WPC \a\0ٙ)"0%r`U um&Y뛤xݶQQ{_jToߒݧM[b';VuuIb4Lɑ{*jI`W@{=PLT UOU9N@h\t6$>k}a✚${5)2kev\z qLQ.fAQyT˥3P gH=Fg]Qhl@)[W{{|~'t県X_{l^ox.E௿C*naOa"t٠Q ¡i2gαetqx!( ךi)6ҞozmT6eN\S*&oM6gINy,^ԫH.u+{ ;:J#]|֪R28_[i50=kʶ76jLB(UpϱxqSmUq}q3! AsZ#U N % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z 0C E 0D N2 b4 1&+Qoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BdHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,J;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2pn$ !USUS.,    XX    0  (#$  0   X pn$USUS.,  XX    5    _ThewitnessatthehearingdescribedApplicantas averygenuineperson,apoliteperson,honest,andavery  hardworker.ThewitnesstestifiedthathewasbasinghisopinionstrictlyonApplicantsconductatwork,insofaras t hehadnointeractionwithhimoffduty.Tr.at3536.ThewitnessdisclosednoknowledgeofApplicantsconviction 8 oroftheconductunderlyingit.  pn$USUS.,  XX    6    _WenoteDepartmentCounselsargumentthatthewholepersonanalysiswasnotsufficient.Webelievethat  aresolutionofthisissueisimplicitinourdiscussionoftheextenttowhichApplicantsconductraisessecurityconcerns. pn$USUS.,  XX    1    _The_SOR_ԀandevidencestatethatApplicantwaschargedin2004.  pn$USUS.,  XX    3    _ItisunclearfromtherecordandfromtheDecisionwhethertherewasonecountofsexualmisconductor  multiplecounts.  pn$USUS.,  XX    2    _Applicantpledguiltytothemisdemeanoroffensedespitemaintaininghisfactualinnocence.Tr.at20North  Carolinav._Alford_,400U.S.25(1979)permitsanoffendertopleadguiltywhileatthesametimemaintaininghisorher t innocence.Beforeacceptingan_Alford_Ԁplea,acourtmustindependentlydeterminethatitissupportedbyfactssufficient 8 tosustainaconviction.See_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.0703307at78(App.Bd.Sep.26,2008)andcasescitedtherein.  pn$USUS.,  XX    4    _Applicanttestifiedthatthepolicequestionedhimforhours.Hestated Ineverdidanythingwronginmylife  uptothatpointorbeeninthosekindofpositions.And,so,thatstatementwaswhatboth...theonesthatwerealleging t thisstuffandtheirteamkindofheldonto.Tr.at2728. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineE  DIGEST:ApplicantwaschargedwithFelonyRapeofaChild.Hewas22atthetimeandthe  allegedvictimwasabout16.Applicantpledguiltytoamisdemeanor,Communicationwitha t MinorforImmoralPurposes.Hemaintainedhisinnocenceduringthehearing.Incompletinghis ` _SCA_,Applicantanswered notothefollowingquestion: HaveyouEVERbeenchargedwith L  anyfelonyoffense.Decisionreversed. 8  _CASENO_:1507009.a1  ` DATE:07/25/2017  8  __________________________   `     h      p DATE:July25,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEogA p InRe: k      / ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AY) xdEgA / ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4    ! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1507009 4$   p% .؉7r. \XXp %    APPEALBOARDDECISION & APPEARANCES X )  &_%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"+ John_Bayard_Ԁ_Glendon_,Esq.,DeputyChiefDepartmentCounsel #X,  FORAPPLICANT  $ . ShaneC._Brengle_,Esq.#XX%&_# % /     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnApril @(#2 25,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat ,)|$3 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineE(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefense *h%4 Directive5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnApril +T&5 5,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge +@'6 RichardA._Cefola_ԀgrantedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.DepartmentCounsel ,,(7 appealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. -)8 Ї  DepartmentCounselraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgesconclusion  thatApplicantsconductdidnotraiseconcernsunderGuidelineEwasarbitrary,capricious,or  contrarytolaw;whethertheJudgeerredinfindingthatApplicantdidnotdeliberatelyfalsifyhis  _securityclearanceapplication(SCA);andwhethertheJudgeswholepersonanalysiswaserroneous. t Consistentwiththefollowing,wereverse. `   TheJudgesFindingsofFact  8    ApplicantwaschargedwithFelonyRapeofaChild. #  1      ׀Hewas22atthetimeandthealleged  ` victimwasabout16.Applicantpledguiltytoamisdemeanor,CommunicationwithaMinorfor  L  ImmoralPurposes.Hemaintainedhisinnocenceduringthehearing.T #  2        8    IncompletinghisSCA,Applicantanswered notothefollowingquestion: Haveyou    EVER beenchargedwithanyfelonyoffense[.]Atthehearing,DepartmentCounselaskedthe   following: AndinyourAnswer[totheSOR]yousaidyoujustmisunderstood.Isthatafair   descriptionofwhathappened?Applicant:Yes.Or,ifyoulike,Imisreadit.Imisunderstoodit.I   franklydidnot!atthatpoint,fillingitout,Ijustdidnotrememberbeingchargedwithafelonyfor, t youknow,inmyrecountofthepast12yearsbeforethat.Itsalwaysbeenaboutamisdemeanor. ` So,itjust!itdidntoccurtome.Decisionat2,quotingTr.at2425. L   TheJudgestatedthat,whenconsideredinconjunctionwithhischaracterwitnessandwritten $t characterreferences,hefoundApplicantsexplanationtobelievable.HefoundthatApplicanthad ` notdeliberatelyomittedthefelonychargesfromhisSCA. L   TheJudgesAnalysis  $   TheJudgestatedthat,insofarastherewasnodeliberateomissionandthemisdemeanor  convictionwasmorethan12yearsold,Applicantscasedidnotestablishapatternofdishonestyor  rulesviolations.Inthewholepersonanalysis,theJudgenotedApplicantsevidenceofgood  characterandofgoodworkperformance.Hereiteratedthattheconvictionwasover12yearsago. p   Discussion  H!   Thereisastrongpresumptionagainstthegrantormaintenanceofasecurityclearance.See  #p! Dorfmontv.Brown,913F.2d1399,1401(9thCir.1990),cert.denied,499U.S.905(1991).The  $\" applicantisresponsibleforpresentingevidencetorebut,explain,extenuate,ormitigateadmittedor $H # provenfacts.Theapplicanthastheburdenofpersuasionastoobtainingafavorabledecision. %4!$ DirectiveE3.1.15.Thestandardapplicableinsecurityclearancedecisions isthataclearancemay & "% begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Departmentof ' #& theNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988). Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfor  nationalsecurityeligibilityberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.Directive,Encl.2,App.  A2(b).    IndecidingwhethertheJudge'srulingsorconclusionsareerroneous,wewillreviewthe ` decisiontodeterminewhether:itdoesnotexaminerelevantevidence;itfailstoarticulatea L  satisfactoryexplanationforitsconclusions,includingarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfound 8  andthechoicemade;itdoesnotconsiderrelevantfactors;itreflectsaclearerrorofjudgment;itfails $ t toconsideranimportantaspectofthecase;itoffersanexplanationforthedecisionthatrunscontrary  ` totherecordevidence;oritissoimplausiblethatitcannotbeascribedtoameredifferenceof  L  opinion.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1402563at34(App.Bd.Aug.28,2015).  8    DepartmentCounselarguesthattheJudgeerredinconcludingthatApplicantsconductdid   notraiseconcernsunderGuidelineE.HearguesthattheJudgesubstitutedacredibility   determinationforrecordevidence.DepartmentCounselsargumentincludesanimplicitchallenge   totheJudgesfindingthatApplicantsomissionfromtheSCAwasnotdeliberate.Weexaminea   Judgesfindingstoseeiftheyaresupportedby suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemindmight p acceptasadequatetosupportaconclusioninlightofallthecontraryevidenceinthesamerecord. \ DirectiveE3.1.32.1.SeealsoISCRCaseNo.1404435at4(App.Bd.Mar.13,2017).When H evaluatingthedeliberatenatureofanapplicantsomissionsorfalsestatements,aJudgeshould 4 considertheapplicantsmensreainlightoftheentiretyoftherecordevidence.See,e.g.,ISCRCase  p No.1404226at3(App.Bd.Aug.18,2015).  \   DepartmentCounselcitestorecordevidencethatrunscontrarytotheJudgesfindingofno 4 deliberateomission.Henotes,firstofall,thatthequestionatissuehereisclearlyworded,theword     EVER printedinboldfacedcapitalletters,whichwouldmakeitlesslikelythatApplicantwould   havesimplymisreadit,asheclaimed.DepartmentCounselnotesthatApplicantiswelleducated,  holdinganadvanceddegree,andtherebyabletounderstandtheclearmeaningofEnglishwords.  DepartmentCounselalsodrawsourattentiontoinconsistentstatementsthatApplicantmade,onone  handthathehadmisunderstoodthequestion,ontheotherthathehasalwaysthoughtoftheoffense p asamisdemeanor.AsDepartmentCounselargues,theJudgeneveraddressedtheapparent \  inconsistencyinApplicantsexplanations,whichdetractsfromhisoverallfavorableconclusion. H! See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1401056at3(App.Bd.Aug.17,2015)totheeffectthatinconsistent 4"  statementscanimpugnawitnessscredibility.  #p!   Evenmore,DepartmentCounselcitestoevidenceconcerningtheoffenseitself,muchof $H # whichwasobtainedfromApplicantatvarioustimesduringtheinvestigationandadjudicationofhis %4!$ case: & "% Ѐ8  a.Applicantwaschargedwithrepeatedincidentsofsexualmisconductwithhis (#' cousin,occurringoveraperiodofyearsfromwhenshewasnineyearsolduntilshe )$( wasfifteen.Theoffensewaschargedasafelony. #  3      ׀Tr.at19;GovernmentExhibit *%) (GE)2,InterviewSummary,at56.   8  8`    ` x` x 8  b.Applicantscousinallegedthattheoffensesoccurredmorethan80times.Tr.at  28.t   8  8`    ` x` x 8  c.Afteraninconclusivepolygraphexamination,Applicantmadeastatement #  4      ׀tothe L  policeandwassubsequentlycharged.Tr.at1819,28;GE2at56.8    8  8`    ` x` x 8  d.ApplicantenteredintothemisdemeanorpleatoCommunicationwithaMinorfor  ` ImmoralPurposesasaformofriskavoidance,becausehedidnotwanttoriskajury  L  trialandpossiblejailtime.GE2at6;Tr.at1921. 8    8      8  e.Applicantssentenceincluded365daysinjailwith335dayssuspended;30days   onaworkcrew;twoyearssupervisedprobation;courtcosts;andrestitution.Hewas   alsorequiredtoundergosixmonthsofsexoffendercounseling.GE2at6;GE3,   FBIIdentificationRecord.    8      8  f.Applicantscousin,throughherrelatives,filedalawsuitagainsthim,whichhe \ settledfor$200,000.Hisfatherpaidthesettlement.Tr.at22.H   8      8  g.ApplicantislistedintheSexOffenderRegistryofhisstate.Tr.at1920,31. p     DepartmentCounselarguesthatApplicantsexplanationforhisomission!thathealways H thoughtofhiscaseasamisdemeanorandforgotthathehadoriginallybeenchargedwitha 4 felony!wasunworthyofbelief.DepartmentCounselarguesthatitisnotplausiblethatApplicant   simplyforgotthathiscasebeganasafelonyresultingfromthevictimsclaimthathehadrapedher   over80timesandthathisguiltypleatoamisdemeanorwasfortheexpressedpurposeofavoiding  thequantumofjailtimethatafelonyconvictioncouldwellentail.DepartmentCounselpersuasively  arguesthatsuchchargesaswerelodgedagainstApplicantwouldmostlikelybeindeliblyimprinted  inapersonsmemorysothat,inansweringthequestionatissue,thepersonwouldhaveknownthat l anegativeresponsewasnottruthful.TheJudgedidnotaddresswhyhefoundApplicants X  explanationtobecredible,relyinginsteaduponthevariouscharacterstatementsthatApplicant D! submittedinhisbehalf.However,thesestatements,aswellasthewitnesswhoprovidedtestimony 0"  atthehearing,merelycitedtoApplicantsgeneralgoodcharacteranddisclosednoreasontobelieve #l! thattheauthorsorthewitnesswereevenawareofthechargesagainstApplicant,muchlessthat_they $X" hadaconsideredopinionastohistruthfulnessundercircumstancessuchasthoseatissuehere. #  5      ׀ $D # Indeed,threeofhiswrittenreferencesdescribehimas lawabiding,withoutanyindicationthatthe %0!$ authorswereevenawarethatApplicanthadbeenconvictedofacrimeandthatheisaregisteredsex  offender.Accordingly,weconcludethatthechallengedfindingofnodeliberateomissionisnot  sustainable.    ThegeneralsecurityconcernraisedbyGuidelineEisthat [_c]onduct_Ԁinvolvingquestionable ` judgment...canraisequestionsaboutanindividualsreliability,trustworthinessandabilityto L  protectclassifiedinformation._ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1201698at4(App.Bd.Jun.13,2014).False 8  statementsareofspecialconcernunderthisGuideline,andtheDirectiveprovidesthatsuch $ t statementsmadeduringaclearanceinvestigationwillnormallyresultinanadversedecision.  ` Directive,Encl.2,App.A15(b).Seealso_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017).  L  Therefore,Applicantsomissioninitselfraisesaconcernthathemaylacktherequisite  8  trustworthiness.WhentheomissionisconsideredalongwithApplicantsconvictionandthe $  circumstancesunderlyingit,theevidenceissufficienttoraisesecurityconcernsunderGuidelineE,   therebyplacinguponApplicanttheburdenofpersuasionthatheshouldreceiveaclearance.   Moreover,giventherecordthatwasbeforetheJudge,weconcludethattheevidence,viewedasa   cumulativewhole,isnotsufficienttomeetApplicantsburdenofpersuasionundertheEgan   standard. #  6      ׀TheJudgesanalysisfailstoconsiderimportantaspectsofthecaseandrunscontraryto p theweightoftherecordevidence.Accordingly,weconcludethatthedecisionisnotsustainable.  \ @( Order     TheDecisionis REVERSED .       `     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___