WPCV  t6wکg,~{VG:_%j8?IEf o?zDd%(o! p睸sDL 1 b:B5H"Lg5gS~y)H[e5QULPbmQXhJ@4GwW[Ĝh*˦OTHN ڷrz7]OMAp )>wyw!Ω(SB(Qҍ8Q}kJ$k5Yӂy p=!8w( hWO:w?V ٩{1zC'E*1;}|_:jS-NFbBn ez2XA;_J-8Z;A~]tyZ#>ƃS0 /+c !)KZ{!ρ凒bkhjo( sFKQ]W#UN % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN Ze N Z 0 0D E 0N B9 Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԪcK;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0  (O$ d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineM;GuidelineE  DIGEST:ApplicantchallengestheJudgesconclusionthatheintentionallyfalsifiedhis  responsestothe_SCA_Ԁquestions.Hearguesthathis_SCA_Ԁomissionswereoutofcharacterandnot t somethingthathewouldknowinglyordeliberatelydo.WedonotfindApplicantsargument ` persuasive.Adversedecisionaffirmed. L  _CASENO_:1508162.a1 $ t DATE:11/3/2017  L  __________________________   `     h      p DATE:November3,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AV) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508162 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp   APPEALBOARDDECISION  # APPEARANCES &  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  l( JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel D )  FORAPPLICANT  !D+ RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#X X%&L# ",     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnJuly $. 2,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat |% / decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineM(UseofInformationTechnology)and h&!0 GuidelineE(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,as T'"1 amended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnAugust14,2017,afterthehearing, @(#2 DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeEdwardW._Loughran_ ,)|$3 deniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirective *h%4 E3.1.28andE3.1.30. +T&5   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas ,,(7 arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.TheJudgesfavorablefindingsunderGuidelineMarenot -)8 atissueinthisappeal.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    Inrespondingtothe_SOR_,Applicantadmittedthathemisusedacompanycomputerin2013 t bycircumventingfilteringandfirewallsystemstoviewpornographic_websites_Ԁandthathereceived ` aoneweeksuspensionforviolatingthecompanysinformationtechnology(IT)systempolicy.On L  theoccasioninquestion,heusedaflashdrivewithaprivatebrowserbelievinghewouldbypassthe 8  companysfirewallandpreventthecompanyfromdiscoveringhisactions.Whilehewaspermitted $ t tousetheflashdriveinthecompanycomputer,hewasnotpermittedtousetheprivatebrowser.  `   Incompletingasecurityclearanceapplication(_SCA_)in2014,Applicantresponded Noto  8  questionsthataskedwhetherhehadbeensuspendedordisciplinedformisconductintheworkplace $  inthelastsevenyearsorwhetherheusedhardware,software,ormediainconnectionwithanyIT   systemwithoutauthorizationinthelastsevenyearswhenspecificallyprohibitedbyrules,   procedures,guidelines,orregulations.Duringabackgroundinterviewin2015,Applicantconfirmed   hisnegativeresponsetothe_SCA_Ԁquestionpertainingtoanysuspensionordisciplinaryactionuntil   hewasconfrontedwithhisoneweeksuspension.Heindicatedthathecouldnotrecallwhyhe p answered Notothatquestion,thatitwasanoversight,andthathemaynothavereadthequestion \ correctly.Hedeniedfalsifyinghis_SCA_Ԁandtestifiedthathe _rubberstamped_itbysimplycopying H informationfromhisprevious_SCA_Ԁwithoutcloselyreadingthequestions.Decisionat3.TheJudge 4 didnotfindApplicantstestimonycredible.AfterconsideringApplicantsage,education,  p experience,characterevidence,andtheclearwordingofthequestions,theJudgeconcludedthat  \ Applicantintentionallyfalsifiedhisresponsestothetwo_SCA_Ԁquestions. H   Inhisappealbrief,ApplicantchallengestheJudgesconclusionthatheintentionallyfalsified   hisresponsestothe_SCA_Ԁquestions.Hearguesthathis_SCA_Ԁomissionswereoutofcharacterand   notsomethingthathewouldknowinglyordeliberatelydo.WedonotfindApplicantsargument  persuasive.First,theAppealBoardgivesdeferencetoaJudgescredibilitydeterminations.  DirectiveE3.1.32.1.Second,ApplicanthasnotassertedthattheJudgemadeanyerrorsinhis  specificfindingsoffactregardingthefalsificationallegations.WeconcludetheJudgesconclusion l thatApplicantintentionallyfalsifiedhis_SCA_Ԁresponsesissupportedbysubstantialevidence.See, X  e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1203420at3(App.Bd.Jul.25,2014). D!   ApplicantalsocontendsthattheJudgedidnotweighandconsiderallrelevantevidence.In #l! doingso,hepointstohischaracterandotherfavorableevidence.Hisargumentsareneither $X" sufficienttorebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecordnor $D # enoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,or %0!$ contrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1403747at3(App.Bd.Nov.13,2015).Wegivedue &"% considerationtotheHearingOfficecasethatApplicanthascited,butitisneitherbindingprecedent '#& ontheAppealBoardnorsufficienttounderminetheJudgesdecision.Id.Additionally,theJudge (#' compliedwiththerequirementsoftheDirectiveinhiswholepersonsanalysisbyconsideringthe )$( totalityoftheevidenceinreachinghisdecision. |*%)   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe T,'+ decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay @-(, begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,AppA.2(b): Any  _doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor  ofthenationalsecurity. t    `     h @( Order  L    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . $ t    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ (     `     h   Michael_Raanan_      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody L    `     h   JamesE.Moody 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $t    `     h   Member,AppealBoard `    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__     `     h   JamesF.Duffy     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___