H~ ]
~|Yu-16,=J4 K3- L P6O i6H[6+x]8c K9Ƭ9,g# k|ɵ
nԽ G( |O)>gry@WYdqޙ7/ BhBz%4E)B
-+"" (J=麔.ҋsy{}fwsKN%n;.EQSP,`[^=N;0aP,Nj#~r WE(D\K3DcpaxSH/Kp:ԙD]Jݨ;W'J4JԇR?O42@Di
a4^r ,ȡ2S 4ާh D8ǝ0Hl |Ȁs<1_GfdAVds;G]@NBnq"/+|(((@18J$P
QeQQtD0**
jj !1)9Z%Z5ڠvhN.n-z;4Lgt5 }1 uA]Hvވt]T ] ҁ.+` v d6&A!abcFbFc b cB0Hs0 )iY oMBc]:2oO/IKJ!?H mCP?)![$RUH[7T $
{Cb?nϹ{{scGU Q1n+wv9:nu]
7 =@?w ۋ_ ¼At:c6 |9y <«
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP(
BP( )A7M.
P7=ET]/hl"
R5t&m\h;^UסYk HM kUu/Tu}Sձt8}-NdEY0E3ðЅL]RF;STDYȔl t!=ysg{y8Zș$$ V 0] kH C &0ȑj XipoOiǮgLւS?ބĿﱒǪYћrؼL#*%+{ DZ&Q =(Ǜ2¤I)*WWt7K Qܽ?U1*ġM1{A줬}%*ŝH5]L=}о 7yZS39 9+J[. dHT3Lut<LJrf6.ƜLXS>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
BT
/Article <>BDC
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm
(In the questionnaire he submitted to DSS, Dr. D reportedly diagnosed App\
licant as alcohol dependent without providing)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(any historical data about Applicant or )Tj
15.329 0 Td
(testing he employed to arrive at his diagnosis. )Tj
18.58 0 Td
(His report indicates, too, that he)Tj
-33.908 -1.125 Td
(prescribed abstinence, and not just avoidance of excessive drinking. )Tj
27.408 0 Td
(This is )Tj
(evident explicitly in his answer to question)Tj
-27.408 -1.125 Td
(12, but implicitly as well by his answers to question 16 \(recommends AA\
\), question 12 \(good prognosis )Tj
41.856 0 Td
(accompanied)Tj
-41.856 -1.125 Td
(by Applicant intention to abstain\) )Tj
13.692 0 Td
(and question 13 \(no risk of defect in judgment from Applicant's conditi\
on so long as)Tj
-13.692 -1.125 Td
(he remains sober\). )Tj
7.608 0 Td
(Much )Tj
(of Dr. D's report, though, is challenged by Applicant. )Tj
24.12 0 Td
(He denies that Dr. D ever told him he)Tj
-31.728 -1.125 Td
(was alcohol dependent, or that he should remain abstinent and )Tj
25.132 0 Td
(attend AA if he wanted to get control of his drinking \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.634 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-46.766 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's response; R.T., at 58-63\). Without a full report from Dr. D\
, it is more difficult to draw )Tj
39.449 0 Td
(any firm)Tj
-39.449 -1.125 Td
(understandings of either Applicant's )Tj
14.677 0 Td
(relationship with Dr. D or the exact consultative advice given Applicant\
. )Tj
29.297 0 Td
(Prescribed)Tj
-43.974 -1.125 Td
(abstinence and )Tj
6.164 0 Td
(recommended AA attendance are generally accepted treatment/sobriety tool\
s of recognized substance)Tj
-6.164 -1.125 Td
(abuse providers and could reasonably be expected to be )Tj
22.52 0 Td
(suggested by a qualified treatment counselor like Dr. D is)Tj
-22.52 -1.125 Td
(presumed to be. )Tj
6.609 0 Td
(Applicant himself came to the realization that he had a dependence probl\
em that )Tj
32.404 0 Td
(needed addressing in)Tj
-39.013 -1.125 Td
(1998 and 1999. )Tj
(Absent )Tj
(more information from Applicant on the specifics of his alcohol dependen\
ce/abuse problem, Dr.)Tj
T*
(D's recitals )Tj
(about his diagnosis and prognosis of Applicant, as well as his reported \
recommendations and)Tj
T*
(understandings, provide the most plausible explanation of Dr. D's )Tj
26.481 0 Td
(communicated conclusions, recommendations and)Tj
-26.481 -1.125 Td
(understandings with Applicant.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(To be sure, Dr. D's medical questionnaire, besides being challenged on t\
he identity of the preparer \(rejected without)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(more to discredit the genuineness of Dr. )Tj
16.273 0 Td
(D's signature\), lacks the clarity essential for accurately gauging the \
depth and)Tj
-16.273 -1.125 Td
(breadth of )Tj
4.332 0 Td
(his opinions and recommendations, and are even questioned . )Tj
24.799 0 Td
(Dr. D is )Tj
(certainly less than clear in specifying)Tj
-29.131 -1.125 Td
(whether it was his suggestion or Applicant's to abstain or just avoid dr\
inking to excess \(Applicant's claimed)Tj
T*
(understanding\). )Tj
6.499 0 Td
(Because of such uncertainty, Applicant may be credited with )Tj
24.603 0 Td
(some impression that it wasn't entirely)Tj
-31.101 -1.125 Td
(essential that he cease drinking totally in )Tj
16.523 0 Td
(the future.)Tj
-16.523 -2.125 Td
(Altogether, Applicant completed eight sessions with Dr. D over an eight-\
week period between March 1999 and July)Tj
T*
(1999 \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 61\). )Tj
9.192 0 Td
(Over the period he )Tj
7.719 0 Td
(consulted with Dr. D, he avoided all alcoholic beverages \(R.T., at 60\)\
. )Tj
28.325 0 Td
(And,)Tj
-45.236 -1.125 Td
(he continued to observe abstinence for a brief period after discontinuin\
g his )Tj
30.49 0 Td
(sessions with Dr. D in July 1999, over)Tj
-30.49 -1.125 Td
(payment issues \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
6.666 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T.,at 63-65\). )Tj
7.692 0 Td
(Uncomfortable with his perceived religious aspects of AA, he declined to\
attend any)Tj
-14.358 -1.125 Td
(AA meetings during the time he was seeing Dr. D, or prior to 2002 . )Tj
27.55 0 Td
(Still unwilling to accept AA participation, he)Tj
-27.55 -1.125 Td
(resumed drinking in his off-duty hours, )Tj
15.97 0 Td
(mostly on week ends, up to \275 of a fifth of liquor\(ex. 5; R.T., at 64\
-65\). )Tj
28.634 0 Td
(His)Tj
-44.604 -1.125 Td
(increased drinking caused him physical side effects \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.131 0 Td
(i.e., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(headaches, short attention )Tj
12.329 0 Td
(span, energy deficits and the)Tj
-33.46 -1.125 Td
(detectable smell of alcohol on his person\), much of which )Tj
23.41 0 Td
(was )Tj
(noticeable to Applicant's coworkers \(at least two)Tj
-23.41 -1.125 Td
(unnamed\) that he )Tj
7.192 0 Td
(smelled of alcohol or imperceptible behavioral and physical appearance d\
ifferences upon his return to)Tj
-7.192 -1.125 Td
(work, even after he completed his counseling with Dr. D.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant was first counseled by his supervisor \(Mr. C\) about his unac\
ceptable work attendance in October 1999. )Tj
45.682 0 Td
(In this)Tj
-45.682 -1.125 Td
(counseling session, Mr. C indicated to )Tj
15.554 0 Td
(Applicant that he thought his absences were alcohol-related that Applica\
nt)Tj
-15.554 -1.125 Td
(needed to address: He indicated to Applicant that he "needed to conquer \
the demons )Tj
33.953 0 Td
(in my life by finding God \(R.T., at)Tj
-33.953 -1.125 Td
(69\). )Tj
(Based on some adverse reports from Applicant's coworkers, Mr. C returned\
several months later to counsel him)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(again )Tj
2.416 0 Td
(\(this time in February 2000\) about his unacceptable job attendance, un\
scheduled absences, \(especially on)Tj
-2.416 -1.125 Td
(Mondays\), and comments from his coworkers about )Tj
21.107 0 Td
(his returning to work with the smell of alcohol or imperceptible)Tj
-21.107 -1.125 Td
(behavioral and physical appearance on his person \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.409 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. 1; R.T., at 70-74\). Applicant denies )Tj
17.412 0 Td
(being told by his)Tj
-37.821 -1.125 Td
(supervisor of his being concerned enough about Applicant's drinking to f\
ile an adverse information report on him)Tj
T*
(\(R.T.,at 74\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Beginning in January 2000, Applicant took nine unplanned days off from w\
ork over a 30-day )Tj
37.658 0 Td
(period. )Tj
(However, he)Tj
-37.658 -1.125 Td
(denies all of the off-days were totally due to )Tj
17.911 0 Td
(alcohol consumption. While he acknowledges three of these days were)Tj
-17.911 -1.125 Td
(related )Tj
2.97 0 Td
(to alcohol \(in that he consumed alcohol on these days\), he assures tha\
t the )Tj
29.797 0 Td
(remaining six days were principally)Tj
-32.768 -1.125 Td
(related to adverse conditions that closed schools \(requiring him to be \
home with his children\) and other family related)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(reasons \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 75\). )Tj
10.191 0 Td
(During this period, co-workers \(excluding Mr. E\) complained to company\
management of)Tj
-10.191 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's smelling of alcohol and )Tj
14.427 0 Td
(exhibiting unusual behavior. )Tj
11.665 0 Td
(These reports prompted Applicant's supervisor \(Mr. C\))Tj
-26.092 -1.125 Td
(to counsel Applicant in February 2000 about his concerns, and to report \
)Tj
28.965 0 Td
(his suspecting alcohol dependence was the)Tj
-28.965 -1.125 Td
(probable cause of Applicant's described "deteriorating performance" \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
27.957 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. 1\). )Tj
(True, some of the sources of Mr. )Tj
17.661 0 Td
(C's)Tj
EMC
ET
endstream
endobj
59 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(current supervisor and work colleagues. )Tj
16.217 0 Td
(Addressing the specific allegations, Applicant admitted most of them.)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(However, he denied being informed by his health provider \(Dr. D\) that \
he was diagnosed )Tj
35.906 0 Td
(as alcohol dependent, to being)Tj
-35.906 -1.125 Td
(told by his supervisor in October 1999 \(Mr. C\) of co-workers complaini\
ng about his smelling of alcohol, to taking 9)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(unplanned )Tj
4.416 0 Td
(days off from work after January 2000 due to alcohol consumption \(admit\
ting to only three being related to)Tj
-4.416 -1.125 Td
(alcohol\), to being directed by Dr. D to abstain from )Tj
20.828 0 Td
(all alcohol consumption. )Tj
10.109 0 Td
(Applicant also claimed his false statements)Tj
-30.937 -1.125 Td
(to the DSS investigator in January 2001 were isolated events, never agai\
n repeated and )Tj
35.017 0 Td
(voluntarily corrected in an)Tj
-35.017 -1.125 Td
(ensuing statement he prepared.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Relevant and Material Factual Findings)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted to by Applicant are inco\
rporated herein by reference adopted as)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(relevant and material findings. )Tj
12.468 0 Td
(Additional )Tj
4.527 0 Td
(findings follow.)Tj
-16.995 -2.125 Td
(Applicant enlisted in the US Army in 1973 at the age of 18. )Tj
24.106 0 Td
(Upon completing his military police training, he was)Tj
-24.106 -1.125 Td
(granted a security clearance. )Tj
11.632 0 Td
(His assigned )Tj
(duties included security-related assignments for various headquarters)Tj
-11.632 -1.125 Td
(buildings. )Tj
(His security clearance was upgraded to top secret in 1977 after he accep\
ted )Tj
34.515 0 Td
(counterintelligence training. )Tj
11.523 0 Td
(Over)Tj
-46.038 -1.125 Td
(an eight-year period spanning 1979 and 1987, Applicant worked a number o\
f duty assignments domestic and abroad)Tj
T*
(that )Tj
1.75 0 Td
(involved security-related approvals and inspections.)Tj
-1.75 -2.125 Td
(Upon receiving a honorable discharge from the Army in 1987, Applicant jo\
ined his current defense contractor as a)Tj
T*
(special security officer for some of the )Tj
15.688 0 Td
(company's SCI programs. )Tj
(He impressed his superiors enough to be promoted to)Tj
-15.688 -1.125 Td
(an industrial security supervisor in 1989. )Tj
16.581 0 Td
(In this position, he was responsible )Tj
14.304 0 Td
(for the company's industrial security)Tj
-30.885 -1.125 Td
(program for its entire local facility )Tj
14.05 0 Td
(\(which employed over 4,500 employees\). )Tj
16.856 0 Td
(Working with a company team of security)Tj
-30.907 -1.125 Td
(professionals, he received numerous excellent security ratings in the ea\
rly and mid 1990s.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's developed alcohol history)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(Beginning around 1995, Applicant began experiencing stresses both in his\
work and in the home. )Tj
39.187 0 Td
(At work, he was privy)Tj
-39.187 -1.125 Td
(to a strained professional relationship )Tj
15.246 0 Td
(between his immediate supervisor \(Mr. C\) and his direct supervisor and\
FSO \(Mr.)Tj
-15.246 -1.125 Td
(D\). )Tj
(This friction affected Applicant considerably, as he oft-received )Tj
27.405 0 Td
(conflicting assignments from his feuding superiors,)Tj
-27.405 -1.125 Td
(with whom he enjoyed good working relationships with. )Tj
22.858 0 Td
(Complicating Applicant's work-related stresses )Tj
19.12 0 Td
(were the)Tj
-41.979 -1.125 Td
(personal ones associated with his young son's \(born in 1997\) moderate \
birth defect that hampered his physical growth.)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant and his wife both )Tj
11.359 0 Td
(encountered difficulties coping with their young son's growth limitation\
s.)Tj
-11.359 -2.125 Td
(Applicant assures that before 1997, he was an infrequent drinker who did\
not drink to excess when he did consume \()Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
46.626 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-46.626 -1.125 Td
(R.T., at 50-51\). )Tj
6.416 0 Td
(The cumulative effect )Tj
9.023 0 Td
(of the work-related and personal stresses in his life changed all of thi\
s. )Tj
28.436 0 Td
(Beginning)Tj
-43.875 -1.125 Td
(in Spring 1998, Applicant began escalating his drinking frequency and )Tj
28.521 0 Td
(amounts consumed at each sitting. )Tj
13.997 0 Td
(While careful)Tj
-42.518 -1.125 Td
(never to drink at work, or come to work under the influence of alcohol, \
he begin to experience frequent )Tj
41.568 0 Td
(headaches and)Tj
-41.568 -1.125 Td
(energy losses. )Tj
(Often he would report to work with a hangover and, on a few occasions, h\
e reported late for work. )Tj
45.458 0 Td
(On)Tj
-45.458 -1.125 Td
(several occasions, he took )Tj
10.691 0 Td
(previously unscheduled time off from work, albeit with his supervisor's \
permission. )Tj
33.703 0 Td
(The)Tj
-44.394 -1.125 Td
(physical reactions he experienced from his escalated drinking only )Tj
26.907 0 Td
(compounded his stresses in the work place and at)Tj
-26.907 -1.125 Td
(home.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(By March 1999, Applicant had come to the stark realization he was abusin\
g alcohol and needed professional help. )Tj
45.931 0 Td
(In)Tj
-45.931 -1.125 Td
(turn, he inquired of the availability of )Tj
15.273 0 Td
(assistance from )Tj
6.442 0 Td
(his employee assistance program \(EAP\), and followed up his)Tj
-21.716 -1.125 Td
(inquiry with notice to his supervisor \(Mr. C\) that he )Tj
20.969 0 Td
(had sought counseling for his )Tj
12.026 0 Td
(drinking \()Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 54\). )Tj
10.581 0 Td
(Applicant)Tj
-43.577 -1.125 Td
(was referred to a Dr. D for alcohol-related counseling and treatment. )Tj
27.683 0 Td
(Dr. D's substance expertise is not clear. )Tj
15.981 0 Td
(The)Tj
-43.664 -1.125 Td
(medical information questionnaire \(ex. 6\) he returned in January 2001 \
reports his having a PhD, but does not identify)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(his field of discipline, or any area of )Tj
14.745 0 Td
(specialization he might have. )Tj
11.913 0 Td
(Absent any raised questions about his treatment)Tj
-26.658 -1.125 Td
(credentials by any of the parties during the presentation of the evidenc\
e, )Tj
29.073 0 Td
(however, Dr. D's professional expertise to)Tj
-29.073 -1.125 Td
(diagnose and recommend )Tj
10.469 0 Td
(courses of action to address alcohol problems is accepted. )Tj
23.381 0 Td
(While Dr. D's submitted )Tj
9.984 0 Td
(medical)Tj
-43.834 -1.125 Td
(questionnaire was later challenged by Applicant as to authorship and sig\
nature authenticity \()Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
36.989 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 433-34\), the)Tj
-36.989 -1.125 Td
(questionnaire was neither objected )Tj
14.106 0 Td
(to \()Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 10-12\) when offered nor discredited by probative evidence. )Tj
30.156 0 Td
(Its)Tj
-44.262 -1.125 Td
(contents are entitled to be considered, as such, for weight to assign in\
)Tj
27.965 0 Td
(juxtaposition to Applicant's understandings of his)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(consultations with Dr. D.)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
/TT1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 241.3604 753 Tm
(PROCEDURAL ISSUES)Tj
ET
Q
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 241.3604 752.25 cm
0 0 m
129.029 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 727.5 Tm
(Because of the lateness of the hour, the parties were asked for input on\
available options for completing the closing)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(arguments. )Tj
4.666 0 Td
(Following discussion, the )Tj
10.5 0 Td
(parties agreed to waive oral summations and substitute briefs for their \
closing)Tj
-15.166 -1.125 Td
(arguments. )Tj
4.666 0 Td
(Closing memoranda were timely submitted and were )Tj
21.411 0 Td
(followed by )Tj
(sur-replies and sur-rebuttals from each of)Tj
-26.077 -1.125 Td
(the parties. )Tj
4.637 0 Td
(All of the filed memoranda submitted by parties were fully considered in\
conjunction with the compiled)Tj
-4.637 -1.125 Td
(pleading and evidentiary record.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Addressing Applicant's post-evidence request to withdraw and/or amend hi\
s responses to conform to his hearing version)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(of his impressions of his January 2001 )Tj
(statements \()Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
20.442 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( footnote 17 of Applicant's post-hearing submission\) given to the)Tj
-20.442 -1.125 Td
(interviewing DSS agent, Applicant's motion comes too late and without a \
)Tj
29.62 0 Td
(sufficient good cause showing of how \(a\) he)Tj
-29.62 -1.125 Td
(could admit to knowingly and wilfully making misstatements of material f\
act to a DSS investigator \(in violation of )Tj
46.214 0 Td
(18)Tj
-46.214 -1.125 Td
(U.S.C. Sec. 1001\) without remembering what he previously told the DSS a\
gent in his subject interviews or \(b\) his)Tj
T*
(admissions reflected a manifest )Tj
12.829 0 Td
(misunderstanding of his state of mind in the interviews. )Tj
22.497 0 Td
(Applicant's motion to withdraw)Tj
-35.326 -1.125 Td
(and/or amend his responses to the SOR must be denied.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant timely submitted a )Tj
11.887 0 Td
(copy of an AA chip he received at an AA meeting in July 2002, commemorat\
ing eighteen)Tj
-11.887 -1.125 Td
(months of sobriety. )Tj
8 0 Td
(This exhibit was )Tj
6.86 0 Td
(received without objection and is admitted with an assigned exhibit H nu\
mber.)Tj
-14.86 -2.125 Td
(Additionally, the parties filed timely statements under oath of Applican\
t and Agent A, respectively, covering the issue)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(raised at the end of the hearing as to who )Tj
16.661 0 Td
(typed exhibit 5 \(Applicant's third and final statement given to Agent A\
\). )Tj
29.09 0 Td
(Both)Tj
-45.751 -1.125 Td
(are received: the Government's statement is assigned an exhibit identifi\
cation of )Tj
32.253 0 Td
(six; while Applicant's notarized)Tj
-32.253 -1.125 Td
(statement is assigned an exhibit identification of I.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
18.433 -2.125 Td
(STATEMENT OF FACTS)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 237.1973 435.75 cm
0 0 m
137.355 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 411 Tm
(Applicant is a 46-year old site security manager for a defense contracto\
r who seeks to retain his security clearance.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Summary of Allegations and Responses)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(Applicant is alleged to have \(1\) consumed alcohol, at times to excess \
and to the point of intoxication, to at least)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(December 2000, \(2\) reported to work with a )Tj
17.911 0 Td
(hangover and late, and/or)Tj
-17.911 -2.125 Td
(took unscheduled time off from work as the result of alcohol use, and to\
have sought help for his alcohol problem in)Tj
T*
(March 1999 from his employee assistance )Tj
17.106 0 Td
(program \(EAP\), \(3\) received treatment from March 1999 to July 1999 f\
rom a)Tj
-17.106 -1.125 Td
(Dr. A for a condition diagnosed as alcohol dependence, after which he wa\
s )Tj
30.239 0 Td
(assigned a good prognosis as long as he)Tj
-30.239 -1.125 Td
(continued to abstain from excessive use of alcohol, \(4\) been counseled\
in October 1999 at his place of employment for)Tj
T*
(unacceptable job attendance, unscheduled absences \(especially on Monday\
s\), and comments from co-workers)Tj
T*
(concerning his reporting to work with the smell )Tj
19.274 0 Td
(of alcohol, \(5\) been counseled in February 2000 at his place of)Tj
-19.274 -1.125 Td
(employment due to his unacceptable job attendance, unscheduled absences \
\(especially on )Tj
36.042 0 Td
(ondays\), and comments from)Tj
-36.042 -1.125 Td
(co-workers concerning his reporting to work with the smell of alcohol \(\
altogether 9 unplanned personal time-off days\),)Tj
T*
(and \(6\) )Tj
(continued to consume alcohol to at least December 2000, notwithstanding \
his treatment for alcohol dependence.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Additionally, Applicant is alleged to have \(a\) falsified material fact\
s in a signed, sworn DSS statement of January 9,)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(2001, by denying any resumption of )Tj
14.748 0 Td
(alcohol since ending his treatment with Dr. A in about September 1999, f\
alsely)Tj
-14.748 -1.125 Td
(failing to disclose his resumption of alcohol consumption after completi\
ng his )Tj
31.467 0 Td
(treatment with Dr. A because of stated)Tj
-31.467 -1.125 Td
(embarrassment and \(b\) falsified material facts in an ensuing January 2\
5, 2001 DSS statement by repeating his denials of)Tj
T*
(any relapse since completing his treatment with Dr. A in September 1999,\
and \(c\) falsely failed to disclose his)Tj
T*
(resumption of alcohol consumption after )Tj
16.524 0 Td
(completing his treatment with Dr. A, again because of recited embarrassm\
ent.)Tj
-16.524 -2.125 Td
(For his response to the SOR, Applicant provided considerable background \
information about his military service,)Tj
T*
(professional development with his current )Tj
17.079 0 Td
(defense contractor, drinking history and related treatment, and finally \
his)Tj
-17.079 -1.125 Td
(efforts to address the questions posed by the interviewing DSS agent loo\
king into )Tj
32.856 0 Td
(reports of drinking abuses by)Tj
-32.856 -1.125 Td
(Applicant. )Tj
4.443 0 Td
(Applicant also provided a list and summary of claimed extenuating and mi\
tigating factors affecting his)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 40.5 Tm
(alleged )Tj
3.137 0 Td
(drinking abuses, false accounts given the DSS agent about his drinking, \
and regard in which he is held by his)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 13/Type/Page>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 384 591.75 381.749 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 744 Tm
(Sub-para. 1.b: )Tj
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Sub-para. 1.c: )Tj
5.832 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
-5.832 -2.125 Td
(Sub-para. 1.d: )Tj
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
T*
(Sub-para. 1.e: )Tj
5.832 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
-5.832 -2.125 Td
(Sub-para. 1.f: )Tj
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
T*
(GUIDELINE E \(PERSONAL CONDUCT\): )Tj
17.943 0 Td
(AGAINST APPLICANT)Tj
-17.943 -2.125 Td
(Sub-para. 2.a: )Tj
5.832 0 Td
(AGAINST APPLICANT)Tj
-5.832 -2.125 Td
(Sub-para. 2.b: )Tj
(AGAINST APPLICANT)Tj
T*
(GUIDELINE J \(CRIMINAL CONDUCT\): )Tj
17.498 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
-17.498 -2.125 Td
(Sub-para. 3.a: )Tj
5.832 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.852 -2.125 Td
(DECISION)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 276.2002 488.25 cm
0 0 m
59.35 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 463.5 Tm
(In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, \
it is not clearly consistent with the national interest)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to grant or continue Applicant's security )Tj
16.287 0 Td
(clearance.)Tj
4.439 -2.125 Td
(Roger C. Wesley)Tj
-0.861 -2.125 Td
(Administrative Judge)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
<>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 6/Type/Page>>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 7/Type/Page>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 8/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 9/Type/Page>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 10/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 11/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 12/Type/Page>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(Mitigation is difficult to credit Applicant with. )Tj
18.886 0 Td
(Only after being notified of a scheduled polygraph examination did he)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(make the decision to correct his )Tj
12.94 0 Td
(misrepresentations about his prior alcohol use. )Tj
18.857 0 Td
(Corrections made under threat of a)Tj
-31.797 -1.125 Td
(polygraph do not normally )Tj
10.943 0 Td
(meet the prompt, good-faith conditions of MC 3 )Tj
19.525 0 Td
(of the Adjudication guidelines for personal)Tj
-30.468 -1.125 Td
(conduct and cannot be availed by Applicant to mitigate his misstatements\
in the present circumstances. )Tj
41.488 0 Td
(Nor may)Tj
-41.488 -1.125 Td
(Applicant fairly take advantage of either MC 1 \(information unsubstanti\
ated\) or MC 4 \(positive steps taken to reduce or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(eliminate vulnerability to coercion, )Tj
14.301 0 Td
(exploitation, or duress\) in this case pursued under falsification )Tj
25.16 0 Td
(theory. )Tj
(The use of)Tj
-39.461 -1.125 Td
(MC 2 is generally confined to correcting old misrepresentations unlike t\
he )Tj
30.02 0 Td
(ones covered in the SOR.)Tj
-30.02 -2.125 Td
(Whole person analysis is generally not sufficient either to undue knowin\
g, wilful omissions of material facts in a)Tj
T*
(Government investigation of an applicant's )Tj
17.426 0 Td
(continuing clearance eligibility. )Tj
12.94 0 Td
(Embarrassment over informing colleagues)Tj
-30.366 -1.125 Td
(of adverse actions and ensuing career risks have never been accorded a g\
ood deal of )Tj
33.901 0 Td
(weight by our Appeal Board in)Tj
-33.901 -1.125 Td
(assessing extenuation and mitigation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.192 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR OSD Case No. 01-06870 \(September13, 2002\); DISCR OSD Case No.)Tj
-15.192 -1.125 Td
(88-2245 \(June 22, 1990\). So much trust is imposed on persons accessed \
to our nation's secrets that the margins for)Tj
T*
(excusing material omissions and misstatements are )Tj
20.662 0 Td
(necessarily high. )Tj
6.97 0 Td
(Here, the high standing Applicant enjoys with his)Tj
-27.632 -1.125 Td
(defense contractor and in the security community he serves entitles him \
to generous )Tj
33.795 0 Td
(acknowledgment of his)Tj
-33.795 -1.125 Td
(contributions to the defense effort. )Tj
14.051 0 Td
(For his efforts he is to be commended. )Tj
15.636 0 Td
(But this high standing alone cannot entitle his)Tj
-29.687 -1.125 Td
(misstatements )Tj
5.916 0 Td
(to discounting, if fairness and uniformity in the administration of pers\
onnel security adjudications are to)Tj
-5.916 -1.125 Td
(reign.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Our Appeal Board has been careful to underscore that neither value to hi\
s employer nor demonstrated overall honesty)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(and professional reputation are sufficient )Tj
16.633 0 Td
(to surmount the adverse trust implications that stem from material)Tj
-16.633 -1.125 Td
(misstatements in an SF-86 or DSS interview. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
18.277 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR OSD Case No. 98-0435 \(September )Tj
(16, 1999\); ISCR OSD Case)Tj
-18.277 -1.125 Td
(No. 98-0370 \(January 28, 1999\);)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
( )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(DISCR OSD Case No. 93-1390 \(January 27, 1995\). )Tj
34.33 0 Td
(That Applicant has been diligent)Tj
-34.33 -1.125 Td
(in his )Tj
(stewardship of protecting classified information and securing classified\
systems under his control does not)Tj
T*
(insulate him from questions about his own )Tj
17.249 0 Td
(departures from candor expectations when providing information to DSS)Tj
-17.249 -1.125 Td
(investigators. )Tj
5.61 0 Td
(Our Supreme Court teaches that even in close cases involving trust )Tj
27.021 0 Td
(issues over security clearances, doubts)Tj
-32.631 -1.125 Td
(should better be resolved against granting the clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.686 0 Td
(See Department of Navy v. Egan, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
13.552 0 Td
(458 U.S. 518, 531 \(1988\).)Tj
-36.237 -2.125 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, Applicant is not able to meet his sti\
ff mitigation burden in this case. )Tj
41.519 0 Td
(Having failed to)Tj
-41.519 -1.125 Td
(correct his misstatements until after )Tj
14.523 0 Td
(being notified of a scheduled polygraph, he neither refutes nor mitigate\
s the)Tj
-14.523 -1.125 Td
(falsification allegations covered in sub-paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of Guide\
line E.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Government also seeks application of the criminal conduct guidelines\
of Guideline J to Applicant's covered)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(misrepresentations. )Tj
7.998 0 Td
(On the application of )Tj
8.72 0 Td
(Guideline J to conduct not met by a criminal conviction, our Appeal Boar\
d has)Tj
-16.718 -1.125 Td
(repeatedly stated that the Government can prove applicant engagement in \
)Tj
29.655 0 Td
(criminal conduct, even in the absence of a)Tj
-29.655 -1.125 Td
(criminal conviction. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.303 0 Td
(Cf. )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(ISCR Case No. 94-1213 \(June 7, 1996\). )Tj
(Applicant's misstatements are isolated ones )Tj
35.259 0 Td
(\(closely)Tj
-43.562 -1.125 Td
(compressed within a couple of weeks in January 2001\), though, )Tj
25.716 0 Td
(against an otherwise good reputation for honesty and)Tj
-25.716 -1.125 Td
(trustworthiness. )Tj
(So, )Tj
(notwithstanding his imputed misstatements which violated the false claim\
provisions of 18 U.S.C.)Tj
T*
(Sec. 1001, his misstatements are entitled to the mitigation )Tj
23.357 0 Td
(benefit of MC 2 \(isolated incident\) of Guideline J for criminal)Tj
-23.357 -1.125 Td
(conduct. )Tj
3.666 0 Td
(Applicant may also take advantage of MC 4 \(unlikely to recur\). )Tj
25.659 0 Td
(Overall, Applicant's )Tj
8.261 0 Td
(misstatements are)Tj
-37.585 -1.125 Td
(mitigated under the reach of the whole person evaluation tenets of E.2.2\
of the Adjudication Guidelines. )Tj
41.904 0 Td
(Favorable)Tj
-41.904 -1.125 Td
(conclusions warrant with )Tj
10.303 0 Td
(respect to the allegation covered by Guideline J.)Tj
-10.303 -2.125 Td
(In reaching my recommended decision, I have considered the evidence as a\
whole, including each of the E 2.2 factors)Tj
T*
(enumerated in the Adjudicative )Tj
12.829 0 Td
(Guidelines of the Directive.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
6.536 -2.125 Td
(FORMAL FINDINGS)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 248.374 142.5 cm
0 0 m
115.002 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 117.75 Tm
(In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached \
in the context of the FINDINGS OF FACT,)Tj
T*
(CONCLUSIONS, CONDITIONS, and the )Tj
17.277 0 Td
(factors listed above, this Administrative Judge makes the following)Tj
-17.277 -1.125 Td
(FORMAL FINDINGS:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(GUIDELINE G \(ALCOHOL\): )Tj
12.581 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 39.75 Tm
(Sub-para. 1.a: )Tj
5.832 0 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(interviews in January 2001. )Tj
11.303 0 Td
(After )Tj
(admitting to knowing wilful falsification in his SOR response to Agent A\
's questions)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(about any resumed use of alcohol following his concluded treatment with \
)Tj
29.631 0 Td
(Dr. D, Applicant essentially recanted his)Tj
-29.631 -1.125 Td
(admissions at hearing. )Tj
9.165 0 Td
(Disputing any intention to falsify his answers to questions about his re\
sumed alcohol use, he)Tj
-9.165 -1.125 Td
(stressed his assumption all along that he was addressing any post-treatm\
ent abuses of alcohol when he answered in the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(negative to any prior alcohol use.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Pleading admissions in DOHA proceedings are treated not dis-similar to t\
he way they are handled in the courts. )Tj
44.905 0 Td
(While)Tj
-44.905 -1.125 Td
(not evidence, pleading admissions have )Tj
16.107 0 Td
(the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and totally dispensing with \
the need)Tj
-16.107 -1.125 Td
(for proof of a fact. )Tj
7.607 0 Td
(Such admissions have been held to be conclusive in a case, )Tj
23.882 0 Td
(unless allowed to be withdrawn on good)Tj
-31.49 -1.125 Td
(cause shown. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR OSD Case No. 90-0401 \(January 24, 1994\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
28.218 0 Td
(see McCormick on Evidence, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
11.912 0 Td
(Sec. 262 \(Edward)Tj
-40.13 -1.125 Td
(W. Cleary et al. eds., 3d ed. 1984\). )Tj
14.163 0 Td
(Only when the admission has been withdrawn or amended by permission does\
the)Tj
-14.163 -1.125 Td
(admission lose its status as a judicial or )Tj
15.998 0 Td
(official admission. )Tj
7.693 0 Td
(Applicant in this case made unequivocal admissions in his)Tj
-23.691 -1.125 Td
(response to falsely denying any resumed use of alcohol in his January 20\
01 DSS )Tj
32.494 0 Td
(interviews with Agent A, in violation)Tj
-32.494 -1.125 Td
(of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. )Tj
(He backed his omissions with no extenuating circumstances, while claimin\
g isolation and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(embarrassment. )Tj
6.553 0 Td
(Applicant's admissions effectively fix not just his falsifications, but \
their knowing and wilful)Tj
-6.553 -1.125 Td
(undertaking in violation of the federal false )Tj
17.577 0 Td
(claims act. )Tj
4.526 0 Td
(He made no request to retract the admissions during the)Tj
-22.103 -1.125 Td
(evidentiary phase of the hearing, and his post-summation request to with\
draw and/or amend )Tj
37.046 0 Td
(was denied for lack of)Tj
-37.046 -1.125 Td
(sufficient good cause. )Tj
8.997 0 Td
(Applicant's admissions, as such, remain attributable to him for the dura\
tion of the proceedings.)Tj
-8.997 -2.125 Td
(Pleading admissions, however, don't preclude an applicant from offering \
extenuating circumstances accompanying his)Tj
T*
(admitted falsifications. )Tj
9.414 0 Td
(Applicant was )Tj
5.999 0 Td
(permitted to do just this: \(1\) explain his claimed retrospective reaso\
ns for making)Tj
-15.413 -1.125 Td
(his SOR admissions and \(2\) demonstrate his real assumptions when he )Tj
28.524 0 Td
(disclaimed any resumed use of alcohol in his)Tj
-28.524 -1.125 Td
(first two statements given to Agent A. )Tj
15.498 0 Td
(For even obvious omissions of material facts \(to include non-prosecuted\
)Tj
-15.498 -1.125 Td
(misdemeanor charges occurring within the previous seven years\) may be e\
xtenuated where circumstances indicate the)Tj
T*
(declarant was under some mistaken )Tj
14.467 0 Td
(impression or understanding when he executed a government form \(such as\
an SF-)Tj
-14.467 -1.125 Td
(86\) or signed off on a deficient signed, sworn statement. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.772 0 Td
(Cf. Raybourne v. )Tj
7.026 0 Td
(Gulf Atlantic Towing Corp.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
11.001 0 Td
(, 276 F.2d 90, 92)Tj
-40.799 -1.125 Td
(\(4th Cir. 1960\). )Tj
(Both the E.2.2 factors of the Directive's Change 3 amendments and releva\
nt case authorities )Tj
43.529 0 Td
(underscore)Tj
-43.529 -1.125 Td
(the importance of motive and subjective intent considerations in gauging\
knowing and wilful behavior. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
41.462 0 Td
(Cf. United States)Tj
-41.462 -1.125 Td
(v. Chapin)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 515 F.2d 1274, )Tj
(1283-84 \(DC Cir. 1975\); )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(United States Steinhilber)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
30.887 0 Td
(, 484 F.2d 386, 389-90 \(8th Cir. 1973\);)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-30.887 -1.125 Td
(United States v. Diogo)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
9.054 0 Td
(, 320 F.2d 898, 905 \(2d Cir. 1963\).)Tj
-9.054 -2.125 Td
(Applicant's DSS misstatements in this proceeding reveal claimed mistaken\
understandings about availed terminology)Tj
T*
(that betray reason when matched against )Tj
16.494 0 Td
(his demonstrated education, experience, knowledge, and the respect)Tj
-16.494 -1.125 Td
(customarily accorded prior pleading admissions not withdrawn. )Tj
25.716 0 Td
(Government may invoke )Tj
10.192 0 Td
(one disqualifying condition)Tj
-35.908 -1.125 Td
(\(DC\) for personal conduct of the Adjudicative Guidelines: DC 3 \(delib\
erately providing false or misleading information)Tj
T*
(to )Tj
(concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator\). )Tj
25.379 0 Td
(While DC 5 might have some tangential bearing because)Tj
-25.379 -1.125 Td
(of the repeated nature of Applicant's )Tj
14.785 0 Td
(misstatements in his two DSS statements, his statements are isolated and\
)Tj
-14.785 -1.125 Td
(compressed within a short time space when appraised against an otherwise\
meritorious )Tj
34.99 0 Td
(reputation for honesty and)Tj
-34.99 -1.125 Td
(trustworthiness. )Tj
(DC 5, accordingly, should not )Tj
18.915 0 Td
(be invoked here.)Tj
-18.915 -2.125 Td
(Motivation is key here and provides the all too critical backdrop by whi\
ch Applicant's DSS disclaimers of any post)Tj
T*
(September 1999 alcohol use and clearance )Tj
17.271 0 Td
(impacting embarrassment must be assessed. )Tj
17.829 0 Td
(Here, both reason, motivation)Tj
-35.1 -1.125 Td
(and whole person experience and knowledge converge to demonstrate Applic\
ant's )Tj
33.058 0 Td
(explanations are not fully)Tj
-33.058 -1.125 Td
(reconcilable with his exhibited knowledge of his considerable resumption\
of alcohol \(up to a \275 of a fifth of liquor on)Tj
T*
(weekends\) )Tj
(which he accounted for in his third \(and final\) DSS statement after be\
ing confronted with a scheduled)Tj
T*
(polygraph examination. )Tj
9.748 0 Td
(Imputed to Applicant as well is )Tj
12.775 0 Td
(the embarrassment he harbored about not only Agent A \(with)Tj
-22.523 -1.125 Td
(whom he enjoyed a sustaining professional relationship\) and his work co\
lleagues finding out )Tj
37.354 0 Td
(about his continuing)Tj
-37.354 -1.125 Td
(alcohol problem, but his exposure to some career risk attributable to hi\
s continuing alcohol abuse: all acknowledged)Tj
T*
(concerns of his at )Tj
7.275 0 Td
(hearing.)Tj
-7.275 -2.125 Td
(Taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding Applicant's int\
erviews with Agent A, Applicant's hearing)Tj
T*
(explanations about his use understanding )Tj
16.691 0 Td
(and concerns when being interviewed by Agent A are neither reasonable no\
r)Tj
-16.691 -1.125 Td
(free of credibility doubts about the quality of his apparent )Tj
23.327 0 Td
(reversal of his )Tj
(falsification admissions.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 754.5 Tm
(subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical profes\
sional and following completion of )Tj
43.461 0 Td
(an alcohol)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm
(rehabilitation program\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant makes the point that he was scrupulous not to drink on or near\
his job or in public places and continued to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(perform at high levels even during the )Tj
15.523 0 Td
(period of his most acute alcohol difficulties. )Tj
17.884 0 Td
(Security clearance decisions,)Tj
-33.407 -1.125 Td
(however, are not limited to consideration of an applicant's on-site prof\
essional )Tj
31.56 0 Td
(contributions; alcohol abuse, even during)Tj
-31.56 -1.125 Td
(off-duty hours, exposes an applicant to risks of inadvertent disclosure \
of classified information. )Tj
38.407 0 Td
(This is a presumption)Tj
-38.407 -1.125 Td
(that has drawn the support of both DOHA's Appeal Board \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR OSD Case No. 92-0404 \(May 25, 1993\) and the)Tj
T*
(Supreme Court. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
6.583 0 Td
(See Cole v. Young, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.776 0 Td
(351 )Tj
(U.S. 536, 550n.13 \(1956\). )Tj
(That an applicant has avoided any security violations)Tj
-14.359 -1.125 Td
(or mishaps in administering to classified information in the past, while\
)Tj
28.495 0 Td
(pertinent and entitled to weight, )Tj
12.997 0 Td
(does not absolve)Tj
-41.492 -1.125 Td
(all risks about his or her potential for mishandling classified material\
s in the future. )Tj
33.575 0 Td
(Security clearance )Tj
7.606 0 Td
(decisions are not)Tj
-41.182 -1.125 Td
(cut from exact scientific postulates and concededly cannot be precisely \
calibrated to underwrite established risks.)Tj
T*
(Nonetheless, they do entail )Tj
11.081 0 Td
(predictive judgements about an applicant's vulnerability to inadvertent \
disclosure of)Tj
-11.081 -1.125 Td
(Government secrets. )Tj
8.469 0 Td
(Appraising an applicant's risk exposure, Government )Tj
21.48 0 Td
(need not wait until an applicant actually)Tj
-29.95 -1.125 Td
(mishandles classified information before it can deny or revoke access to\
such information. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
36.377 0 Td
(Cf. )Tj
(Adams v. Laird, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(420 )Tj
(F.2d)Tj
-36.377 -1.125 Td
(230, 238-39 \(DC Cir. 1969\), )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(cert. denied, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
16.886 0 Td
(397 U.S. 1039 \(1970\). )Tj
(Nor need Government produce direct or objective)Tj
-16.886 -1.125 Td
(evidence of nexus to support a )Tj
12.441 0 Td
(clearance denial or revocation. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.521 0 Td
(See )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(DOHA OSD Case No. 95-0544 \(April 23, 1996\);)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-24.961 -1.125 Td
(accord, generally, Gayer v. Schlesinger, )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
16.412 0 Td
(490 F.2d 740, 750 \(D.C. Cir. )Tj
(1973\).)Tj
-16.412 -2.125 Td
(Assessment of Applicant's alcohol-related conduct must be made on the ba\
sis of a review of the entire evidentiary)Tj
T*
(record developed to date, not merely the )Tj
16.382 0 Td
(information developed with respect to his identified alcohol abuse and e\
nsuing)Tj
-16.382 -1.125 Td
(counseling and abstinence efforts. )Tj
13.856 0 Td
(In making an overall assessment of )Tj
14.33 0 Td
(Applicant's clearance eligibility, major emphasis)Tj
-28.186 -1.125 Td
(must be accorded his most recent drinking history, job performance and s\
upport he receives from his )Tj
40.572 0 Td
(supervisor and)Tj
-40.572 -1.125 Td
(work colleagues. )Tj
7.025 0 Td
(In Applicant's case, his support base remains very strong among those wh\
o know him professionally)Tj
-7.025 -1.125 Td
(and personally.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(By his actions and improved understanding, Applicant demonstrates he has\
taken the necessary restorative and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(corrective measures in his personal affairs to )Tj
18.132 0 Td
(ensure that he does not repeat the same or similar judgment lapses)Tj
-18.132 -1.125 Td
(associated with his prior problems with alcohol abuse. )Tj
21.968 0 Td
(His mitigation efforts not only reflect )Tj
15.219 0 Td
(important abstinence time)Tj
-37.187 -1.125 Td
(\(almost twenty four months worth of sustained abstinence\) without any \
further reports at work or problems in these)Tj
T*
(covered areas, )Tj
5.968 0 Td
(but some manifest sustaining positive steps \(such as months of recent c\
ounseling with Dr. G interspersed)Tj
-5.968 -1.125 Td
(with modest AA participation\) to ensure that he does )Tj
21.412 0 Td
(not experience any alcohol abuse relapses in the future.)Tj
-21.412 -1.125 Td
(Significantly, during )Tj
8.527 0 Td
(Applicant's maintained sobriety over the past twenty four months, he has\
not )Tj
30.924 0 Td
(encountered any)Tj
-39.451 -1.125 Td
(problems with coworkers at work or in his personal life. )Tj
22.689 0 Td
(While evidence of more robust AA participation might have)Tj
-22.689 -1.125 Td
(strengthened his )Tj
6.776 0 Td
(mitigation showing, and perhaps provided better indicators for making pr\
edictive judgements about his)Tj
-6.776 -1.125 Td
(ability to sustain his abstinence in the future, he is to be )Tj
22.468 0 Td
(credited with a fairly sizable support network currently at work.)Tj
-22.468 -1.125 Td
(This and his own demonstrated will power appears to have been more effec\
tive in keeping him )Tj
38.21 0 Td
(sober than the AA)Tj
-38.21 -1.125 Td
(meetings he has attended in the past.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's demonstrated efforts to remedy his judgment lapses associate\
d with alcohol abuse enable him to take)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(advantage of three mitigating conditions \(MC\) )Tj
18.884 0 Td
(of the Adjudication Guidelines for alcohol consumption: MC 2 \(problem)Tj
-18.884 -1.125 Td
(occurred a number of years ago and there is no indication of a recent pr\
oblem\), MC 3 )Tj
34.432 0 Td
(\(positive changes in behavior\),)Tj
-34.432 -1.125 Td
(and MC 4 \(successful completion along with aftercare and sustained abst\
inence\). )Tj
32.656 0 Td
(Altogether; Applicant provides)Tj
-32.656 -1.125 Td
(sufficient )Tj
4.026 0 Td
(demonstrative indications of sustained mitigation of his drinking proble\
ms )Tj
30.079 0 Td
(to overcome any residual security)Tj
-34.105 -1.125 Td
(risks associated with his past alcohol-related )Tj
18.051 0 Td
(judgment lapses.)Tj
-18.051 -2.125 Td
(Considering the record as a whole, Applicant makes the convincing showin\
g that he has both the maturity and resource)Tj
T*
(support at his disposal to avert any )Tj
14.137 0 Td
(recurrent problems with judgment lapses related to alcohol to warrant sa\
fe)Tj
-14.137 -1.125 Td
(predictions that he is no longer at risk to judgment impairment associat\
ed with such )Tj
33.715 0 Td
(conduct. )Tj
3.666 0 Td
(Favorable conclusions)Tj
-37.381 -1.125 Td
(warrant with respect to the judgment impairment allegations covered by G\
uideline G.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's DSS misstatements)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(Posing potential security concern as well are Applicant's omissions of h\
is resumed alcohol use in a succession of DSS)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(security )Tj
3.416 0 Td
(clearance. Rather, consideration must take account of cognizable risks t\
hat an applicant may deliberately or)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(inadvertently fail to safeguard classified )Tj
16.299 0 Td
(information.)Tj
-16.299 -2.125 Td
(Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing ad\
mitted or controverted facts, the burden of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(persuasion shifts to the applicant for the )Tj
16.246 0 Td
(purpose of establishing his or her security worthiness through evidence \
of)Tj
-16.246 -1.125 Td
(refutation, extenuation or mitigation of the Government's case.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.767 -2.125 Td
(CONCLUSION)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 265.2021 663 cm
0 0 m
81.346 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 638.25 Tm
(Appellant comes as a highly regarded security team leader who developed \
alcohol problems during the 1998-1999 time)Tj
T*
(period, attributable to stresses in his )Tj
14.636 0 Td
(personal and professional life, and addressed them through )Tj
23.799 0 Td
(counseling and)Tj
-38.435 -1.125 Td
(eventually self-imposed abstinence. )Tj
14.551 0 Td
(Falsification is another issued addressed in )Tj
17.385 0 Td
(these proceedings and concern)Tj
-31.936 -1.125 Td
(Applicant misstatements about his alcohol consumption made to an intervi\
ewing DSS agent in January 2001.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's alcohol history and current efforts in avoiding alcohol)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(Before 1998, Applicant was by all accounts a social consumer of alcohol \
with no history of alcohol-related incidents)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(attributable to him, either work-related on away from work. This all cha\
nged in 1998 as he faced a confluence of)Tj
T*
(traumatic events in his life, to include the birth of a child with serio\
us health problems. Compounding his stresses at)Tj
T*
(home were the tensions he faced at work in dealing with a direct supervi\
sor at the time \(Mr. C\) who had a very)Tj
T*
(contentious relationship with his department manager and provided precio\
us little positive direction to Applicant. All of)Tj
T*
(these stresses in his life frustrated him and prompted him to resort to \
excessive alcohol use as a chosen vehicle for)Tj
T*
(relieving his stress. )Tj
7.943 0 Td
(These stresses and the alcohol he was abusing to soften the effects )Tj
26.77 0 Td
(of these strains in his life reached)Tj
-34.713 -1.125 Td
(an apex for him in March 1999. )Tj
12.941 0 Td
(At this point he made the voluntary decision to consult a health provide\
r to find relief.)Tj
-12.941 -1.125 Td
(Diagnosed for alcohol dependence and advised to abstain and attend AA, A\
pplicant balked and soon returned to alcohol)Tj
T*
(consumption, albeit at much lower )Tj
14.108 0 Td
(levels than he had become accustomed to.)Tj
-14.108 -2.125 Td
(Applicant never finished his consultation program with Dr. D and ceased \
counseling altogether in July 1999 over)Tj
T*
(payment issues. )Tj
6.583 0 Td
(Apparently unbeknownst to )Tj
11.359 0 Td
(Applicant, his treatment provider \(Dr. D\) had pronounced Applicant as)Tj
-17.942 -1.125 Td
(alcohol dependent and clearly advised him to abstain and seek AA support\
. )Tj
30.353 0 Td
(Not )Tj
(understanding Dr. D's advice to include)Tj
-30.353 -1.125 Td
(a )Tj
(dependence diagnosis, abstinence and AA attendance, Applicant soon retur\
ned to drinking after September 1999,)Tj
T*
(enough apparently to prompt reported detections of alcohol on his person\
throughout the remainder of 1999 and into)Tj
T*
(January 2002. )Tj
(His resumption of drinking )Tj
16.97 0 Td
(so soon after discontinuing his treatment with Dr. D only fueled Governm\
ent)Tj
-16.97 -1.125 Td
(concerns about the quality of his sobriety. )Tj
16.996 0 Td
(True, Dr. D may not have been clear in )Tj
15.91 0 Td
(his communicating his dependence)Tj
-32.906 -1.125 Td
(diagnosis and abstinence/AA recommendations to Applicant. )Tj
24.744 0 Td
(But Applicant is imputed to know at the very least he had)Tj
-24.744 -1.125 Td
(a )Tj
(serious abuse problem \(enough to seek voluntary counseling\): a strong \
signal to stay with the abstinence he charted for)Tj
T*
(himself and seek out other types of )Tj
14.247 0 Td
(support groups, if he wasn't comfortable with AA. )Tj
20.343 0 Td
(Returning to borderline, if not)Tj
-34.59 -1.125 Td
(abusive drinking, in September 1999 was not a good choice for him then: \
)Tj
29.605 0 Td
(much less so, of course, after looking at the)Tj
-29.605 -1.125 Td
(problem retrospectively.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Government's concerns about Applicant's potential to return to habit\
ual or binge drinking in the foreseeable future)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(prompts the Government to proclaim )Tj
15.08 0 Td
(Applicant a recurrence risk. To be sure, Applicant's )Tj
20.839 0 Td
(counseling efforts since his)Tj
-35.919 -1.125 Td
(last drink in December 2000 \(almost two years\) include several months \
of )Tj
29.881 0 Td
(successful outpatient counseling with Dr. G)Tj
-29.881 -1.125 Td
(\(presumably certified in substance abuse counseling\) and irregular att\
endance with his local AA chapter, but little )Tj
45.734 0 Td
(in the)Tj
-45.734 -1.125 Td
(way of sustained access to recognized support organizations. )Tj
24.576 0 Td
(Most impressive about Applicant's recovery is the two)Tj
-24.576 -1.125 Td
(years he devoted to abstinence and )Tj
14.161 0 Td
(the eighteen months of chips he )Tj
12.941 0 Td
(has received from AA to commemorate his sobriety.)Tj
-27.103 -1.125 Td
(Because he used his last trip to an AA meeting \(in July 2002\) to obtai\
n )Tj
28.578 0 Td
(his commemorative chip, he opens himself to)Tj
-28.578 -1.125 Td
(some question about his limited use of AA as a therapeutic instrument. )Tj
28.578 0 Td
(At most, though, the timing of his )Tj
13.806 0 Td
(attending his)Tj
-42.383 -1.125 Td
(last AA meeting to obtain his commemorative chip \(the same month and ye\
ar the SOR was issued\) raises correlative)Tj
T*
(questions about the depth of )Tj
11.526 0 Td
(his )Tj
(commitment to alcohol rehabilitation, not causative ones, and should in \
no way)Tj
-11.526 -1.125 Td
(diminish the importance of his eighteen month chip.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(On the strength of the evidence presented, four disqualifying conditions\
\(DC\) of the Adjudication Guidelines for alcohol)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(consumption may be invoked by the )Tj
14.775 0 Td
(Government: DC 2 \(alcohol-related incidents that impact at work\), DC 3\
\(diagnosis)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 38.25 Tm
(by a credentialed medical professional\); DC 5 \(habitual or binge )Tj
25.991 0 Td
(consumption\) and DC 6 \(consumption of alcohol)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
69 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
/TT1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 260.04 747 Tm
(Personal Conduct)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-20.337 -2.125 Td
(Basis)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(: conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliabil\
ity, or unwillingness to comply with rules)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(and regulations could indicate that the )Tj
15.495 0 Td
(person may not properly safeguard classified information.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-15.495 -2.125 Td
(Disqualifying Conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(DC 3 Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning r\
elevant and material matters to an)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(investigator, security official, competent medical )Tj
19.854 0 Td
(authority, or other official representative in connection with a)Tj
-19.854 -1.125 Td
(personnel security or trustworthiness determination.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(DC 5 )Tj
(A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
T*
(Mitigating conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(MC 1 The information was unsubstantiated and was not pertinent ro a dete\
rmination of judgment, trustworthiness or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(reliability.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(MC 3 )Tj
(The individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the falsificat\
ion before being confronted with the facts.)Tj
T*
(MC 4 The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vuln\
erability to coercion, exploitation, or duress.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.253 -2.125 Td
(Criminal Conduct)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-20.253 -2.125 Td
(The Concern: )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's\
judgment, reliability and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(trustworthiness.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Disqualifying Conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(DC 1 )Tj
(Allegations or admission of criminal conduct.)Tj
T*
(DC 2 )Tj
(A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
T*
(Mitigating Conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(MC 1 )Tj
(The criminal behavior was not recent.)Tj
T*
(MC 2 The crime was an isolated incident.)Tj
T*
(MC 4 The person did not voluntarily commit the act and/or the factors le\
ading to the violation are not likely to recur.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.684 -2.125 Td
(Burden of Proof)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-20.684 -2.125 Td
(By virtue of the precepts framed by the Directive, a decision to grant o\
r continue an Applicant's request for security)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance may be made only upon a )Tj
14.577 0 Td
(threshold finding that to do so is )Tj
13.194 0 Td
(clearly)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 349.2461 180.75 cm
0 0 m
32.643 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 381.8887 181.5 Tm
( )Tj
(consistent)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 384.8887 180.75 cm
0 0 m
47.994 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 432.8828 181.5 Tm
( with the national interest.)Tj
-34.74 -1.125 Td
(Because the Directive requires Administrative Judges to make a common se\
nse )Tj
32.018 0 Td
(appraisal of the evidence accumulated)Tj
-32.018 -1.125 Td
(in the record, the ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility \
for a security clearance depends, in large part, on)Tj
T*
(the )Tj
(relevance and materiality of that evidence. )Tj
18.713 0 Td
(As with all adversary proceedings, the Judge may draw only those)Tj
-18.713 -1.125 Td
(inferences which have a reasonable and logical )Tj
19.074 0 Td
(basis from the evidence of record. )Tj
13.855 0 Td
(Conversely, the Judge cannot draw)Tj
-32.93 -1.125 Td
(factual inferences that are grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Government's initial burden is twofold: \(1\) It must prove any cont\
roverted fact[s] alleged in the Statement of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Reasons and \(2\) it must demonstrate that the )Tj
18.052 0 Td
(facts proven have a nexus to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or ma\
intain)Tj
-18.052 -1.125 Td
(a security clearance. )Tj
8.383 0 Td
(The required showing of nexus, however, does not require the )Tj
25.048 0 Td
(Government to affirmatively)Tj
-33.432 -1.125 Td
(demonstrate that the applicant has actually mishandled or abused classif\
ied information before it can deny or revoke a)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(Applicant is considered his company's single most knowledgeable and trus\
ted employee on the subject of protecting)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(classified information. )Tj
9.248 0 Td
(He is recognized )Tj
6.969 0 Td
(for his knowledge of classified security systems by his counterparts in \
the)Tj
-16.217 -1.125 Td
(security industry, who twice have elected him as president of the Nation\
al )Tj
29.852 0 Td
(Classification Management Society \(NCMS\).)Tj
-29.852 -1.125 Td
(Both in this position and as a member of the NCMS board, he has been abl\
e to represent his industry in its )Tj
42.743 0 Td
(pursuit of a)Tj
-42.743 -1.125 Td
(Government-Industry partnership in the establishment of classification p\
olicy regarding the National Industrial Security)Tj
T*
(Program \(NISPOM\). )Tj
8.639 0 Td
(Through his leadership, his company has been the recipient of several aw\
ards from DSS for)Tj
-8.639 -1.125 Td
(significant security contributions to the Country \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.774 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. F; R.T., at )Tj
7.304 0 Td
(365-66\). )Tj
(Applicant is credited with making)Tj
-27.079 -1.125 Td
(significant overall contributions to his company's security program and \
the NISPOM in general \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
38.755 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 45-46,)Tj
-38.755 -1.125 Td
(365\). )Tj
(He is reputed to being an expert on the NISPOM's Industrial Manual, as w\
ell as security policy in general.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(POLICIES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 277.1992 615 cm
0 0 m
57.352 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/TT0 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 16 590.25 Tm
(The Adjudicative Guidelines of the Directive \(Change 4\) list "binding"\
policy considerations to be made by Judges in)Tj
T*
(the decision making process covering )Tj
15.301 0 Td
(DOHA cases. The term "binding," as interpreted by the DOHA Appeal Board,\
)Tj
-15.301 -1.125 Td
(requires the Judge to consider all of the "Conditions that could raise a\
security )Tj
31.511 0 Td
(concern and may be disqualifying")Tj
-31.511 -1.125 Td
(\(Disqualifying Conditions\), if any, and all of the "Mitigating Conditi\
ons," if any, before deciding whether or not a)Tj
T*
(security )Tj
3.416 0 Td
(clearance should be granted, continued or denied. )Tj
20.075 0 Td
(The Guidelines do not require the Judge to assess these)Tj
-23.491 -1.125 Td
(factors exclusively in arriving at a decision. )Tj
17.716 0 Td
(In )Tj
(addition to the relevant Adjudicative Guidelines, judges must take into)Tj
-17.716 -1.125 Td
(account the pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitig\
ation set forth in )Tj
35.602 0 Td
(E.2.2 of the Adjudicative)Tj
-35.602 -1.125 Td
(Process of Enclosure 2 of the Directive, which are intended to assist th\
e judges in reaching a fair and impartial common)Tj
T*
(sense )Tj
(decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following adjudic\
ation policy factors are pertinent herein:)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
19.502 -2.125 Td
(Alcohol Consumption)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-19.502 -2.125 Td
(The Concern)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questiona\
ble judgment, unreliability, failure)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(to control impulses, and increases the )Tj
15.246 0 Td
(risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to careles\
sness.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-15.246 -2.125 Td
(Disqualifying Conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(DC 2 Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or du\
ty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(drinking on the job.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(DC 3 )Tj
(Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
22.604 0 Td
(e.g., )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist\) of alcohol)Tj
-22.604 -1.125 Td
(abuse or alcohol dependence.)Tj
T*
(DC 5 Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired j\
udgment.)Tj
T*
(DC 6 Consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by \
a credentialed medical professional and)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(following completion of an alcohol )Tj
14.358 0 Td
(rehabilitation program.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
-14.358 -2.125 Td
(Mitigating Conditions:)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(MC 1 The alcohol related incidents do not indicate a pattern.)Tj
T*
(MC 2 The problem occurred a number of years ago and there is no indicati\
on of a recent problem.)Tj
T*
(MC 3 Positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.)Tj
T*
(MC 4 Following diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, the ind\
ividual has successfully completed inpatient)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(or outpatient rehabilitation, along with )Tj
15.663 0 Td
(aftercare requirements, participates frequently in meetings of AA or a s\
imilar)Tj
-15.663 -1.125 Td
(organization, has abstained from alcohol for a period of at least 12 mon\
ths, and )Tj
31.935 0 Td
(received favorable prognosis by a)Tj
-31.935 -1.125 Td
(credentialed medical professional or licensed clinical social worker who\
is a staff member of a recognized alcohol)Tj
T*
(treatment )Tj
4.026 0 Td
(program.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
BT
/Article <>BDC
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 751.5 Tm
(On the ultimate issue of whether Applicant misstated his lack of any use\
of alcohol since September 1999, however,)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(inferences must be drawn against Applicant. Responding to the falsificat\
ion allegations in the SOR covering all three of)Tj
T*
(his signed, sworn statements, he admitted to falsifying these statements\
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. None of)Tj
T*
(these admissions were withdrawn during the evidentiary course of hearing\
. His later request to withdraw them in )Tj
45.376 0 Td
(his)Tj
-45.376 -1.125 Td
(written summation \(footnote 17\) comes too late and without sufficient \
good cause to grant Applicant's request.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(On the key question of his post-September 1999 resumption of alcohol, no\
t only did Applicant admit unequivocally to)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(falsifying his signed, sworn statements )Tj
15.776 0 Td
(given to Agent A in January 2001, but he displayed manifest inconsistenc\
ies in)Tj
-15.776 -1.125 Td
(his hearing attempts to reconcile his deployment of use when tracing his\
)Tj
29.159 0 Td
(consumption backwards and forward in time.)Tj
-29.159 -1.125 Td
(Only if Applicant )Tj
7.304 0 Td
(is able to provide persuasive explanations of how he could in good faith\
confuse use with )Tj
35.992 0 Td
(abuse in the)Tj
-43.296 -1.125 Td
(DSS statements he provided in January 2001 can any pleading relief be ac\
corded )Tj
32.628 0 Td
(Applicant on his hearing claims that)Tj
-32.628 -1.125 Td
(his SOR admissions were )Tj
(based solely on retrospective impressions he had acquired after correcti\
ng his earlier)Tj
T*
(statements \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.804 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 85-90;182-90\). )Tj
11.053 0 Td
(This presents a tall challenge for )Tj
13.273 0 Td
(Applicant, because the plain wording of his)Tj
-29.13 -1.125 Td
(SOR responses leaves precious little room for avoiding the pleading affe\
cts of his admissions.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(That Applicant is educated, experienced and knowledgeable of the securit\
y risks that are generally associated with a)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(clearance holder's abuse of alcoholic )Tj
14.923 0 Td
(beverages can not be doubted. )Tj
12.329 0 Td
(He brings to these proceedings a wealth of personal)Tj
-27.251 -1.125 Td
(experiences and expertise in dealing with security clearance issues that\
)Tj
28.6 0 Td
(could impact on the protection of classified)Tj
-28.6 -1.125 Td
(information. )Tj
5.221 0 Td
(Certainly mindful of the lessons he learned about his prior abuses of al\
cohol from his counseling )Tj
38.936 0 Td
(sessions)Tj
-44.157 -1.125 Td
(with Dr. D, Applicant continued drinking at levels he thought he could s\
afely control. )Tj
34.52 0 Td
(Embarrassed at being told by Mr.)Tj
-34.52 -1.125 Td
(C, and later Agent A, that )Tj
10.553 0 Td
(coworkers had smelled alcohol on his person \(even following his since d\
iscontinued treatment)Tj
-10.553 -1.125 Td
(sessions with Dr. D\), Applicant inferentially approached his first )Tj
26.133 0 Td
(two interviews with Agent A with a mind set of)Tj
-26.133 -1.125 Td
(wanting to avoid or minimize any disclosures of drinking that )Tj
24.94 0 Td
(might raise security-related questions about his)Tj
-24.94 -1.125 Td
(counseling and program compliance \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.106 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( exs. 1 and B\).)Tj
-15.106 -2.125 Td
(By Applicant's own account, Mr. C's earlier adverse information report c\
aught him completely off guard, and the)Tj
T*
(ensuing investigation based on Mr. C's )Tj
15.762 0 Td
(generated report caused him great concern and embarrassment not only abo\
ut his)Tj
-15.762 -1.125 Td
(career, )Tj
2.941 0 Td
(but having to admit to Agent A and others "that I continually had an )Tj
27.514 0 Td
(alcohol problem" \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.517 0 Td
(compare )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(R.T., at 84-85,)Tj
-37.972 -1.125 Td
(140-41\). )Tj
(Applicant's answers to the SOR clearly reflect these investigation conce\
rns and resulting embarrassment, )Tj
45.889 0 Td
(but)Tj
-45.889 -1.125 Td
(with the inferential knowledge as well that his omissions might affect h\
is working relationships with his coworkers and)Tj
T*
(supervisor, and even impact his )Tj
12.886 0 Td
(career. )Tj
2.941 0 Td
(That he had not given a lot of thought to what he told Agent A in his in\
terviews)Tj
-15.827 -1.125 Td
(\()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 200\) strengthens, not weakens, the case for accuracy of his )Tj
28.878 0 Td
(pleading admissions. )Tj
8.638 0 Td
(His subsequent parsing of)Tj
-37.517 -1.125 Td
(the "use" word when tracing his prior consumption and charting his futur\
e intentions becomes most )Tj
40.059 0 Td
(understandable in)Tj
-40.059 -1.125 Td
(the context of his trying to undue the implications of his admitting to \
misstatements about his post-treatment resumption)Tj
T*
(of alcohol )Tj
4.276 0 Td
(consumption at any level, not just at abusive levels.)Tj
-4.276 -2.125 Td
(What is more, Applicant's )Tj
10.65 0 Td
(failure to come forward with the correct historical account of his drink\
ing resumption until)Tj
-10.65 -1.125 Td
(after he was notified of a scheduled )Tj
14.466 0 Td
(polygraph sows further seeds of doubt about his claimed interview impres\
sions and)Tj
-14.466 -1.125 Td
(adds further reason to attribute Applicant understanding of his past )Tj
26.993 0 Td
(misstatements about his alcohol resumption and)Tj
-26.993 -1.125 Td
(determined intention to correct these misstatements before he was polygr\
aphed. )Tj
32.128 0 Td
(Inferences of Applicant's )Tj
10.259 0 Td
(knowing and)Tj
-42.388 -1.125 Td
(wilful misstatements about his alcohol resumption following his disconti\
nued treatment )Tj
35.328 0 Td
(from Dr. C in July 1999 simply)Tj
-35.328 -1.125 Td
(cannot be averted. )Tj
7.552 0 Td
(Opportunity and motivation to avert embarrassment among his colleagues \(\
his hearing denials)Tj
-7.552 -1.125 Td
(notwithstanding\) intertwine with Applicant's DSS misstatements )Tj
26.123 0 Td
(to such a degree as to make his )Tj
12.663 0 Td
(explanations about his)Tj
-38.785 -1.125 Td
(misstatements simply too implausible to gain acceptance.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(Applicant's exemplary record of accomplishment and trust)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(Applicant is highly regarded for his more than twenty-five years of dedi\
cated service with his company in his field of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(specialty: industrial security. )Tj
11.775 0 Td
(His many )Tj
(credits include excellent performance evaluations between 1998 and 2002 \
\()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.293 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-46.068 -1.125 Td
(ex. C\). )Tj
(In these evaluations he is praised for his technical expertise, )Tj
27.186 0 Td
(organizational skills and strong work ethic.)Tj
-27.186 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's coworkers \(especially Mr. E\) and the current director of s\
ecurity for his company \(also his direct )Tj
43.666 0 Td
(supervisor\))Tj
-43.666 -1.125 Td
(provide unequivocal support for Applicant's retention of his security cl\
earance. )Tj
31.864 0 Td
(They describe him as trusted colleague)Tj
-31.864 -1.125 Td
(and superb organizational )Tj
10.58 0 Td
(leader who consistently demonstrates high integrity and trustworthiness \
and sets similar)Tj
-10.58 -1.125 Td
(standards )Tj
(for both his employees and others employed by the company )Tj
28.632 0 Td
(\()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(compare )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(exs. E and F\).)Tj
EMC
ET
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(02-15935.h1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archive\
d%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)Tj
49.129 0 Td
([6/24/2021 10:58:29 AM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(signed statements for DSS in January 1999 raises questions for the first\
time as )Tj
31.884 0 Td
(to whether Applicant simply)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(misunderstood his adoption of the use term in making his sweeping denial\
of resumed consumption. )Tj
40.327 0 Td
(This raises)Tj
-40.327 -1.125 Td
(important credibility issues regarding the )Tj
16.69 0 Td
(merits of Applicant's retrospective use/abuse distinctions.)Tj
-16.69 -2.125 Td
(Before evaluating the different impressions of what transpired in the in\
itial and ensuing two interviews between)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Applicant and Agent A, resolution of raised )Tj
17.773 0 Td
(points on which the respective parties are in agreement can be summarize\
d.)Tj
-17.773 -1.125 Td
(Both parties accept that the first signed, sworn statement prepared for \
Applicant's )Tj
32.809 0 Td
(signature \(ex. 3\) was prepared in)Tj
-32.809 -1.125 Td
(Agent B's office on his lap top computer and presented for Applicant's s\
ignature \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
32.657 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 82-83\). )Tj
7.942 0 Td
(Applicant signed)Tj
-40.6 -1.125 Td
(this )Tj
(statement in Agent B's office after reviewing it and initialing it. )Tj
27.312 0 Td
(At no time during this review process did Applicant)Tj
-27.312 -1.125 Td
(question any of the words or phrases )Tj
(utilized by Agent A in preparing the statement. )Tj
33.992 0 Td
(Undisputed as well is that Agent A,)Tj
-33.992 -1.125 Td
(upon talking to Mr. C about 1999-2000 reports of coworkers claiming they\
)Tj
30.245 0 Td
(smelled alcohol on Applicant or observed)Tj
-30.245 -1.125 Td
(him behaving in a manner consistent with after affects of alcohol, calle\
d Applicant in for a follow-up DSS interview)Tj
T*
(later in January 2001 \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.997 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. 4; R.T., at 90-92\). )Tj
10.414 0 Td
(Not disputed either is Applicant's handwriting his relatively short)Tj
-19.411 -1.125 Td
(second signed, )Tj
(sworn statement and giving )Tj
17.414 0 Td
(it to Agent A \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
5.833 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. 4; R.T., at 89-94\). )Tj
10.414 0 Td
(Similarly unchallenged is)Tj
-33.66 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's expressed willingness to submit to a polygraph examination a\
t the end of )Tj
34.201 0 Td
(his )Tj
(second interview of Applicant)Tj
-34.201 -1.125 Td
(\()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 160\). )Tj
7.442 0 Td
(Once Agent A took a signed, sworn third statement from Applicant, he was\
apparently satisfied)Tj
-7.442 -1.125 Td
(enough with )Tj
(its contents to cancel Applicant's scheduled )Tj
22.841 0 Td
(polygraph examination \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.831 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 162\).)Tj
-32.672 -2.125 Td
(But in the second signed, sworn statement he furnished Agent A \(ex. 4\)\
, Applicant himself invoked the term "use," this)Tj
T*
(time to not only underscore his )Tj
12.665 0 Td
(discontinuance of alcohol since September 1999, but also to stress his i\
ntention not to)Tj
-12.665 -1.125 Td
(resume alcohol consumption in the future. )Tj
17.135 0 Td
(In his response, he made no )Tj
11.358 0 Td
(attempt to parse any different deployment of the)Tj
-28.493 -1.125 Td
(use term to differentiate his past activity with his future intentions. \
)Tj
26.883 0 Td
(At hearing, he assures he and Agent A )Tj
15.634 0 Td
(were focused)Tj
-42.517 -1.125 Td
(on his prior abuse of alcohol and never on when he had consumed alcohol \
at all over the period stressed \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
42.154 0 Td
(see )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(R.T., at 85-)Tj
-42.154 -1.125 Td
(90\), and for )Tj
(reasonableness of this understanding, he looks to the impressions of his\
current supervisor whose)Tj
T*
(impressions coincide with his own \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
14.415 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 306\). )Tj
7.109 0 Td
(Stressing his abuse impressions of Agent A's questioning,)Tj
-21.524 -1.125 Td
(Applicant insists Agent A never asked him any questions about his alcoho\
l usage since September )Tj
39.575 0 Td
(1999. )Tj
(Agent A, by)Tj
-39.575 -1.125 Td
(contrast, insistently disagrees and )Tj
13.691 0 Td
(assures he discussed Applicant's use as well as any abuse the latter mig\
ht have)Tj
-13.691 -1.125 Td
(indulged in. )Tj
5.027 0 Td
(Discussion )Tj
(of both types of potential involvement was important to Agent A in order\
to resolve the alcohol)Tj
-5.027 -1.125 Td
(issues raised by the coworker reports to Mr. C \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.051 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( R.T., at 390, )Tj
6.776 0 Td
(443-44\).)Tj
-25.828 -2.125 Td
(Before either Applicant or Agent A could correct any possible misunderst\
andings in their respective versions of their)Tj
T*
(exchanges, Applicant was confronted by )Tj
16.495 0 Td
(DSS with a scheduled polygraph \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.692 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. A; R.T., at 160-63\). )Tj
11.136 0 Td
(Once confronted)Tj
-41.323 -1.125 Td
(by a scheduled polygraph, Applicant )Tj
14.94 0 Td
(rethought the answers he had previously )Tj
16.385 0 Td
(provided in his signed, sworn statements)Tj
-31.325 -1.125 Td
(and told his direct supervisor \(Mr. H\) he needed to see Agent A about \
some corrections to his alcohol history, if he )Tj
46.211 0 Td
(was)Tj
-46.211 -1.125 Td
(to avert jeopardizing his career \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
12.966 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( response; R.T. ,at 105-06\). )Tj
12.469 0 Td
(Applicant, in turn, prepared a draft statement on his own)Tj
-25.435 -1.125 Td
(word processor and made an )Tj
11.69 0 Td
(appointment to see Agent A about it \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.08 0 Td
(see)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ex. B; R.T., at 112-13\).)Tj
-26.771 -2.125 Td
(Once Applicant contacted Agent A \(in February 2001\) and arranged to pr\
esent his draft of a )Tj
37.042 0 Td
(correcting statement to)Tj
-37.042 -1.125 Td
(Agent A in a )Tj
(third meeting with the agent, )Tj
17.163 0 Td
(Agent A took the statement and )Tj
12.941 0 Td
(reviewed it before determining how it would)Tj
-30.104 -1.125 Td
(be typed up on a )Tj
6.859 0 Td
(standard DSS form \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(see )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(R.T., at 119\). )Tj
15.358 0 Td
(While the versions differ )Tj
10.219 0 Td
(here as to who was tasked to prepare)Tj
-32.437 -1.125 Td
(the new statement for Applicant's signature, close examination of the re\
spective signed, statements and )Tj
41.445 0 Td
(comparison with)Tj
-41.445 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's draft makes unavoidable drawn inferences that Applicant's fi\
rst and third statements were drafted by the)Tj
T*
(same hand using the same style and font, )Tj
16.635 0 Td
(and likely the same hard drive. )Tj
12.579 0 Td
(So, just as Agent A drafted the first statement)Tj
-29.214 -1.125 Td
(for Applicant, he is attributed with preparing the third statement as we\
ll \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
29.242 0 Td
(compare )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(exs. 3 and 5 with B\). )Tj
(Agent A's)Tj
-29.242 -1.125 Td
(claims to the contrary \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.274 0 Td
(compare )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(exs. 6 and I\) were mistaken and contribute to )Tj
22.021 0 Td
(credibility weaknesses in the quality of)Tj
-31.295 -1.125 Td
(most of )Tj
(his other undocumented recollections, which are based on accounts of int\
erviews completed several years)Tj
T*
(previous.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Overall, Agent A tried to claim too much based on his memory of intervie\
ws he endeavored to isolate with precision)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(from among the hundreds he conducted in )Tj
17.134 0 Td
(the 2001 time frame. )Tj
8.581 0 Td
(It became manifest that his distinct recall of his)Tj
-25.715 -1.125 Td
(employment of both abuse and use terms in his interviews of Applicant we\
re based more )Tj
35.796 0 Td
(on what he considered to be)Tj
-35.796 -1.125 Td
(his common practice than upon anything specific he remembered from his i\
nterviews of Applicant \()Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
39.988 0 Td
(compare )Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(R.T., at)Tj
-39.988 -1.125 Td
(388-89, 413-14, 424-26, 441-48, 452-54\). )Tj
(Consequently, not a great deal of weight can be given to Agent A's)Tj
T*
(recollections of his conversations with Applicant.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
74 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
76 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-15935.h1.html)
endobj
75 0 obj
<>
endobj
77 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 78
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003645 00000 n
0000225685 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003578 00000 n
0000003705 00000 n
0000003732 00000 n
0000225171 00000 n
0000225212 00000 n
0000224981 00000 n
0000010613 00000 n
0000166684 00000 n
0000003836 00000 n
0000003882 00000 n
0000003931 00000 n
0000004536 00000 n
0000004088 00000 n
0000004120 00000 n
0000004152 00000 n
0000004184 00000 n
0000004216 00000 n
0000004248 00000 n
0000004280 00000 n
0000004312 00000 n
0000004344 00000 n
0000004376 00000 n
0000004408 00000 n
0000004440 00000 n
0000004472 00000 n
0000004504 00000 n
0000101576 00000 n
0000101788 00000 n
0000102000 00000 n
0000102201 00000 n
0000166806 00000 n
0000167007 00000 n
0000167219 00000 n
0000167431 00000 n
0000167643 00000 n
0000167844 00000 n
0000168057 00000 n
0000168259 00000 n
0000164821 00000 n
0000005383 00000 n
0000005584 00000 n
0000010529 00000 n
0000010578 00000 n
0000010707 00000 n
0000011349 00000 n
0000048496 00000 n
0000048763 00000 n
0000011809 00000 n
0000012082 00000 n
0000012595 00000 n
0000049375 00000 n
0000158014 00000 n
0000110849 00000 n
0000150379 00000 n
0000142222 00000 n
0000102413 00000 n
0000111296 00000 n
0000111572 00000 n
0000112055 00000 n
0000165023 00000 n
0000216430 00000 n
0000208515 00000 n
0000202911 00000 n
0000198403 00000 n
0000191140 00000 n
0000183601 00000 n
0000175784 00000 n
0000168472 00000 n
0000225066 00000 n
0000225420 00000 n
0000225254 00000 n
0000225632 00000 n
trailer
<<72F913F8A83D864B839B0C5A0D95C3B7>]>>
startxref
225858
%%EOF