WPC L<6!Y?kM&=~B_QuD6/]+]!!ORa ?uM{3 VYʐ9폘v[ޔN uDM+cAvξ8,NV. Ū(3'Z̐qqOƕ:?pE 0 , 0D+Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BqHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,%JJpJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE\  `&Times New Roman(Y(2|$ !USUS.,  XX      0    |$USUS.,XX      1    _WetakethistorefertoGovernmentExhibit(GE)3,apolicereport,whichcontainedadescriptionofthe  offense,Applicantsadmissions,etc.DepartmentCounselquestionedApplicantextensivelyX@XԀ#XX@k#aboutthecontentsofthis t exhibit.Tr.at3349.(#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineE;GuidelineD;GuidelineJ  DIGEST:Applicantstatesthathewas _blindsided_byDepartmentCounselsexhibits.TheJudge  gaveApplicantanopportunitytoexamineDepartmentCounselsexhibitsandofferedtocontinue t thehearingfor30daysinordertogivehimanopportunitytoprepare.HealsogaveApplicant30 ` daysafterthehearingtosubmitadditionalevidence.Applicantofferednoobjectionsto L  DepartmentCounselsexhibitswhentheywereofferedintoevidence.Adversedecisionaffirmed. 8  _CASENO_:1502895.a1  ` DATE:06/23/2017  8     `     h      p DATE:June23,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEogA p InRe: k      / ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AY) xdEgA / ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4    ! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.15_Ԅ02859_ 4$   p% .؉7r. \XXp %    APPEALBOARDDECISION & APPEARANCES X )  &c%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"+ JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #X,  FORAPPLICANT  $ .  Prose #X@X%&c# % /       X@XXX@TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On >(#2 November20,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor *)z$3 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineE(PersonalConduct),GuidelineD(Sexual *f%4 Behavior),andGuidelineJ(CriminalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2, +R&5 1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnApril6,2017,afterthehearing, +>'6 DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeMarkHarveydenied ,*(7 Applicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28 -)8 andE3.1.30.#X@XXX@#    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whetherhewasdenieddueprocess,whether  theJudgesfindingswereerroneous,andwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary, t _capricious,orcontrarytolaw.TheJudgesfavorablefindingsunderGuidelineEarenotatissuein ` thisappeal.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. L    TheJudgesFindingsofFact  $ t   Whileridinganescalatoratashoppingmall,Applicantplacedhiscellphoneunderneaththe  L  skirtofagirlwhoappearedtobeabout13to15yearsold.Uponbeingstoppedbythepolice,  8  Applicantadmittedthathehadvideotapedagirlwithhiscellphone.Hegavethephoneand $  passwordtothepolice,whodiscoveredthatthemostrecentvideoonthephonewastakenfrom   underneaththeskirtofafemale.Thepolicefoundfourothersuchvideos.Applicanttoldthepolice   thathehadaproblemandhadbeenrecordingvideossuchastheoneinquestionfortwotothree   weeks.Hedescribedtheimpulseasan uncontrollableurge.Decisionat3.Applicantpledno   contesttoachargeofhavingsecretlyrecordedanotherpersonsbodyunderneaththeclothingforthe p purposeofgratifyingtheoffenderssexualdesires. \   Atthehearing,Applicantdeniedhavingmadetheadmissionsdescribedabove.Herecalled 4 givinghiscellphonetothepolicemanbutdidnotknowifanythingincriminatingwasfoundonit.  p Inhisposthearingsubmission,Applicantdeniedhavingcommittedtheoffenses.Subsequently,a  \ courtchangedApplicantspleatonotguiltyanddismissedthecharge.Applicanthasreceived H therapy. 4   Applicantreceivedacertificateofappreciationforhishavingdetectedsomeonewhowasa   securitythreat.Heisdedicatedtohisworkandtakesprideindoingagoodjob.    TheJudgesAnalysis     TheincidentdescribedabovewasallegedundereachofthethreeGuidelinesreferencedin X  theSOR.TheJudgeresolvedtheGuidelineEallegationinApplicantsfavorinsofarasitwas D! duplicativeoftheoftheGuidelinesJandDconcerns.InresolvingtheselattertwoGuidelines 0"  againstApplicant,theJudgestatedthatApplicanthadsuccessfullycompletedprobation.However, #l! hedescribedtheoffenseasseriousandrecent.HealsonotedthemultiplenatureofApplicants $X" misconduct,insofarasvideosofseveralgirlsorwomenwerefoundonhiscellphone.Hecitedto $D # ApplicantsadmissionstothepoliceandstatedthatApplicanthadnotexpressedremorse.Healso %0!$ statedthatitisnotclearwhetherApplicantwasfrankwithhistherapist. &"%   Discussion  (#'   Applicantstatesthathewas blindsidedbyDepartmentCounselsexhibits,whichhehad |*%)  notseenpriortothehearing.Hestatesthathewasnotawareinadvancethat suchexhibitwould h+&* beofferedintoevidenceandthathewasnotpreparedforthehearing. #  1      ׀Wehaveexamined_the   transcriptandnotethat,priortothehearing,ApplicantadvisedtheJudgethathehadnotreceived  discoveryfromDepartmentCounsel.TheJudgegaveApplicantanopportunitytoexamine  DepartmentCounselsexhibitsandofferedtocontinuethehearingfor30daysinordertogivehim t anopportunitytoprepare.HealsogaveApplicant30daysafterthehearingtosubmitadditional ` evidence.Applicantdidnotrequesta30daycontinuancebutdidsubmitaposthearingdocument, L  whichwasadmittedwithoutobjection.Decisionat2;Tr.at11.Moreover,heofferednoobjections 8  toDepartmentCounselsexhibitswhentheywereofferedintoevidence.Tr.at20.Wefindno $ t reasontobelievethatApplicantwasdeniedanopportunitytopreparehiscaseformitigationorthat  ` hewasotherwisedeniedthedueprocessaffordedbytheDirective.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.15  L  04472at3(App.Bd.Feb.9,2017).  8    ApplicantstatesthattheJudgesmaterialfindingswerebasedonassertionsbypersonswho   nevercamebeforethehearing.WeconstruethisasanargumentthatGE3isnotworthyofbelief.   Asstatedinthefootnoteabove,GE3isapolicereport.Althoughitcontainshearsay,thisexhibit   isadmissiblebothasanofficialrecordunderDirectiveE3.1.20andasapublicrecordunder   FederalRuleofEvidence803(8).See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.0606496at24(App.Bd.Jun.25, p 2009).ThecontentsofGE3,whenreadinconjunctionwithalltheotherevidenceintherecord, \ supporttheJudgesfindingsregardingApplicantssecuritysignificantconduct.TheJudges H materialfindingsaresupportedbysubstantialevidenceorconstitutereasonableinferencesfromthe 4 evidence.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501285at3(App.Bd.Dec.22,2016).  p   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe H decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay 4 begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalse_curity_.Department   oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt   concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor  ofthenationalsecurity.   @( 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:WilliamS.Fields__ $t    `     h   WilliamS.Fields `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___