ÿWPC6 Z[ Œãc”jˆ‰i¦Z J+ˆC-å$ð-àußé,ÂQh Ø°T¤7Ôo ñÅÍœÌ$óžKPNÑ-…n÷ySTÕQZG¢ 0–\ØB÷q7¦-vFË=‹Ën¨Ãâ×:‚þs­vÄê̶E¾²ÙLš]>MhhZfíS&¹‹‹m{ŽÞŒAÎ"?&#÷Ì/›Þh›GrFx»r•äç*-ÏhÉã•4[m“Ïúý—sYfmæ©MøZ±Hm¿Ik¾¨©j7Žéu «)ªíþdxöÑÒ {¡ä>…´½×óá[+#Ö‘Ö–«Å”¥O°dRìLr˜ñÖQH‘/S$ÓE÷8¨1:T¹‡BUáHØ7G"ÍIŸ•—"íä>FÒ‘lÙU+D}\(ñT¶ð @BtOTBeî…T×D÷AkÕWa3¾6Ü@ß®¬À©?lãçsÙ, š¿«‡* ¥?å|ü7a‘7ÐR¡@ßSÇÕ#L¦þ°äE©Xïä N¨ÕHØ•[\'ôË“:Ýšè{ÞiË$Ÿ[œ¥6  e¹V©ÜrB¤¾;Däâ²8Ó®ê>‡ ÈËÖóì Oú¼%XãK(}ý$±_6Ÿ<;1)ÌöV±W#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß àZ ^ s w 4ƒ — ¦ m¨ 0©¿ ¿ àZh E 0DÄ N Ÿ q©©ÿ B˜Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 SeriesÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEk}¾J;E•JntFold3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ(Y(2Îœ$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôòXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó •Ý ƒ Îœ$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôòXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Directive,€Enclosure€2€ðð€17(b)€states:€ð ðthe€refusal€or€failure€to€cooperate,€omission,€or€concealment€was€causedÐ ° Ðor€significantly€contributed€to€by€improper€or€inadequate€advice€of€authorized€personnel€or€legal€counsel€advising€orÐ tÄ Ðinstructing€the€individual€specifically€concerning€the€security€clearance€process.€€Upon€being€made€aware€of€theÐ 8ˆ Ðrequirement€to€cooperate€or€provide€the€information,€the€individual€cooperated€fully€and€truthfully[.]ðð gÝ ƒ Îœ$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôòXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Directive,€Enclosure€2€ðð€17(a)€states:€ð ð€the€individual€made€prompt,€good„faith€efforts€to€correct€the€omission,Ð ° Ðconcealment,€or€falsification€before€being€confronted€with€the€facts[.]ðð õÝ ƒ Îœ$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôòXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€noted€above,€the€Directive€E3.1.29€prohibits€us€from€considering€new€evidence€on€appeal.€€We€have€in€theÐ ° Ðpast,€however,€considered€such€evidence€concerning€the€threshold€issues€of€jurisdiction€or€due€process.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_ÔÐ tÄ ÐCase€No.€14„00812€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Jul.€8,€2015).€€ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€Guideline€F;€Guideline€EÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€Debts€may€fall€off€credit€reports€for€various€reasons,€including€the€passage€of€time.€TheÐ ˆØ Ðfact€that€a€debt€no€longer€appears€on€a€credit€report€does€not€establish€any€meaningful,Ð tÄ Ðindependent€evidence€of€the€disposition€of€the€debt.€Adverse€decision€affirmed.Ð `° ÐÌÔ_ÔCASENOÔ_Ô:€15„07979.a1Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌDATE:€05/30/2017Ð  ` ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDATE:€May€30,€2017Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÒ.؉ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€V) °°xdE°ƒgAßÐ „Ô  ÐÌIn€Re:Ð Ï ÐÌà  à„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìà  àÌÌApplicant€for€Public€Trust€PositionÐ 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 àADP€Case€No.€15„07979Ð H˜# ÐÐ 4„$ ÐÒ.؉ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓÐ ¼ $ Ðò òÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ ¨ø% ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ l¼( Ðó óÌÔ‡&ó%XXÔò òFOR€GOVERNMENTó óÐ D!”* ÐJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselÐ "l+ ÐÌò òFOR€APPLICANTó óÐ Ì#- Ðò òòòPro€seóóó óÔ#†XáÄX%&óV#ÔÐ ¤$ô. ÐÌÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€trustworthiness€designation.€Ð R'¢"1 ÐOn€May€8,€2016,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€for€thatÐ >(Ž#2 Ðdecisionð!ðtrustworthiness€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€andÐ *)z$3 ÐGuideline€E€(Personal€Conduct)€of€Department€of€Defense€Directive€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€asÐ *f%4 Ðamended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€€On€March€3,€2017,€after€the€hearing,€DefenseÐ +R&5 ÐOffice€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)€Administrative€Judge€Matthew€E.€Malone€deniedÐ î+>'6 ÐApplicantððs€request€for€a€trustworthiness€designation.€€Applicant€appealed€pursuant€to€Directive€ððððÐ Ú,*(7 ÐE3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.Ð Æ-)8 Їà  àApplicant€raised€the€following€issue€on€appeal:€whether€the€Judgeððs€decision€was€arbitrary,Ð ° Ðcapricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€Consistent€with€the€following,€we€affirm.Ð œì ÐÌÔ_Ôà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Findings€of€Factó ó€Ð tÄ Ðà  àÌà  àApplicant€is€a€57„year„old€employee€of€a€defense€contractor.€€His€most€recent€divorce€endedÐ P   Ðin€2014,€after€a€three„year€separation.€€Ð < Œ ÐÌà  àThe€Government€alleged€Applicant€had€18€delinquent€debts€totaling€about€$15,000.€€A€creditÐ  d Ðreport€documents€those€debts.€€Applicant€admitted€some€of€the€debts€in€his€response€to€the€SOR.€Ð  P  ÐIn€2015,€he€submitted€an€electronic€questionnaire€for€investigations€processing€(e„QIP)€in€which€heÐ ì <  Ðdid€not€list€any€of€his€debts€in€response€to€the€financial€questions.€€He€denied€falsifying€his€e„QIP,Ð Ø(  Ðclaiming€he€did€not€know€about€the€debts€because€he€did€not€review€his€credit€report€beforeÐ Ä  Ðcompleting€the€application.€€Ð °  ÐÌà  àDuring€a€background€interview€in€2015,€Applicant€affirmed€his€responses€in€the€e„QIP.€€Ð ˆØ  ÐWhen€€the€investigator€confronted€him€with€the€contents€of€a€credit€report,€Applicant€was€able€toÐ tÄ Ðprovide€details€about€two€debts€(SOR€ðððð€1.a€and€1.b).€€He€stated€he€was€completely€unfamiliar€withÐ `° Ðsome€of€the€debts€or€was€unaware€marital€debts€became€delinquent.€€He€attributed€the€debts€to€hisÐ Lœ Ðex„wifeððs€financial€management.€€He€also€testified€that€his€wife€won€a€significant€amount€of€moneyÐ 8ˆ Ðin€a€lottery€around€the€time€they€separated.€€She€agreed€to€pay€their€debts€if€he€agreed€not€to€pursueÐ $t Ðany€share€of€the€lottery€winnings.€€He€did€not€present€any€documentation€of€an€agreement€made€asÐ ` Ðpart€of€their€separation€or€divorce.€€He€claims€two€debts€are€attributable€to€medical€care€provided€toÐ üL Ðhis€adult€son,€who€is€his€namesake.Ð è8 ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€background€interview,€he€stated€his€intention€to€pull€his€credit€reportÐ À Ðand€contact€creditors€to€make€arrangements€for€payment€or€other€resolutions.€€The€record€containsÐ ¬ü Ðno€information€showing€he€contacted€the€creditors€or€challenged€any€debts€until€after€the€SOR€wasÐ ˜è Ðissued.€€All€of€his€claims€about€the€status€of€the€debts€are€based€on€a€credit€report€from€May€2016.€Ð „Ô Ðà  àÌà  àIn€2015,€Applicantððs€son€was€injured€in€an€accident€and€was€unable€to€support€his€family.€Ð \ ¬ ÐApplicant€provided€his€son€about€$1,000€per€month€for€about€a€year.€€There€is€no€indication€thatÐ H!˜ ÐApplicant€has€incurred€any€new€past„due€debts.€€References€from€coworkers€and€associates€show€heÐ 4"„  Ðhas€a€good€reputation€at€work€and€in€the€community€for€trustworthiness€and€integrity.Ð  #p! ÐÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Analysisó óÐ ø$H # ÐÌà  àAs€of€the€hearing,€numerous€debts€attributable€to€Applicant€remain€unresolved.€€In€aboutÐ Ð& "% Ð2011,€he€experienced€unforeseen€circumstances€when€he€and€his€third€wife€separated.€€His€claim€thatÐ ¼' #& Ðhis€ex„wife€was€responsible€for€paying€their€marital€debts€is€not€supported€by€any€objective€evidence.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐThe€record€as€a€whole€show€that€Applicant€did€not€address€his€finances€in€a€timely,€productive,€orÐ ”)ä$( Ðsubstantive€way€until€after€it€was€clear€his€debts€might€adversely€impact€his€eligibility€for€a€positionÐ €*Ð%) Ðof€trust.€€He€did€not€demonstrate€that€his€financial€problems€are€under€control.€€He€disputes€manyÐ l+¼&* Ðof€the€debts€simply€because€they€do€not€appear€on€his€May€2016€credit€report.€€He€did€not€meet€hisÐ X,¨'+ Ðburden€of€producing€information€that€refutes€or€mitigates€the€trustworthiness€concerns€about€hisÐ D-”(, Ðfinances.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àApplicant€denied€the€falsification€allegation.€€He€completed€similar€questionnaires€at€otherÐ ˆØ Ðtimes€in€his€career.€€He€provided€conflicting€and€unsubstantiated€information€about€what€he€believed€Ð tÄ Ðwere€his€obligations€regarding€the€debts€from€his€third€marriage.€€His€failure€to€mention€until€theÐ `° Ðhearing€something€as€unique€as€his€ex„wifeððs€lottery€winning€as€a€basis€for€believing€the€largest€debtsÐ L œ Ðwere€paid€undermines€his€credibility.€€His€failure€to€list€the€debts€in€SOR€ðððð€1.a€and€1.b€shows€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðintended€to€conceal€the€true€scope€of€his€financial€problems.€€Mitigating€Conditions€17(a)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€17(b)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $ t Ðdo€not€apply.€€He€affirmed€his€e„QIP€responses€before€being€confronted€with€the€delinquent€debtsÐ  ` Ðin€his€credit€report.€€He€did€not€rely€on€anyoneððs€advice€in€answering€the€e„QIP€and€persists€in€hisÐ ü L  Ðclaim€that€he€was€unaware€of€the€debts€that€should€have€been€reported.€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àò òDiscussionó óÐ À  ÐÌà  àApplicantððs€brief€contains€information€that€was€not€submitted€to€the€€Judge.€€We€cannotÐ ˜è  Ðconsider€such€new€evidence€on€appeal.€€Directive€ðð€E3.1.29.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àApplicant€contends€that€he€presented€a€more€recent€credit€report€that€differs€from€the€one€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€Government€offered€into€evidence.€€The€fact€that€Applicant€can€argue€for€an€alternativeÐ H˜ Ðinterpretation€of€the€evidence€is€alone€not€sufficient€to€demonstrate€error.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.Ð 4„ Ð03„20327€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Oct€26,€2006).€€The€credit€report€offered€by€the€Government€as€well€asÐ  p ÐApplicantððs€admissions€regarding€some€of€the€debts€provided€a€sufficient€basis€for€the€Judge€toÐ  \ Ðconclude€that€Disqualifying€Conditions€19(a)€ð ðinability€or€unwillingness€to€satisfy€debtsðð€and€19(c)Ð øH Ðð ða€history€of€not€meeting€financial€obligationsðð€applied€and€for€the€burden€to€shift€to€Applicant€toÐ ä4 Ðpresent€evidence€to€rebut,€explain,€extenuate,€or€mitigate€those€trustworthiness€concerns.€€DirectiveÐ Ð  ÐE3.1.15.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€Judgeððs€conclusion€that€Applicantððs€reliance€on€a€later€credit€reportÐ ¼  Ðfailed€to€mitigate€the€security€concerns.€€In€the€past,€the€Appeal€Board€has€held€that€a€credit€report,Ð ¨ø Ðin€and€of€itself,€may€not€be€sufficient€to€meet€an€applicantððs€burden€of€persuasion€as€to€mitigation.€Ð ”ä ÐDebts€may€fall€off€credit€reports€for€various€reasons,€including€the€passage€of€time.€€The€fact€that€aÐ €Ð Ðdebt€no€longer€appears€on€a€credit€report€does€not€establish€any€meaningful,€independent€evidenceÐ l¼ Ðof€the€disposition€of€the€debt.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„03612€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Aug.€25,€2015).€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àApplicant€argues€the€Government€violated€his€rights€by€trying€to€introduce€a€credit€report€atÐ 0"€  Ðthe€hearing€and€expresses€a€concern€that€his€personal€information€from€that€credit€report€may€haveÐ #l! Ðbeen€compromised.€€Appeal€Brief€at€2.€€Applicant€is€apparently€referring€to€a€credit€report€that€theÐ $X" ÐGovernment€offered€into€evidence,€but€withdrew€before€the€Judge€made€a€ruling€on€its€admissibility.€Ð ô$D # ÐTr.€at€28„32.€€The€Board€has€no€jurisdiction€to€rule€on€Applicantððs€concern€regarding€theÐ à%0!$ ÐGovernmentððs€procurement€and€handling€of€that€credit€report,€but€we€note€that€there€is€a€presumptionÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€Government€officials€carry€out€their€duties€properly€and€in€good€faith.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.Ð ° Ð02„20947€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Jun.€18,€2004).à À àÐ œì Ðà  àÌà  àThe€balance€of€Applicantððs€arguments€regarding€the€financial€trustworthiness€concernsÐ tÄ Ðamount€to€a€claim€that€the€Judge€mis„weighed€the€evidence.€€For€example,€he€argues€that€the€medicalÐ `° Ðdebts€are€the€responsibility€of€his€son€who€has€the€same€first,€middle,€and€last€names€as€him€and€thatÐ L œ Ðhe€wrote€letters€to€some€creditors€offering€payment€plans€but€has€not€received€responses€back€fromÐ 8 ˆ Ðthem.€€The€Judge€made€findings€of€fact€relating€to€those€matters.€€As€the€trier€of€fact,€the€Judge€hasÐ $ t Ðto€weigh€the€evidence€as€a€whole€and€decide€whether€the€favorable€evidence€outweighs€theÐ  ` Ðunfavorable€evidence,€or€òòvice€versaóó.€€A€partyððs€disagreement€with€the€Judgeððs€weighing€of€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence,€or€an€ability€to€argue€for€a€different€interpretation€of€the€evidence,€is€not€sufficient€toÐ è 8  Ðdemonstrate€the€Judge€weighed€the€evidence€or€reached€conclusions€in€a€manner€that€is€arbitrary,Ð Ô$  Ðcapricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óóADP€Case€No.€13„00584€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Apr.€24,€2014).Ð À  Ðà  àÌà  àApplicant€claims€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€because€he€did€not€have€anÐ ˜è  Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€the€female€investigator€who€conducted€his€background€interview.€€HeÐ „Ô  Ðalso€claims€he€was€discriminated€against€based€on€his€gender€because€the€female€investigator€askedÐ pÀ Ðhim€improper€questions€about€his€latest€divorce€and€made€inappropriate€comments€about€men.€€WeÐ \¬ Ðnote€that€he€did€not€raise€these€issues€earlier€in€this€proceeding.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€hearing,€he€did€not€objectÐ H˜ Ðto€the€admission€of€the€summary€of€the€background€interview€into€evidence€and€adopted€it€as€aÐ 4„ Ðsummary€of€the€matters€discussed€during€the€interview.€€Tr.€at€26.€€By€adopting€the€summary€of€theÐ  p Ðinterview€at€the€hearing,€Applicant€eliminated€the€need€for€the€Government€to€call€a€witness€toÐ  \ Ðauthenticate€that€document€(Directive€E3.1.20),€and€the€Government€was€not€required€otherwise€toÐ øH Ðcall€the€investigator€as€a€witness.€€Furthermore,€Applicant€has€not€identified€any€particular€fact€in€theÐ ä4 Ðsummary€of€the€interview€that€is€inaccurate.€€In€short,€Applicant€alleged€an€error€occurred€during€hisÐ Ð  Ðbackground€investigation,€but€failed€to€proffer€or€establish€how€that€error€may€have€harmed€him.€Ð ¼  ÐBased€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€Applicant€has€failed€to€make€a€òòprima€facieóó€showingÐ ¨ø Ðof€a€due€process€violation.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àApplicant€contends€the€Government€did€not€prove€he€intentionally€omitted€information€fromÐ l¼ Ðhis€e„QIP.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€the€Government€produced€no€evidence€to€show€he€was€aware€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€debts€on€his€credit€report€and€that€he€tried€to€hide€them.€€When€evaluating€the€deliberate€natureÐ D!” Ðof€an€applicantððs€omissions€or€false€statements,€a€Judge€should€consider€the€applicantððs€òòmens€rea€óóinÐ 0"€  Ðlight€of€the€entirety€of€the€record€evidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„04198€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Apr.Ð #l! Ð26,€2017).€€As€a€practical€matter,€a€finding€regarding€an€applicantððs€intent€or€state€of€mind€may€notÐ $X" Ðalways€be€based€on€an€applicantððs€statements,€but€rather€may€rely€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€It€isÐ ô$D # Ðnot€mere€speculation€or€surmise€for€a€Judge€to€make€a€finding€of€fact€about€an€applicantððs€intent€orÐ à%0!$ Ðstate€of€mind€based€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€To€the€contrary,€it€is€legally€permissible€to€do€so.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€06„21972€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Nov.€6,€2009).€€Of€note,€the€Appeal€Board€alsoÐ ¸'#& Ðgives€deference€to€a€Judgeððs€credibility€determinations.€€Directive€E3.1.32.1.€€From€our€review€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€record,€the€Judgeððs€conclusion€that€Applicant€deliberately€falsified€his€e„QIP€is€based€onÐ )à$( Ðsubstantial€evidence,€or€constitute€reasonable€inferences€that€could€be€drawn€from€the€record.€€òòSee,Ð ° Ðe.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€15„07277€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Apr.€26,€2017).Ð œì Ðà  à€€€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€evidence€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theÐ tÄ Ðdecision.€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€The€standard€applicable€to€trustworthinessÐ `° Ðcases€is€that€is€that€set€forth€in€òòDepartment€of€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988)€regardingÐ L œ Ðsecurity€clearances:€such€a€determination€ð ð.€.€.€may€be€granted€only€when€ððclearly€consistent€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterests€of€the€national€security.ðððð€òòóó€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óóADP€Case€No.€14„03541€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Aug€3,€2015).€Ð $ t ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòKaplan€v.€Conyersóó,€733€F.3d€1148€(Fed.€Cir.€2013),€òòcert.€deniedóó.Ð  ` ÐÌà@ââ(ìàò òOrderó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Decision€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð À  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€Michael€Raððanan€€€€€€€óóÐ tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMichael€RaððananÐ `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ Lœ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ 8ˆ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€óóÐ è8 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€E.€MoodyÐ Ô$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ ¬ü ÐÌà  àà ` àÌà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ \ ¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€F.€DuffyÐ H!˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ 4"„  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ  #p! Ð