KEYWORD: Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant has a 20-plus year history of engaging in Peeping Tom activities, although it
ended in about 1997. He admits he has an addiction to Internet pornography. In March 2003, he was
fired from his job when he accessed and viewed adult pornography on a company computer.
Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-24990.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24990
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. LEONARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a 20-plus year history of engaging in Peeping Tom activities, although it ended
in about 1997. He admits he has an addiction to Internet pornography. In March 2003, he was fired
 Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1
1992, as amended (Directive).
 See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, dated August 30, 2006, Subject:2
Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December
29, 2005). 
2
from his job when he accessed and viewed adult pornography on a company computer. Eligibility
for a security clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny or revoke his eligibility for a
security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,  the Defense1
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant on
February 1, 2007. The SOR—which is equivalent to an administrative complaint—details the factual
basis for the action and alleges security concerns under Guideline D for sexual behavior and
Guideline E for personal conduct. Applicant timely replied to the SOR and requested a hearing. 
In addition to the Directive, this case is brought under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (Revised Guidelines) approved by
the President on December 29, 2005. The Revised Guidelines were then modified by the Defense
Department, effective September 1, 2006. They supersede or replace the guidelines published in
Enclosure 2 to the Directive and Appendix 8 to DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, and they apply to all
adjudications and other determinations where an SOR has been issued on September 1, 2006, or
thereafter.  Both the Directive and the Regulation are pending formal amendment. The Revised2
Guidelines apply to this case because the SOR is dated February 1, 2007. This matter was noted on
the record at the start of the hearing (R. 15).
The case was assigned to me March 29, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued scheduling the
hearing for April 24, 2007. The hearing took place as scheduled. DOHA received the hearing
transcript May 8, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s written answer to the SOR allegations was mixed. He admitted the allegations
in SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c, and 1.d, and he denied the allegations in SOR subparagraphs 1.b, 1.e,
and 2.a. Based on his hearing testimony, his answer was amended to admit SOR subparagraphs 1.b
and 1.e (R. 39–40, 54–55). His admissions are incorporated herein. I make the following findings
of fact set forth below. 
3
1. Applicant is a 51-year-old security officer for a company that provides security services. He
has worked for this company since July 2004. According to his current manager, Applicant has been
the “proverbial straight arrow” at work (Exhibit A). His manager views Applicant as a person of high
character, ethics, and behavior, and that he is one of the most responsible security officers on the
team.  
2. To obtain an industrial security clearance for his current employment, Applicant completed
a security-clearance application in November 2005 (Exhibit 1). In response to Question 22 about his
employment record, he disclosed that in March 2003 he was fired from his job as a film inspector
for an information-solutions company. 
3. Applicant’s employment history includes a 20-year period of military service in the U.S. Air
Force. He enlisted in September 1975, and was promoted up the ranks to tech sergeant (pay grade
E-6). Initially, he was trained in the field of aircraft refueling. He was then trained and worked in the
field of weather observing and forecasting. He was working as a weather forecaster when he retired
in September 1995. While in the Air Force, he  held a security clearance at the secret and top-secret
levels. 
4. About two months later, Applicant started working as a film inspector and did so until he was
terminated in March 2003. Sometime in 2002, Applicant realized he was being drawn to viewing
adult pornography via the Internet while at work. He accessed pornography two to three times per
week, and he would sometimes spend a couple of hours looking at the material (R. 35). Applicant
went to his supervisor and asked to be banned from the Internet at work. Nevertheless, Applicant
went on to use a company computer to view adult pornography on the Internet. His actions were
discovered by another employee, and the company determined that Applicant had accessed the
material. The company referred Applicant to their employee-assistance program (EAP) in lieu of
terminating him for violating company rules.
5. Applicant attended about six counseling sessions with a counselor through the EAP program.
He then requested to change to a Christian counselor. He established a patient–counselor relationship
with a licensed mental-health practitioner/certified counselor. 
6. In March 2003, Applicant relapsed when he viewed adult pornographic material by using a
company computer during work. He admitted the conduct to management and he was fired the same
day. The resulting period of unemployment caused Applicant other problems, including a home
foreclosure when he was unable to keep up with the required mortgage payments.
7. From about January 2003 to about August 2006, Applicant received treatment from a medical
doctor engaged in the general practice of medicine, sometimes called a family practitioner. During
this time, Applicant was diagnosed as dysthmia with compulsive behavior, i.e., pornography.
Dysthmia disorder is a mood disorder, the essential feature of which is a chronically depressed mood
that occurs for most of the day more days than not for at least two years (Exhibit 2). As a result,
Applicant was prescribed various medications, and he is currently taking Zoloft (R. 46). It is
commonly prescribed for depression (Exhibit 3).
8. In addition to the counseling in 2002–2003, Applicant has continued to see the same mental-
health practitioner, and does so currently at a frequency of about twice a month. The mental-health
 According to the dictionary, Peeping Tom was a legendary citizen of Coventry who watched Lady Godiva3
riding naked. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 855 (10  ed., 2002). The term is commonly understood to meanth
voyeurism. 
 Executive Order 10865, § 7.4
4
practitioner testified on Applicant’s behalf at the hearing. Her educational background includes a
master’s degree in counseling. That was followed by a two-year internship and a licensing
examination. She has been a licensed mental-health practitioner since 2001, and she is also a
certified professional counselor. Her treatment plan for Applicant involves talk therapy. She has seen
a dramatic change or improvement in Applicant during the counseling. In her opinion, Applicant’s
depression is in remission and his addiction to Internet pornography is in recovery (meaning he is
not participating). Her current treatment plan for Applicant will continue to be talk therapy about
every two weeks or so. Her prognosis for Applicant for both the depression and the addiction to
pornography is very good (R. 85). She is of the opinion that Applicant has developed coping skills
to control his addiction that he previously did not have (R. 80). 
9. In addition to the Internet pornography, Applicant has a 20-plus year history of engaging in
Peeping Tom  activities. It started when he was in his teens. It continued during his 20 years of3
military service. It tapered off after he retired from the Air Force in 1995, and Applicant believes it
ended sometime around 1997. During this period, Applicant estimates he engaged in Peeping
Tomism about once or twice a week. He was never caught or apprehended. He disclosed these
matters when he went into counseling for his addiction to Internet pornography. 
10. Applicant has engaged in no workplace misconduct at his current employer, including
viewing Internet pornography while at work. On occasion, Applicant views Internet pornography in
private. On average, he does so once a week or less (R. 51). And that has taken place as recently as
within the past month. 
POLICIES
The Revised Guidelines sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial
commonsense decision based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information, the
pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. A person granted access
to classified information enters into a special relationship with the government. The government
must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in those persons to whom it grants access
to classified information. The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination
of an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict4
guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance.
BURDEN OF PROOF
 ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (App. Bd. Jul. 11, 1997).5
 ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 2004).6
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.7
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.8
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.9
 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to a10
security clearance”); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10  Cir. 2002) (“It is likewise plain that thereth
is no ‘right’ to a security clearance, so that full-scale due process standards do not apply to cases such as Duane’s.”).
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.11
5
The only purpose of a security-clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  There is no5
presumption in favor of granting or continuing access to classified information.  The government6
has the burden of presenting evidence to establish facts alleged in the SOR that have been
controverted.  An applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or7
mitigate facts that have been admitted or proven.  In addition, an applicant has the ultimate burden8
of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.9
No one has a right to a security clearance.  As noted by the Supreme Court in Department10
of Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the11
Directive, any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information
will be resolved in favor of protecting national security.
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline D of the Revised Guidelines, sexual behavior that involves a criminal
offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, reflects a lack of judgment or discretion, or
which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information. No adverse inference may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the
individual. 
Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, a security concern is raised by Applicant’s
history of sexual behavior. His 20-plus year history of Peeping Tomism and his workplace
misconduct by accessing and viewing Internet pornography constitute a well-established history of
sexual behavior that calls into question his security suitability. Of particular concern is his addiction
to Internet pornography, which appears to be a serious and ongoing long-term problem. I reviewed
the DC under the guideline  and conclude several apply. Each DC is briefly summarized and
discussed below.
6
The first DC—sexual behavior of a criminal nature—applies in part. Applicant’s  Peeping
Tomism was criminal in nature, regardless that neither civil nor military authorities arrested,
charged, or prosecuted Applicant.
The second DC—a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual
behavior—applies. Both his Peeping Tomism and his addiction to Internet pornography were
ingrained patterns of behavior as opposed to an isolated incident or aberrational behavior. Both
activities were compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk behavior that Applicant was unable to stop
at the time. His Peeping Tomism was high-risk behavior because he put himself in jeopardy of
criminal sanctions if caught. His Internet addiction to pornography was self-destructive, as
demonstrated by his job termination in 2003 followed by a period of unemployment and financial
problems. 
 The third DC—sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or duress—does not apply. Although this may have been a concern in the past, it is not
a current concern given that Applicant has disclosed these matters through his counseling and to the
government through the security-clearance process. The likelihood of Applicant’s history of sexual
behavior being used against him to “cause” him to be vulnerable in a security context is relatively
remote and unlikely.
The fourth DC—sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that reflects a lack of discretion
or judgment—applies. Both his Peeping Tomism and using the Internet at work to view pornography
reflect a gross lack of discretion or judgment. This is especially so considering Applicant’s multiple
violations of company rules that led to his termination in 2003. 
I reviewed the MC under the guideline and conclude he receives credit in mitigation. Each
MC is briefly summarized and discussed below.
The first MC—the behavior occurred before or during adolescence and there is no evidence
of subsequent conduct of a similar nature—does not apply. Although his Peeping Tomism started
when he was a teenager, the record evidence is that the sexual behavior under review is not limited
to his adolescence. His Peeping Tomism continued for years until about 1997, and his Internet
addiction to pornography was a more recent development and continues. 
The second MC—the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur—does not apply. His behavior was recent, as shown
by his termination in March 2003, which is less than five years ago. His behavior was frequent, as
shown by the once a week Peeping Tomism. And his sexual behavior was not an aberrational or
situational event.
The third MC—the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or
duress—applies. As discussed above, the likelihood of Applicant’s history of sexual behavior being
used against him to “cause” him to be vulnerable in a security context is relatively remote and
unlikely.
The fourth MC—the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet—is
inapplicable to this case.
 The allegation in SOR subparagraph 2.a is merely a cross-reference to the allegations in SOR subparagraphs12
1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. In my view, an analysis of these matters under Guideline E does not result in any additional or
independent security concerns. Because these matters are explicitly covered under Guideline D and are sufficient for an
adverse determination under Guideline D, it is unnecessary to rehash it a second time. For these reasons, Guideline E
is decided for Applicant. 
7
I have also considered this case in light of the whole-person concept. Applicant is 51 years
old, and he was an adult for the vast majority of the time he engaged in the sexual behavior under
review. In addition to the MC discussed above, Applicant receives credit in mitigation for his
willingness to participate in counseling in the past and for his current counseling program. After
having a chance to listen to and observe him discuss his situation, I was impressed by his insight into
his behavior and his efforts to overcome his problems. 
Of concern is the seriousness of his addiction to Internet pornography and the recency of the
workplace misconduct that led to his termination in March 2003. When he was working as a film
inspector, he used the company computer to access and view Internet pornography as frequently as
two to three times weekly, and he spent considerable time doing so. He was caught and required to
obtain counseling or be fired. But he was unable to stay away, which eventually led to his
termination. His workplace misconduct is not ancient history, as it took place less than five years
ago. Although he has not accessed Internet pornography in his current employment, he has done so
in private. His continued viewing of Internet pornography in private means that it is possible that he
could relapse at the workplace. This circumstance, coupled with his current counselor’s unawareness
of his recent viewing of Internet pornography in private, lessen the weight that I give to the
counselor’s favorable prognosis. All these circumstances militate against a favorable decision for
Applicant. 
After weighing the favorable and unfavorable evidence, I conclude that Applicant has not
presented sufficient information to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Likewise,
he has not met his ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Here are my conclusions for each allegation in the SOR:
SOR ¶ 1–Guideline D: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs a–e: Against Applicant
SOR ¶ 2–Guideline E: For Applicant
Subparagraph a: For Applicant12
8
DECISION
In light of all the facts and circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge