontendedthatmanyofthestatementsagainsthimwereliesspreadbypersonswhodid 0"  notlikehimandwere outtoget[him].Decisionat10. #l!   Applicantpresentedasubstantialamountofdocumentaryevidencecommendinghis $D # professionalexpertise.Healsopresentedcharacterlettersregardinghiscompetenceandcourtesy %0!$ aswellasnumerousphotographicexamplesofhisworkproduct. &"%   TheJudgesAnalysis  (#'   TheJudgestatedthatshedidnotfindApplicantstestimonytobecredible.Inevaluatinghis |*%) caseformitigation,theJudgestatedthatApplicanthadcommittedvariousinfractionsdespitehaving h+&* receivedpriorsecuritytraining.ShealsocitedtoApplicantscontentionsthat everyoneinvolved T,'+ intheallegationsdoesnotlikehim,wereouttogethim,andwereconspiringtohavehimremoved @-(, becausehecouldexposetheircomplicityinnefariousconduct.Decisionat13.Althoughthemost  recentincidentwasseveralyearsold,theJudgestatedthatitstillcastsdoubtuponhiscurrent  reliability.    Inthewholepersonanalysis,theJudgeacknowledgedevidenceofApplicantsprofessional ` attainments,hislettersofreference,etc.However,shealsonotedthatApplicantwasdischarged L  fromtheReserveswithageneraldischarge,committedvarioussecurityinfractions,andprovided 8  testimonythatwasnotcredible.Shestatedthattherecordleftherwithseriousquestionsabout $ t Applicantsfitnessforasecurityclearance.  ` _  Discussion   8     `    ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgewasbiasedagainsthim.Hearguesthatshedisplayed   hostilitytohimduringthehearingandthatshewascondescendingandadversarialinherdemeanor.   Biasinvolvespartialityfororagainstaparty,predispositiontodecideacaseorissuewithoutregard   tothemerits,orotherindiciaofalackofimpartiality.Thereisa_rebuttable_ԀpresumptionthataJudge   isimpartialandunbiased,andapartyseekingtoovercomethatpresumptionhasaheavyburdenof p persuasion.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1210122at3(App.Bd.Apr.22,2016).Wehaveexamined \ therecordasawhole,payingparticularattentiontothetranscript,andfindnothingthereinthat H wouldlikelypersuadeareasonablepersonthattheJudgelackedtherequisiteimpartiality.While 4 shequestionedApplicantsharplyattimes,itappearstohavebeeninanefforttoclarifyhis  p testimony.Applicanthasnotmethisheavyburdenofpersuasion.  \   ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgeerredinsomeofherevidentiaryrulings.Amongother 4 things,hearguesthattheJudgeimproperlydeniedhimtheopportunitytopresentavideotapethat   hebelievesisessentialtohiscase.WeexamineaJudgesrulingsonadmissibilityofevidenceto   seeiftheyarearbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1202296at3(App.  Bd.Mar.12,2014).Priortothehearing,Applicantsoughtguidanceonthekindofevidencethathe  couldsubmit.TheJudgestatedthatanyevidencemustbeintheformofdocuments,including  photographs.However,shestatedthatshecouldnotacceptvideosorothermediadevicesbecause l shewasnotpermittedtouseexternalmediaonaDoDcomputer.Sheadvisedthathecouldtestify X  astowhatwasonthevideos,buthedidnotofferanytestimonyinthatregard. #  1      ׀HearingExhibitII. D!   Underthecircumstances,wefindnoerrorintheJudgesrulingonthismatter.AJudgeis #l! obligatedtopreservetherecordforpurposesofappealandotherthings.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo. $X" 1204540at4,n.3(App.Bd.Mar.19,2014).TheJudgewouldnotbeabletopreservearecordthat $D # includedevidencepresentedinaformatthatcouldnotbeaccessedthroughDoDcomputersystems. %0!$ Otherthanthis,theJudgeadmittedtheevidencethatApplicantoffered,includingadocumentsent &"% toherafterthehearing.Tr.at28,147;HEV.Herevidentiaryrulingswerenotarbitrary,capricious, '#& orcontrarytolaw. (#'  )$(   Applicantsappealincludesmattersfromoutsidetherecord,whichwecannotconsider.  DirectiveE3.1.29.HisargumentsconsistinlargemeasureofdisagreementswiththeJudges  weighingoftheevidence,whichisnotenoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceina  mannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508842at3 t (App.Bd.Feb.14,2017). `   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe 8  decision.Anapplicantwhohascommittedsecurityviolationshas averyheavyburdenof $ t persuasionastomitigation.Accordingly,aJudgemustgiveanyclaimsofreformorrehabilitation  `  strictscrutiny._ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1504340at3(App.Bd.Jan.30,2017).Thedecisionissustainable  L  onthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearly  8  consistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S. $  518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeing   consideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.    @-(, Ї@( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy____________________________________________________________________________ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___