KEYWORD: Guideline D; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant had sexual intercourse with a girl he knew to be only
13 years old..  He will be on a sexual offender list until 2024.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-04384.a1
DATE: 06/08/2009
DATE: June 8, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-04384
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 10, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and
Item 7, State Sexual Offenders and Predators Laws, dated September 16, 2008.  This document includes1
legislative findings about sexual predators.  
The Judge found that Applicant was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act with a minor.  Item 6,2
Applicant’s sex offender registry entry, lists his offense as an attempted lewd and lascivious act with a minor.  However,
even if the Judge erred on this matter, the error is harmless.  See ISCR 01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case
No. 03-09915 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004); ISCR Case No. 01-11192 (App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2002). 
2
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On March 16, 2009,
after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact are supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no harmful error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a web developer for
a federal contractor.  He has never held a security clearance.
When he was 21 years old, Applicant began chatting on the internet with a female whom he
believed to be 17 or 18 years old.  The on-line conversations became sexually explicit, and soon they
agreed to meet at the girl’s home.  During the meeting, Applicant discovered that the girl was 13
years old.  Nevertheless, he had sexual intercourse with her in her bedroom.  Subsequently, they
chatted on line about once a month.  They met at a high school football game, walked to a nearby
wooded area, and had sexual intercourse once again.  The girl’s mother discovered the contents of
Applicant’s on-line chats and reported Applicant to the sheriff.  Applicant was arrested and charged
with “committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of 16.”  This was
a felony offense.  Applicant pled nolo contendere to this charge and was found guilty.  The court
sentenced him to 3 years probation, two years of community control, and a fine.  Applicant was also
required to register as a sex offender.  He will remain on the sex offender list until 2024.  Sex
offenders who prey on children are “sexual predators,” they present an “extreme threat to the public
safety,” and are “extremely likely to repeat their offenses.”   1
The Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by
substantial record evidence.  See  Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the
contrary evidence in the same record.”)   In support of his appeal Applicant has submitted new2
evidence, including character references and a copy of the conviction in his case.  The Board cannot
consider these documents.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
considered by the Appeal Board”).  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a
‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of
the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington
3
Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is
sustainable on this record.  Decision at 8.  See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent
with the interests of the national security’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett           
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board