KEYWORD: Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 42 years old and has been employed as a senior engineer for a defense
contractor since July 2000. In 1993, while working overseas in the military, he sexually molested
his 12-year-old stepdaughter on at least eight occasions during a three- to four-month period. When
questioned about his sexually deviant behavior, he denied the allegations. He deliberately falsified
material facts in two different security clearance applications. In 2003, he lost access to Sensitive
Compartment Information as a result of the molestation incident. Applicant has not mitigated the
sexual behavior and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 04-07057.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE: April 30, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-07057
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 42 years old and has been employed as a senior engineer for a defense contractor
since July 2000. In 1993, while working overseas in the military, he sexually molested his 12-year-
old stepdaughter on at least eight occasions during a three- to four-month period. When questioned
about his sexually deviant behavior, he denied the allegations. He deliberately falsified material facts
in two different security clearance applications. In 2003, he lost access to Sensitive Compartment
Information as a result of the molestation incident. Applicant has not mitigated the sexual behavior
and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Ex. 2 (Security Clearance Application, dated April 16, 2002); See also Ex. 1 (Security Clearance Application,1
dated June 19, 1997).
Tr. 18.2
Tr. 19-21.3
Tr. 28.4
Tr. 40.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 16, 2002, Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).  On July1
12, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within
Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January
2, 1992, as amended and modified. The SOR detailed reasons under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding
under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine
whether a clearance should be granted or revoked.
By letter dated December 6, 2005, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested
a hearing on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On October 18, 2006, he elected to have an in-
person hearing. The case was assigned to me on January 24, 2007. On February 5, 2007, Applicant’s
attorney filed a Notice of Appearance. A Notice of Hearing was issued on February 16, 2007,
scheduling the hearing for March 8, 2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. At the hearing,
the Government offered four exhibits, Exs. 1-4. Applicant offered five exhibits, Exs. A-E. All
exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was received on March
19, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegation under Guideline D, sexual behavior, subparagraph 1.a.
Applicant’s admission to the allegation in the SOR is incorporated herein. He denied the other
allegations. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due
consideration of same, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 42 years old and, since July 2000, has been a senior engineer for a defense
contractor.  He served in the U.S. Army from August 1982 to June 1998, and retired with an2
honorable discharge as a staff sergeant (E-6).  While on active duty, he was awarded a Meritorious3
Service Medal, and five Army Commendation Medals.  He currently has a Top Secret Clearance.4 5
Applicant was married in June 1990. He has five adult children:  two stepdaughters, a
stepson, and two biological daughters with his wife. He was divorced in October 2006.
Tr. 56.6
Tr. 41.7
Tr. 33.8
See Applicant’s letter, dated December 6, 2005.9
Tr. 26.10
Tr. 35.11
4
In 1993, while stationed overseas, Applicant was accused of fondling and inappropriately
touching his 12-year-old stepdaughter on her breasts, buttocks, and vagina, for sexual gratification.
This inappropriate behavior occurred approximately eight times, over a three- to four-month period.
At the time, his stepdaughter told her 10-year-old brother.  She then told her teacher, and the teacher6
informed their mother about the incident.
The Criminal Investigator Division (CID) of the Army questioned Applicant’s stepdaughter
and wife about the molestation allegations. Applicant testified that when questioned, his wife and
daughter recanted their allegations.  After CID investigated, Applicant and his family were advised7
to attend counseling regarding the sexual molestation matter. They attended approximately four, one-
hour sessions.
Applicant further testified that his commanding officer questioned him about the molestation
incident:
Q: And you initially denied this [molestation allegation] to your commander?
A: I did, to protect my children.
Q: How is it that denying this would protect your children?
A: My family is very important to me, and at that time we, you know, we had made the
decision to put this past us and move on.
Q: Did you later admit this to your commander?
A: No I did not.
Q: Why not?
A: I don’t know.8
In Applicant’s SF 86, executed on June 19, 1997, he replied “no” to question 19 (Your
medical Record  In the last 7 years, have you consulted a mental health professional (psychiatrist,
psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another health care provider about a
mental health related condition). He failed to list that he attended counseling at the Family Services
Center regarding the sexual molestation charge. He indicated that “[t]he omission of the Counseling
session was in no way an attempt to hide the counseling session.”  He testified that he did not list9
the family counseling because “I didn’t believe that was relevant.”  He recalled that there were10
approximately four, one-hour  counseling sessions, attended by himself, his wife, and stepdaughter.11
In response to question 9 on the 1997 SF 86 (Your Relatives and Associates  Entry List
Options: 1. Mother  2. Father  3.Stepmother  4.Stepfather  5. Foster parent  6. Child (adopted also)
See Applicant’s letter, dated December 6, 2005.12
Tr. 57.13
See Applicant’s letter, dated December 6, 2005.14
Tr. 28.15
Tr. 29.16
Tr. 29.17
5
7. Stepchild  8. Brother  9. Sister  10. Stepbrother  11. Stepsister  12. Half-brother  13. Half-sister
14. Father-in-law  15. Mother-in-law  16. Guardian  17. Other relative  18. Associate  19. Adult
Currently Living with you 1) Include only foreign national relatives not listed in 1-16 with whom you
or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation or close and continuing contact.  2) Include only
foreign national associates with whom your [sic] or your spouse  are bound by affection, obligation
or close and continuing contact.”) he listed his mother, father, brother, and sister. He failed to list
his two daughters, two stepdaughters, and stepson. He indicated that failure to list his children was
not intentional.
In a subsequent SF 86 electronically submitted on April 9, 2002, in response to question 9
(same question as the 1997 SF 86), he listed his mother, father, and sister. He failed to list his two
daughters, his two stepdaughters, his stepson, and his brother. He indicated that failure to list his
children was not intentional.
Applicant had a polygraph examination in April 2003, where he fully disclosed and admitted
the allegations regarding molesting his stepdaughter.  Applicant’s security clearance and access to12
Sensitive Compartment Information (SCI) were denied by another Government Agency, on April
9, 2003, as a result of his molestation of his 12-year-old stepdaughter in about 1993. Applicant
further testified that after the polygraph, he had a family meeting and disclosed the sexual
molestation incident to the entire family.  Applicant contends that the CID did not question him13
about the molestation. He stated: 
I understand that I was to blame for the entire incident and would have been punished
if questioned by Military Police or CID. Looking back at my decision to disclose this
information to the polygraph examiner was entirely voluntary but as of this hearing
may prove to be the reason why I lose my clearance. Any Miliary Police (MP) or
Central Intelligence Division (CID) had not questioned me regarding this incident
prior to the NSA Polygraph examiner.14
As a civilian, Applicant stated that he received multiple commendations from the Department
of Energy and the Department of Defense for his engineering contributions to certain programs.15
He has received recognition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “implementing their
security systems and employing their hardware and troubleshooting their networks to maintain the
level of protection that they require.”  He was also recognized by two foreign governments for his16
expertise in engineering.17
Tr. 29.18
Ex. A (Letter of Recommendation, dated February 19, 2007); Ex. B (Letter of Recommendation, dated19
February 19, 2007); Ex. C (Letter of Recommendation, dated February 16, 2007); Ex. D (Letter of Recommendation,
dated February 19, 2007), Ex. E (Letter of Recommendation, dated February 13, 2007).
Ex. A, supra, note 19.20
Ex. B, supra, note 19.21
Exs. A through E, supra, note 19.22
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2.23
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.24
6
Applicant has coached his daughters’ sporting teams for approximately five years. He
stopped coaching when “they moved to a travel group, so therefore they moved up to an upper level
coach, so it was no longer intermural or anything else.”18
Applicant proffered five letters of recommendation from his supervisors and coworkers. He
stated that they knew about the underlying molestation issue.  None of the letters mention the19
molestation issue. Each letter recounts meeting Applicant in July 2000 while at work and hold him
in high regard. One letter indicated that: “[Applicant] has been a stellar performer here from the very
beginning of his employment.”  Another letter stated: “I can state without reservation that20
[Applicant] is one of the most trustworthy, professional, and dedicated members I have ever worked
with at my nine years at [place of employment].”  Applicant was held in high esteem by his21
coworkers.22
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating
a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Included in the guidelines are disqualifying
conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) applicable to each specific guideline. Additionally,
each security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the factors listed
in the Directive. Specifically these are: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the
motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary,
or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and
(6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. Although
the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome
determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured
against this policy guidance.
The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  The Government23
has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than a24
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).25
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.26
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.27
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.28
Id.29
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.30
Executive Order 10865 § 7.31
7
preponderance of evidence.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant25
to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him.26
Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance
decision.27
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard indicates that28
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable29
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
in favor of protecting such sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security30
clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication31
that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have
established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Sexual Behavior
Sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality
or emotional disorder, may subject the individual to coercion, exploitation, or duress or reflects lack
of judgment or discretion. The Government has established a prima facie case for disqualification
under Guideline D, sexual behavior.
Applicant is a sexual predator. He admitted fondling and inappropriately touching his 12-year-
old stepdaughter on her breasts, buttocks and vagina, for his sexual gratification. This inappropriate
behavior occurred approximately eight times in a three- to four-month period in about 1993. Moreover,
CID investigated the incidents shortly after it was reported in 1993. He contends that his family
recanted their charges, and he, his wife, and daughter were ordered to go to family counseling. He
denied the allegations when questioned by his commanding officer. Moreover, he contends that neither
the CID nor military police questioned him about the accusations. Because of his actions toward his
8
stepdaughter, Sexual Behavior Disqualifying Conditions (SB DC) E2.A4.1.2.1 (sexual behavior of a
criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted), SB DC E2.A4.1.2.2 (compulsive
or addictive sexual behavior when the person is unable to stop a pattern of self-destructive or high-
risk behavior or that which is symptomatic of a personality disorder), and SB DC E2.A4.1.2.3 (sexual
behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress) apply.
Various factors can mitigate sexual behavior security concerns. Sexual abuse of a child is
regarded very negatively in our society and is a cowardly act. Here, if an individual became aware of
Applicant’s sexual exploitation of a child, that information could be used to pressure the Applicant to
do things that were not in the interest of the U.S. government. Obviously, his sexual molestation of
a minor child reflects a lack of discretion or judgment. The sexual molestation charge at issue,
however, was not recent. It occurred more than 13 years ago. There is no evidence of child molestation
subsequent to 1993. Thus, Sexual Behavior Mitigating Condition E2.A4.1.3.2 (the behavior was not
recent and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature) applies. However, because
of the embarrassing nature of this incident, together with the fact that he actively concealed this
heinous act until 2003, continues to make Applicant vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, and duress,
by someone who could use this incident to have an advantage over Applicant. Applicant has divulged
his inappropriate sexual behavior to a limited number of select people. Thus, none of the other Sexual
Behavior Mitigating Conditions apply. Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s case.
Accordingly, allegations 1.a and 1.b of the SOR are concluded against Applicant.
Personal Conduct
Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks the central question whether the
person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified
information. The Government has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline
E, personal conduct.
When questioned in 1993 by his commanding officer about the sexual molestation of his 12-
year-old stepdaughter, Applicant denied the allegations. His wife and stepdaughter recanted their
allegations. Applicant, his wife and daughter attended family counseling. However, he failed to
indicate the family counseling activity on his SF 86. Moreover, in SF 86s executed in 1997 and 2002,
he failed to list any of his five children. I conclude Applicant deliberately falsified questions in both
SF 86s. Additionally, his access to SCI was denied on April 9, 2003, as a result of the sexual
molestation charges. For more than 10 years, from 1993 when the incident occurred to 2003 when he
finally acknowledged his egregious behavior, he has lied about material facts. The truth could have
destroyed his military career. Rather than deal with the consequences, he has lived his life with the
hope that his secrets would remain just that. Thus, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (PC
DC) E2.A5.1.2.1 (reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers,
neighbors, and other acquaintances), PC DC E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities), PC DC E2.A5.1.2.3 (deliberately providing false or misleading information
concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official representative in
connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination), PC DC E2.A5.1.2.4 (personal
conduct or concealment of information that increases an individual’s vulnerability to coercion,
exploitation or duress, such as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s
9
personal, professional, or community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail), and PC
DC E2.A5.1.2.5 (a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or
recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency) apply.
Various factors can mitigate personal conduct security concerns. Honesty is critical to a
position of trust in safeguarding classified information. The individual is obligated to come forward
and self-report any security violation. Beginning in 1993, Applicant committed a number of
falsifications. He denied the sexual molestation allegations initially to his commanding officer.
Moreover, it was not until the polygraph examination in 2003 that Applicant fully divulged this
information as part of security clearance investigation process. Thus, Personal Conduct Mitigating
Conditions (PC MC) E2.A5.1.3.1 (the information was unsubstantiated or not pertinent to a
determination of judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability), PC MC E2.A5.1.3.2 (the falsification was
an isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct information
voluntarily), and PC MC E2.A5.1.3.3 (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
falsification before being confronted with the facts) do not apply. Applicant has not mitigated the
Government’s case. Accordingly, allegations 2.a through 2.f of the SOR are concluded against
Applicant.
I have considered all the evidence in the case. I have also considered the “whole person”
concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. At the
hearing, Applicant appeared composed, contrite, and remorseful for his sexual advances toward his
12-year-old stepdaughter. He was a sexual predator, and he molested his stepdaughter. Once the family
reported his behavior, he lied to his commanding officer and denied the allegations. He deliberately
falsified material facts in two different SF 86s, by omitting all of his children, hoping that if an
investigation occurred, his children would not be interviewed. Moreover, he lost access to SCI, which
is a further indication that he is not trustworthy or reliable. For the reasons stated, I conclude Applicant
is not suitable for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1. Guideline D (Sexual Behavior): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: Against Applicant
10
Subparagraph 2.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Jacqueline T. Williams
 Administrative Judge