KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s wife maintained two pornographic web sites, which could affect
Applicant’s professional or community standing.  Accordingly, they are a means through which
he could be subjected to coercion.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-06969.a1
DATE: 07/07/2010
DATE: July 7, 2010
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06969
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 E (Personal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On April 13, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry
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’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that at least some of the photos and written material on one of the wife’s pornographic sites1
were produced during the wife’s prior relationship with a man other than Applicant.  This relationship was part of a series
of events that achieved a degree of notoriety.  Although not separately alleged, these findings and the evidence upon
which they are based are relevant to the Judge’s whole-person analysis.  See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a).
In her findings, the Judge stated that Applicant denied that his wife solicits clients or advertises that she2
provides adult entertainment.  However, Applicant admitted this allegation in his response to the SOR.  Additionally,
the record contains evidence which supports Applicant’s admissions.  Government Exhibit (GE) 5 at 10-11; GE 8 at 2.
 
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact, which include Applicant’s
admissions contained in his response to the SOR: Applicant is a network architect for a Federal
contractor.  Applicant is married and has a child.
Applicant met his wife in the early 2000s, and they began dating in 2004, marrying two years
later.  Applicant’s wife maintains two web sites which specialize in hardcore pornographic content,
some of which includes photographs of her, as well as written commentary about events in her life.1
She does not identify herself explicitly in these web sites, relying on a pseudonym.  However, she
also operates a third web site under her own name, which contains references to Applicant.  It would
be possible for a person with the requisite computer skill to connect Applicant’s wife with the two
pornographic sites.  She solicits clients on one or more of her web sites, and she maintains an
“escort” posting advertising her own availability for “adult entertainment.”   2
Applicant’s family is not aware of these web sites.  Moreover, Applicant’s employer is not
aware of them either.  The Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated any steps he had taken
to reduce or eliminate his vulnerability to exploitation or coercion.  
Applicant contends on appeal that he has not advised his employer or his family members
of his wife’s web sites because the content is not something he would normally discuss with them.
He states that the web sites are accessible to the public and, therefore, are not by nature the sort of
private matters that could lead to blackmail.  However, under the facts of this case, the Judge’s
findings and the record evidence establish a reason to believe that the web sites, if they became
identified with Applicant through his wife, could affect his professional or community standing.
Accordingly, they are a means through which Applicant could foreseeably be subjected to coercion
or duress.  See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 16(e).  The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s presentation
failed to mitigate this concern is sustainable.
After reviewing the record, we conclude 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 Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “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: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board