KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge explicitly addressed the evidence cited by Applicant.  The Judge reasonably
explained why Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-06873.a1
DATE: 12/18/2009
DATE: December 18, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06873
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 March 11, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
Item 4 contains, inter alia, the two articles and the note, which was written by A and addressed to Applicant.1
It describes A’s anger over the molestation.  The Judge stated that he considered the fact that the note was sent to
Applicant but that he did not consider it for the truth of the matters contained therein.  Decision at 2.
The SOR alleged that Applicant continued as an adult Scout leader at least through 2005.  Applicant admitted2
this allegation in his response to the SOR.    
2
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On October 2, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 the Judge mis-weighed the record
evidence; whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s
adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He holds
a Masters degree in Engineering.  He is married with two children.
Applicant has a long association with the Boy Scouts of America.  He was a Scout as a youth
and later served as an adult leader.  From 1986 to 1987, while a Scout leader, Applicant engaged in
sexual contact with a Boy Scout (A), who was 15 and 16 years old.  Three of the incidents occurred
during Scout-sponsored events and another four occurred either at Applicant’s home or on trips taken
with the knowledge and consent of A’s parents.  During several of the incidents, either Applicant
or A or both had consumed alcohol.  In fact, Applicant provided the alcohol on more than one
occasion.   
Applicant met his wife in 1987.  After that, he had no further sexual contact with A who,
nevertheless, was an usher at Applicant’s wedding and babysat for Applicant’s older child.  
In 2003 Applicant received a phone call from an old girlfriend of A.  “She told him that she
was in possession of some letters that indicated that Applicant had sexually abused A.  She asked
to meet Applicant to discuss the letters.”  Decision at 3.  Later the same woman phoned Applicant’s
wife, telling her about the molestation.  Applicant subsequently received two envelopes in the mail,
which contained articles about child abuse.  The second envelope also contained a handwritten note.1
In 2004 Applicant admitted his sexual involvement with A to his wife and to government
investigators.  As a consequence, a government agency revoked Applicant’s access to Sensitive
Compartmented Information (SCI).  Applicant’s response to the SOR included a copy of his written
appeal of the 2005 SCI denial.  The appeal contains numerous letters praising Applicant’s character,
job performance, loyalty, and reliability.  It also contains letters from people who know Applicant
through the Boy Scouts.   These letters state that they trust Applicant with their children.  “None of2
3
the letters stated that the authors were aware of Applicants’s sexual relationship with a [S]cout.”  Id.
at 5.  The appeal also contained a psychological evaluation of Applicant, which concluded that he
was not a pedophile and that there is little likelihood that anything like Applicant’s conduct with A
would happen again.
On appeal, Applicant appears to contend that the Judge either did not consider or that he mis-
weighed favorable evidence, such as the letters of reference and the psychological evaluation.
However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23,
2008).  Indeed, the Judge explicitly addressed the evidence cited by Applicant.  However, he also
provided a reasonable explanation for his conclusion that Applicant had failed to meet his burden
of persuasion as to mitigation.  The Judge noted the serious nature of Applicant’s misconduct, in that
it involved multiple incidents in which he abused a position of trust and responsibility.  He also
noted a paucity of record evidence as to the current nature, if any, of Applicant’s interactions with
A and that Applicant retains an association with the Boy Scouts, although the record provides no
reason to believe that Scouting officials or parents are aware of his misconduct.  The Judge
concluded that Applicant remains vulnerable to pressure, coercion, exploitation, and duress.
Applicant has provided no reason to believe that the Judge failed to consider record evidence or that
he mis-weighed the evidence.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge 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 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 9.  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
4
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board