’WPCµ é` Ž­·d’J<Š»6‚\•ź/ —ėŖ†7Į9@’g܄ČŅĶ€K„˜ÆQĆ“2 ž§Fr&/Lk+Ķńõ70ˆÖ‘k¼‰‡ŠO€x8ć6KŅņ·aąwēqŠ"ŁYIŗō‰„Ņ<‘ČWońn2]ggW’<)„V?ż &”},’æ…S½›ģ5ē‘’ˆ(„Ķ{€{›néč˜^ˆ‘zŻd&—Y¼ūł{ś–`ē{¤ćõŹ ^S«IoMƒā×Z“f¶‘ęö;ån§²’ļAŗĪß® Œćf{E`bZ#ÉģUNµ % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx ąZ ąZé é EC C 0©E *ī 0DN\:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ B˜˜Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 SeriesČČČČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$””ŌUSUS.,ŌŲ–ņJ;E•J3|x’U‹’’’’8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2Ķ€$¤¤Ż ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ€ō8ņXXŌÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó Ż ƒĶ€$ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŌ€ō8ņXXŌÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌApplicant€also€argues€that€the€Appeal€Board€Judge€who€ruled€on€the€motion€to€remand€improperly€engagedŠ ° Šin€ņņex€parte€óódiscussions€with€Department€Counsel.€€Department€Counsel€addresses€this€in€a€footnote€to€the€Reply€Brief.€Š tÄ ŠThe€Judge€merely€asked€Department€Counsel€to€sit€in€on€a€phone€conversation€that€the€Judge€intended€to€have€withŠ 8ˆ ŠAppellantššs€attorney.€€Department€Counsel€avers,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€otherwise,€that€noŠ üL Šsubstantive€conversations€occurred€between€the€Judge€and€Department€Counsel€outside€the€presence€of€ApplicantššsŠ Ą Šattorney.€€Out€of€an€abundance€of€caution,€the€Judge€Ō_ŌrecusedŌ_Ō€himself€from€further€participation€in€this€appeal.€€However,Š „Ō Šwe€find€that€the€impropriety€alleged€by€Applicant€is€unfounded.€€(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó 0Ż ƒĶ€$ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŌ€ō8ņXXŌÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€ņņalsoóó€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€00„0250€at€3„4€(App.€Bd.€Feb.€13,€2001):€š š[A]€party€is€not€entitled€to€have€the€caseŠ ° Šreopened€to€allow€the€introduction€of€evidence€that€comes€into€existence€after€the€close€of€the€record.šš€€This€case€drewŠ tÄ Šupon€ņņVermont€Yankee€Nuclear€Power€Corp.€v.€Natural€Resources€Defense€Council,€Incóó.,€435€U.S.€519,€554„555€(1978),Š 8ˆ Što€the€effect€that€if€records€could€be€reopened€whenever€some€new€fact€is€discovered,€there€would€be€little€hope€thatŠ üL Šadministrative€finality€could€ever€be€achieved.€(Internal€citation€omitted) dŻ ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌKEYWORD:€Guideline€FŠ ° ŠĢDIGEST:€A€Judge€should€consider€not€only€the€extent€to€which€an€applicant€may€have€resolvedŠ ˆŲ Šhis€or€her€debts€but€also€the€underlying€circumstances€for€what€they€reveal€about€the€applicantššsŠ tÄ Šjudgement€and€reliability.€In€addition€to€the€combined€total€amount€of€Applicantššs€mortgageŠ `° Šdebt,€the€Judge€relied€on€a€paucity€of€record€evidence€of€financial€reform€by€Applicant€and€onŠ L œ ŠApplicantššs€failure€to€explain€why€he€continued€to€amass€delinquent€debt€despite€having€stoppedŠ 8 ˆ Šmaking€mortgage€payments.€Adverse€decision€affirmed.Š $ t ŠĢŌ_ŌCASENOŌ_Ō:€15„03916.a1Š ü L  ŠĢDATE:€07/18/2017Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąDATE:€July€18,€2017Š ¬ü  ŠĢĢĢŅ.Ų‰š7r°(#°(#.ŅßA€Y) °°xdE°[gAߊ \¬ ŠĢIn€Re:Š W§ ŠĢą  ą„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ģą  ą€Š k ŠĢApplicant€for€Security€ClearanceŠ óC ŠĢßA€Y) °°xdE°ŹgAߊ Ė Š)Š \¬ Š)Š H˜ Š)Š 4„ Š)Š  p Š)Š  \ Š)Š ųH Š)Š ä4  Š)Š Š ! ŠŠ ¼ " ŠÓp°œXÓĢĢĢą p ąŌ_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€15„03916Š  p% ŠŠ  \& ŠŅ.Ų‰š7r°°.ŅÓ °\X›XpÓŠ ”ä& Šņ ņÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONŠ €Š' ŠĢĢņņAPPEARANCESóóŠ D!”* Šó óĢŌ‡&öŸ%XXŌņ ņFOR€GOVERNMENTó óŠ #l, ŠJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselŠ ō#D- ŠĢņ ņFOR€APPLICANTó óŠ ¤%ō / ŠKelly€B.€Ō_ŌMcClanahanŌ_Ō,€Esq.Ō#†Xć X%&öŸt#ŌŠ |&Ģ!0 ŠĢĢÓ  Óą  ąThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€security€clearance.€€OnŠ ,)|$3 ŠDecember€16,€2015,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ō_ŌSORŌ_Ō)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€forŠ *h%4 Šthat€decisionš!šsecurity€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€of€DepartmentŠ +T&5 Šof€Defense€Directive€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€Š š+@'6 ŠOn€March€23,€2017,€after€the€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)Š Ü,,(7 ŠAdministrative€Judge€Francisco€Mendez€denied€Applicantššs€request€for€a€security€clearance.€Š Č-)8 ŠApplicant€appealed€pursuant€to€Directive€šššš€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.ą Č ąŠ ° ŠĢą  ąApplicant€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€whether€Applicant€was€denied€due€processŠ ˆŲ Šand€whether€the€Judgeššs€adverse€decision€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€ConsistentŠ tÄ Šwith€the€following,€we€affirm.€€Š `° ŠĢą  ąņ ņThe€Judgeššs€Findings€of€Factó óŠ 8 ˆ ŠĢą  ąApplicant€works€as€a€contractor€for€a€Federal€agency,€a€job€he€has€held€for€over€10€years.€Š  ` ŠHe€has€held€a€security€clearance€since€2009.€€Applicant€has€been€married€since€2014,€and€the€coupleŠ ü L  Šrecently€purchased€a€house.€€Because€of€Applicantššs€poor€credit€history,€the€mortgage€is€in€his€wifeššsŠ č 8  Šname€alone.Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąApplicant€developed€financial€problems€in€2008.€€He€had€bought€a€home€a€year€earlier€withŠ ¬ü  Šhis€then„fiancee,€financing€the€purchase€with€first€and€second€mortgages.€€Applicant€subsequentlyŠ ˜č  Šcalled€the€wedding€off,€and€his€fiancee€moved€out€of€the€house.€€She€did€not€contribute€to€theŠ „Ō  Šmortgage€payments€and€eventually€filed€for€bankruptcy,€relieving€her€of€responsibility€for€bothŠ pĄ Šmortgages.Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąApplicant€sought€to€modify€the€first€mortgage€loan,€but€the€lender€refused.€€ApplicantŠ 4„ Šattempted€to€sell€the€property€but€was€not€successful.€€He€stopped€making€payments€in€late€2007€orŠ  p Šearly€2008,€and€the€lender€foreclosed€on€the€property€several€years€later.Š  \ ŠĢą  ąApplicant€presented€evidence€that€the€first€mortgage€was€sold€to€the€lenderššs€subsidiary.€€HeŠ ä4 Šattempted€to€contact€the€lender€on€the€second€mortgage€to€settle€the€debt.€€He€provided€noŠ Š  Šdocumentation€to€show€that€either€the€first€or€second€mortgage€loans€were€canceled,€forgiven,€orŠ ¼  Šotherwise€resolved.Š Øų ŠĢą  ąIn€addition€to€the€above,€Applicantššs€Ō_ŌSORŌ_Ō€alleges€a€debt€arising€from€an€automobile€loan.€Š €Š ŠAfter€the€hearing,€Applicant€contacted€the€creditor€and€agreed€to€settle€this€debt€with€two€paymentsŠ l¼ Šof€a€little€over€$400.€€He€provided€no€proof€that€he€made€these€payments.€€Although€the€JudgeŠ X Ø Šresolved€two€credit€card€debts€in€Applicantššs€favor,€he€noted€that€Applicant€had€earlier€contendedŠ D!” Šthat€these€accounts€were€due€to€fraud€but€at€the€hearing€acknowledged€that€they€were€legitimate.€€Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąApplicantššs€yearly€salary€is€about€$75,000,€and€his€wife€earns€about€$55,000.€€Applicant€hasŠ $X" Šabout€$250€in€disposable€income€each€month€for€debt€payment.€€He€also€has€saved€about€$700€to€beŠ ō$D # Šused€for€that€purpose.€€Š ą%0!$ ŠĢą  ąņ ņThe€Judgeššs€Analysisó óŠ ø'#& ŠĢą  ąThe€Judge€stated€that€Applicantššs€problems€were€the€result€of€financial€mismanagement€andŠ )ą$( Šof€some€circumstances€that€were€outside€his€control.€€He€noted€evidence€that€Applicant€has€madeŠ |*Ģ%) Šsome€effort€to€pay€his€debts€over€the€years,€concluding€that€he€had€resolved€the€two€credit€card€debtsŠ h+ø&* Šand€that€he€had€a€reasonable€basis€to€dispute€another.€€However,€regarding€the€two€mortgage€debtsŠ T,¤'+ Šand€the€car€loan,€the€Judge€entered€adverse€findings.€€He€stated,€for€example,€that€Applicant€did€notŠ @-(, Šdemonstrate€how€it€was€that€he€continued€to€incur€delinquent€debt€even€after€he€stopped€makingŠ ° Špayments€on€his€mortgages.€€He€also€stated€that€the€total€amount€of€mortgage€debt€established€by€theŠ œģ Ševidence€entail€significant€security€concerns.€€He€concluded€that€Applicant€did€not€present€sufficientŠ ˆŲ Ševidence€of€financial€reform€to€mitigate€concerns€that€similar€problems€may€arise€in€the€future.Š tÄ ŠĢą  ąIn€the€whole„person€analysis,€the€Judge€noted€that€Applicant€has€held€a€clearance€for€severalŠ L œ Šyears€without€incident€or€concern.€€He€also€noted€evidence€of€Applicantššs€excellent€workŠ 8 ˆ Šperformance.€€However,€he€reiterated€that€Applicantššs€remaining€unresolved€debt€was€large€and€thatŠ $ t Šhe€had€not€presented€sufficient€evidence€of€financial€reform.€€Describing€the€case€as€š ša€close€call,ššŠ  ` Šthe€Judge€ultimately€concluded€that€Applicant€had€not€met€his€burden€of€persuasion€as€to€mitigation.Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąņ ņDiscussionó óŠ Ō$  ŠĢą  ąApplicant€raises€a€number€of€issues€to€the€effect€that€he€was€denied€due€process.€€He€argues,Š ¬ü  Šfor€example,€that€he€was€not€permitted€to€submit€a€document€from€the€lender€to€the€effect€that€he€noŠ ˜č  Šlonger€owes€anything€on€the€first€mortgage.€€Some€of€the€assertions€in€Applicantššs€Appeal€Brief€andŠ „Ō  ŠDepartment€Counselššs€Reply€Brief€constitute€new€evidence.€€Although€we€generally€cannot€considerŠ pĄ Šnew€evidence€on€appeal,€we€will€do€so€in€regard€to€threshold€issues€such€as€jurisdiction€or€dueŠ \¬ Šprocess.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.14„00812€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Jul.€8,€2015).Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąWe€note€that,€after€Applicantššs€attorney€stated€that€he€had€no€further€evidence€with€him€onŠ  p Šthe€day€of€the€hearing,€the€Judge€held€the€record€open€for€three€weeks€following€the€hearing€forŠ  \ ŠApplicant€to€present€additional€evidence.€€Tr.€at€83.€€Applicant€presented€several€documents,€whichŠ ųH Šthe€Judge€admitted€as€Applicant€Exhibits€(Ō_ŌAEŌ_Ō)€G€through€X.€€After€receiving€the€adverse€decision,Š ä4 ŠApplicant€filed€a€motion€for€reconsideration,€which€the€Judge€denied.€€Later,€several€months€afterŠ Š  Šthe€record€closed,€Applicant€received€an€additional€document€addressing€the€first€mortgage€discussedŠ ¼  Šabove.€€Applicant€€moved€the€Appeal€Board€to€remand€the€case€to€the€Judge€for€consideration€of€thisŠ Øų Šdocument,€which€we€denied.€€Š ”ä ŠĢą  ąOn€appeal,€Applicant€argues€that€this€new€evidence€is€sufficiently€Ō_ŌdispositiveŌ_Ō€of€the€case€thatŠ l¼ Šwe€should€have€granted€the€motion€for€remand.€€Alternatively,€Applicant€argues€that€the€JudgeŠ X Ø Šshould€have€considered€as€substantive€evidence€the€index€that€Applicantššs€attorney€provided€whenŠ D!” Šsubmitting€Applicantššs€post„hearing€documents€and€which€he€contends€would€have€supported€aŠ 0"€  Šfinding€that€the€first€mortgage€has€been€resolved.Š #l! ŠĢą  ąOur€examination€of€the€record€convinces€us€that€Applicant€was€not€denied€a€reasonableŠ ō$D # Šopportunity€to€present€evidence€in€his€behalf.€€As€stated€above,€the€Judge€held€the€record€open€afterŠ ą%0!$ Šthe€hearing,€a€procedure€that€is€discretionary€with€him€and€not€required€by€the€Directive.€€There€isŠ Ģ&"% Šnothing€in€the€record€or€in€our€decisions€interpreting€it€that€would€give€an€applicant€an€open„endedŠ ø'#& Šright€to€supplement€the€record€indefinitely.€€As€Department€Counsel€argues,€the€doctrine€ofŠ ¤(ō#' Šadministrative€finality€requires€that€at€some€definable€point€a€record€be€closed€for€adjudication.€Š )ą$( ŠReply€Brief€at€7.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€Judge€established€a€closure€date€that€reasonably€balancedŠ |*Ģ%) ŠApplicantššs€interest€in€submitting€evidence€in€mitigation€with€DOHAššs€duty€to€issue€a€final€decisionŠ h+ø&* Šā āin€the€case.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€08„07803€at€2,€n.2€(App.€Bd.€Sep.€21,€2009)€regarding€theŠ T,¤'+ Šnecessity€of€finality€in€DOHA€adjudications.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€€Š ° Šā āĢą  ąConcerning€the€index,€there€is€nothing€in€the€Directive€that€would€require€a€Judge€to€considerŠ ˆŲ Šas€evidence€the€statements€of€an€attorney€representing€one€of€the€parties€at€the€hearing.€€TheŠ tÄ ŠDirective€does€not€establish€such€a€duty,€and€it€is€a€long„standing€matter€of€DOHA€procedure€thatŠ `° Šarguments€of€counsel€have€no€evidentiary€force.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€14„02290€at€3€(App.€Bd.Š L œ ŠJan.€30,€2017).€€We€find€no€reason€to€conclude€that€the€Judge€abused€his€discretion€by€making€theŠ 8 ˆ Šindex€an€appellate€exhibit€rather€than€a€substantive€one.€€Š $ t ŠĢą  ąMoreover,€the€motion€for€remand€that€Applicant€has€addressed€in€the€course€of€making€hisŠ ü L  Šargument€on€appeal€merely€asked€us€to€remand€the€case€for€the€purpose€of€taking€in€additionalŠ č 8  Ševidence,€which€we€have€no€authority€to€do.€€The€Directive€authorizes€us€to€remand€a€case€only€forŠ Ō$  Šthe€purpose€of€correcting€an€identified€error.€€Directive€šš€E3.1.33.2.€€ņņSeeóó€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€15„02957Š Ą  Šat€3„4€(App.€Bd.€Feb.€17,€2017).€€After€considering€Applicantššs€arguments€on€appeal,€we€find€noŠ ¬ü  Šreason€to€conclude€that€he€was€denied€the€due€process€afforded€by€the€Directive.Ō_Ō׃dׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ×Ō_Ō€Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąApplicant€also€contends€that€the€Judge€did€not€properly€interpret€the€evidence€that€heŠ pĄ Šsubmitted€after€the€hearing.€€To€be€specific,€he€contends€that€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€thatŠ \¬ ŠApplicant€no€longer€owes€anything€to€the€creditor€holding€the€first€mortgage.€€Applicant€cites€to€aŠ H˜ Šstatement€from€the€creditor€that€the€unpaid€balance€of€the€loan€is€$0.0.€€Ō_ŌAEŌ_Ō€G.€€Applicant€contendsŠ 4„ Šthat,€when€read€in€conjunction€with€other€evidence,€such€as€a€credit€report€that€shows€the€loan€asŠ  p Šš š[Ō_Ōp]aidŌ_Ō€or€paying€as€agreedšš€and€that€it€is€closed,€the€Judge€should€have€found€that€indeed€ApplicantŠ  \ Šhas€no€further€liability€for€this€debt.€€Ō_ŌAEŌ_Ō€A.€€Š ųH ŠĢą  ąWe€agree€that€the€evidence€that€Applicant€has€cited€constitutes€some€support€for€theŠ Š  Šproposition€that€he€no€longer€owes€anything€on€the€first€mortgage.€€However,€Ō_ŌAEŌ_Ō€X€can€reasonablyŠ ¼  Šbe€interpreted€as€showing€that€the€creditor€was€not€made€whole€by€Applicant.€€In€any€event,€the€factŠ Øų Šthat€someone€could€interpret€the€evidence€in€a€different€manner€is€not€sufficient€in€and€of€itself€toŠ ”ä Šundermine€a€Judgeššs€finding.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€€ņņŌ_ŌConsoloŌ_Ō€v.€Federal€Maritime€Ō_ŌCommššnŌ_Ōóó,€383€U.S.€607,€620Š €Š Š(1966).€€To€the€extent€that€the€challenged€finding€meant€that€Applicant€had€presented€absolutely€noŠ l¼ Ševidence€that€he€no€longer€owed€the€debt,€it€was€erroneous.€€However,€given€the€state€of€the€record,Š X Ø Šthe€Judge€had€discretion€to€conclude€that€Applicant€had€not€demonstrated€resolution€of€the€firstŠ D!” Šmortgage€debt€in€a€way€that€would€mitigate€security€concerns€arising€from€it.€€The€Judgeššs€findingŠ 0"€  Šis€a€reasonable€interpretation€of€the€record€that€was€before€him€and€is€sustainable.€Š ° ŠĢą  ąEven€if€the€Judge€erred,€however,€we€conclude€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€overallŠ ˆŲ Šoutcome€of€the€case.€€A€Judge€should€consider€not€only€the€extent€to€which€an€applicant€may€haveŠ tÄ Šresolved€his€or€her€debts€but€also€the€underlying€circumstances€for€what€they€reveal€about€theŠ `° Šapplicantššs€judgment€and€reliability.€€€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€14„02394€at€3„4€(App.€Bd.€Aug.€17,Š L œ Š2015).€€In€addition€to€the€combined€total€amount€of€Applicantššs€mortgage€debt,€the€Judge€relied€onŠ 8 ˆ Ša€paucity€of€record€evidence€of€financial€reform€by€Applicant€and€on€Applicantššs€failure€to€explainŠ $ t Šwhy€he€continued€to€amass€delinquent€debt€despite€having€stopped€making€mortgage€payments.€Š  ` ŠThese€matters€support€the€adverse€decision,€despite€any€possible€error€regarding€the€first€mortgage.€Š ü L  ŠIndeed,€Applicant€concedes€that€he€still€has€not€resolved€the€second€mortgage€and€š šthat€he€does€notŠ č 8  Šhave€a€compelling€Ō_ŌcounterargumentŌ_Ō€to€[the€Judgeššs]€assertion€that€ššApplicant€did€not€presentŠ Ō$  Šsufficient€evidence€.€.€.€regarding€the€likelihood€of€recurrence€of€similar€issues.šššš€Appeal€Brief€at€9.€Š Ą  ŠAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€even€if€the€Judge€had€found€that€Applicant€no€longer€owes€the€firstŠ ¬ü  Šmortgage,€circumstances€set€forth€in€the€record€and€conceded€by€Applicant€persuade€us€that€theŠ ˜č  ŠJudge€would€still€have€held€that€Applicant€had€not€met€his€burden€of€persuasion.€€Therefore,€weŠ „Ō  Šconclude€that€any€error€in€the€Judgeššs€findings€was€harmless.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąBeyond€the€matters€discussed€above,€Applicantššs€brief€consists€of€an€alternative€interpretationŠ H˜ Šof€the€evidence.€€However,€an€ability€to€argue€for€a€different€interpretation€of€the€evidence€is€notŠ 4„ Šenough€to€show€that€the€Judge€mis„weighed€the€evidence.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€Ō_ŌISCRŌ_Ō€Case€No.€15„08842€at€3Š  p Š(App.€Bd.€Feb.€14,€2017).€€Š  \ ŠĢą  ąThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€evidence€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theŠ ä4 Šdecision.€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€š šThe€general€standard€is€that€a€clearance€mayŠ Š  Šbe€granted€only€when€ššclearly€consistent€with€the€interests€of€the€national€security.šššš€€ņņDepartmentŠ ¼  Šof€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€Directive,€Encl.€2€App.€A€šš€2(b):€€š šAnyŠ Øų Šdoubt€concerning€personnel€being€considered€for€national€security€eligibility€will€be€resolved€in€favorŠ ”ä Šof€the€national€security.ššŠ  €Š Šą@āā(ģąņ ņOrderó óˆŠ ° ŠĢą  ąThe€Decision€is€ņ ņAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Š ˆŲ Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąņņSigned:€Michael€Ō_ŌRaššananŌ_Ō€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóŠ < Œ Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąMichael.€Ō_ŌRaššananŌ_ŌŠ ( x Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąAdministrative€JudgeŠ  d Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąChairperson,€Appeal€BoardŠ  P  ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąņņSigned:€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóŠ °  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąJames€E.€MoodyŠ œģ  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąAdministrative€JudgeŠ ˆŲ  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąMember,€Appeal€BoardŠ tÄ ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąņņSigned:€William€S.€Fields€€€€€€€€€€€€óóŠ $t Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąWilliam€S.€FieldsŠ ` Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąAdministrative€JudgeŠ üL Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąMember,€Appeal€Ō_ŌBoardŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_Ō