WPC\ 3 dh{{HzSaȥBvkԆ9]}IȖu s!fr^F`Au-6 ߣ2hKNvTrD3(G]0xE n|w봄v BAtcزUWMxXVi=kF; iV:z(|U,O,y `W%SWjnd-`=/'cXٯpH.V|rZ#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z NC C C EE 0G G  0DZN=================================================================== B?Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE.}LK;EJtiond3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2͸$ !USUS.,  XX      0    ͸$USUS.,XX      1    _ [Q]:Themerefactthatyoudontwantyourwifetoknow.Iassumeyourparents,iftheyarestillalive,dont  know.Yourbrothersandyoursistersdontknow.Yourclosefriendsdontknow.Andprobablythepeopleyouwork t withdontknow.Doyouunderstandthatputsyouinapositionofcompromise?[A]:Iunderstanditcouldpotentially 8 putmeinapositionofcompromise.[Q]:Okay.Well,youhavenowitnessesheretestifyingforyou.Obviously,you L dontwantthemtoknow.Correct?[A]:Correct.[Q]:Okay.Whoknowsaboutyour[lovers]andyourrelationshipswith  them?[A]:Myselfandthemalone.Tr._at_Ԁ50.(#$  0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineE  DIGEST:TheDirectivepresumesthereisanexusbetweenprovencircumstancesunderanyofits  guidelinesandanapplicantssecurityeligibility.Adversedecisionaffirmed. t _CASENO_:1502407.a1 L  DATE:10/12/2017 $ t __   `     h      p DATE:October12,2017  ` .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:       ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AY) xdE.gA / )   )   )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4   p pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1502407    p! .؉7r. \XXp H!    APPEALBOARDDECISION 4" APPEARANCES %  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  ' JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel X(  FORAPPLICANT  !X* _Skyler_Ԁ_Samp_,Esq.#XhX%&# !0+     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnMay $. 5,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat |% / decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineE(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefense h&!0 Directive5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).DepartmentCounselrequestedahearing. T'"1 OnJuly27,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) @(#2 AdministrativeJudgeRichardA._Cefola_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance. ,)|$3 ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. *h%4   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas +@'6 arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. ,,(7  -)8 Ї  TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis     Sinceabout2003,Applicanthasusedanaliastomeetwomenonlinewithwhomheconducts  extramaritalaffairs.Hehasdonesoaboutfifteentimes,andmanyofthewomenhavebeenforeign t nationals.In2012,hissecurityclearancewasrevokedduetothisbehavior.Hislastextramarital ` affairtookplaceabouttwoweeksbeforethehearing.Applicantswifeisunawareofhisconduct, L  andApplicantdoesnotwanthertofindoutaboutit.IntheAnalysis,theJudgeconcludedthat 8  ApplicantsconductraisedconcernsunderGuidelineE.Hethenlistedthepertinentmitigating $ t conditionsandstatedthatnoneofthemapplied.Inthewholepersonanalysis,theJudgenoted  ` Applicantsgoodjobperformancebutstatedthathewasleftwithquestionsanddoubtsabout  L  Applicantsfitnessforaclearance.  8    Discussion      Applicantdeniesthathisconductraisessecurityconcerns.Amongotherthings,hestatesthat   thereisnoevidencethatheisvulnerabletocoercionbecausehekeepshisworkandhispersonal   relationshipsseparate.IrrespectiveofwhetherthereisevidencethatApplicanthasactuallycome p totheattentionofforeignintelligenceoperatives,thereiscertainlyarationalconnectionbetween \ conductthatApplicantdoesnotwanthiswifetodiscoverandaconcernthathecouldbepressured H todiscloseclassifiedinformationshouldthisconductcometotheattentionofthoseinterestedin 4 acquiringU.S.protectedinformation. #  1      ׀See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1502903at2(App.Bd.Mar.9,  p 2017)forthepropositionthattheDirectivepresumesthereisanexusbetweenprovencircumstances  \ underanyofitsguidelinesandanapplicantssecurityeligibility. H   ApplicantchallengestheJudgesmitigationanalysis.Thatanalysisisadmittedly_conclusory_.   However,theDirectiverequiresaJudgetosetforthfindings,policies,andconclusionsastothe   allegationsinthe_SOR_.DirectiveE3.1.25.Itdoesnotprescribeaquantumofanalysis.Eachcase  mustbedecidedonitsownmerits,andinthisoneweconcludethattheJudgehassatisfiedthe  requirementsoftheDirective.    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe X  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay D! begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department 0"  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any #l! doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor $X" ofthenationalsecurity. $D # @( Order 0 p &"%p(#p(#  '#&   TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody d    `     h   JamesE.Moody P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge <     `     h   Member,AppealBoard ( x    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy (     `     h   JamesF.Duffy      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      CONCURRINGOPINIONOFADMINISTRATIVEJUDGEMICHAEL_RAANAN_  L   TherearecaseswherethepartiesortheBoardmightbenefitfromamoreextensiveanalysis $t bytheAdministrativeJudge.Thisisnotsuchacase.Applicantsconduct(surreptitiouslyengaging ` inextramaritalaffairsusingapseudonymformorethanadecade)raisessuchobvioussecurity L concernsthatitisnotplausibletoimagineanybenefitwerewetoasktheJudgetoelaborate. 8 Furthermore,itisnotplausibletoimagineasustainablefavorabledecisiononthisrecord. $    `     h        `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ__     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ p    `     h   AdministrativeJudge \     `     h   Chairperson,Appeal_Board___