WPC{  9t@ȤcRuJtihLx徫mnvbf( \.8b7R/ځ0g88?MgRم_=I~Gnml%3}ŧWwPC|c*@~=%3!mԒ й. RH{:Ik ٰ.U⿳e}@e=1Ÿ aul- ,v =U]D{=$ۛ880om$J 1:>`-8lF{ITE专^"0rW]%»בr;>O qoD*&OYloSo4w!z/d#̳sOAw+q8~G*q߇jKCZ`o;'{_{3X%*QZ!]"NY,P=蠧]K'6 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartment ,*(7 ofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. -)8 OnAugust18,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)  AdministrativeJudgePaulJ.MasondeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicant  appealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgewasbiasedandwhether ` theJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththe L  following,weremandthecasetotheJudge. 8    The_SOR_ԀallegedthatApplicantfailedtofilehisstateincometaxreturnsfor1998,2000,  ` 2002,2003,and2004;thatheoweddelinquentstatetaxesfor2001,2002,2004,2005,and2008;  L  thathehadaFederaltaxlienenteredagainsthimin2011;thathewasindebtedonacollection  8  accountandachargedoffaccount;andthathewaschargedwithfalseinfotoincreasebenefits,pled $  guilty,andagreedtopaybacktheamountofunemploymentbenefitshewasnotentitledtoreceive.   InhisAnswertothe_SOR_,Applicantdeniedthatheoweddelinquentstatetaxesfor2001and2005   andthatheowedtheFederaltaxlien.Headmittedtheother_SOR_Ԁallegationswithexplanations.   TheJudgefoundinfavorofApplicantonmostofthe_SOR_Ԁallegationsandagainsthimonfour   allegations.IndeterminingthatApplicantdidnotmitigatethesecurityconcerns,theJudgestated p thathewasunabletoconcludethatApplicantsfinancialproblemsareunlikelytorecurgivenhis \ longhistoryofnotfilingandpayinghistaxesinatimelymanner. H   ApplicantclaimstheJudgewasbiasedagainsthim.HearguestheJudgesbehaviortowards  p himwas accusatoryandwas meanttopurposelyintimidateandconfusehim.AppealBriefat  \ 1.Thereisa_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionthatanadministrativejudgeisfairandimpartial,andaparty H seekingtorebutthatpresumptionhasaheavyburdenofpersuasiononappeal.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCase 4 No.0801306at4(App.Bd.Oct.28,2009).Biasinvolvespartialityfororagainstaparty,   predispositiontodecideacaseorissuewithoutregardtothemerits,orotherindiciaofalackof   impartiality.Id.BiasisnotdemonstratedmerelybecauseapartycandemonstrateaJudge  committedafactualorlegalerror.ThestandardisnotwhetherapartypersonallybelievesaJudge  wasbiasedorprejudicedagainstthatparty,butwhethertherecordoftheproceedingsbelowcontains  anyindicationthattheJudgeactedinamannerthatwouldleadareasonable,disinterestedperson l toquestionthefairnessandimpartialityoftheJudge.Id.Applicantsclaimofbiasisnotpersuasive. X  WhiletheJudgestoppedApplicantsopeningstatementbecausehebeganpresentingevidence,asked D! Applicantpointedquestions,andmadesomeabruptcommentsduringthehearing,ourreviewofthe 0"  transcriptdoesnotrevealthattheJudgeactedinamannerthatwouldcauseareasonablepersonto #l! questionhisimpartiality. $X"   NewnationalsecurityadjudicativeguidelinesbecameeffectiveonJune8,2017,whichwas %0!$ 21daysbeforeApplicantshearingwasheld. #  1      ׀Applicantclaimsthathefirstbecameawareofthe &"% newadjudicativeguidelinewhenhereadtheJudgesdecision.Hecontendsthathewasnot '#& informedofthenewguidelinesorgivenanopportunitytoreviewthem.Therecordreflectsthathe (#' wasprovidedacopyoftheDirectivewhenhereceivedthe_SOR_ԀinSeptember2016,whichwas )$( beforethenewguidelineswereissued.TherecorddoesnotreflectthatApplicantwasprovideda |*%) copyofthenewguidelinesbeforethehearing.Wenotethenewguidelinescontainanewmitigating h+&* conditionthatspecificallyaddressestaxdelinquencies,andtheJudgeappliedthatnewmitigating  conditioninrenderinghisdecision. #  2            TheAppealBoarddoesnothavefactfindingpowers.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1402394 t at3(App.Bd.Aug.17,2015).WeareunabletodeterminewhetherApplicantwasprovided ` adequatenoticeofthenewadjudicativeguidelinessothathehadanopportunitytopresentevidence L  underthoseguidelines.Consequently,weconcludethebestcourseofactionistoremandthecase 8  totheJudgeforhimtodeterminewhetherApplicantwasprovidedadequatenoticeofthenew $ t adjudicativeguidelinespriortothehearing.IfApplicantdidnotreceivesuchnotice,theJudge  ` shouldreopentherecord,ensureApplicantisprovidedacopyofthenewadjudicativeguidelines,  L  givethepartiesanopportunitytopresentevidenceunderthenewguidelines,andissueanew  8  decisioninaccordancewiththeDirective. $    WealsonotethatApplicantclaimshedidnotreceiveacopyofthetranscriptofthehearing.   DirectiveE3.1.24providesthatApplicantshallreceiveacopyofthetranscript,lesstheexhibits,   withoutcost.TheHearingOfficeshouldensurethatApplicantwasprovidedacopyofthetranscript.   Applicantraisedotherissuesthatarenotripeforconsideration.  p @( Order     TheDecisionis REMANDED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields      `     h   WilliamS.Fields      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___