Item 5.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-08575
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant sexually assaulted his two sisters, three cousins, and the six-year-old
daughter of friends over several years. He was reported to police for Serious Domestic
Assault of his estranged wife. He incurred over $34,500 in delinquent debts over the
past six years, with no evidence of payment toward, or other resolution of, any of those
debts. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the case
file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on July 8, 2009.  On1
June 14, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines
E (Personal Conduct), D (Sexual Behavior), and F (Financial Considerations).  The2
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive
Item 4.3
The Government submitted 12 Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Item 5.5
Item 4.6
Items 6, 7, and 8.7
Item 6 at 9.8
2
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines promulgated by the
President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for
SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 17, 2010, and requested that his
case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.3
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on August 17, 2010. A
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and4
he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on August 24, 2010, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on November 15, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 29-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he was hired
in February 2009. During the preceding four and a half years, except for a couple of
months between jobs, he was continuously employed in a number of different aviation
positions. He has never held a security clearance or served in the military. He is
married, but separated, with a two-year-old daughter.  In his response to the SOR, he5
admitted all but one allegation. He denied SOR ¶ 3.p, without explanation.  Applicant’s6
admissions, including his responses to DOHA interrogatories,  are incorporated in the7
following findings.
Applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on October 26, 2009. During that interview, he discussed having
sexually assaulted the six-year-old daughter of some family friends during 1999, when
he was 17 years old. He claimed not to be able to recall the specifics, but acknowledged
being confronted over the matter in 2001 by the victim’s father, and that he
subsequently apologized to the child and her parents for his actions.8
Item 5 at 52, 53.9
Item 6 at 10.10
Item 5 at 17, 33.11
Item 6 at 10, 11.12
Item 6 at 10.13
Item 10. 14
Item 5 at 45, 46, 49; Item 6 at 5, 8; Item 9. 15
Item 6 at 8-9; Item 7.16
3
When asked whether this girl was his only minor victim of sexual assault,
Applicant equivocated, and asked for further definitions of “sexual assault” and “minor.”
He then admitted to sexually assaulting his two sisters, one of whom is eight years,
eight months younger than he; and the other of whom is ten years, five months
younger.  He also admitted sexually assaulting three female cousins, aged from 12 to9
18 years, over the same period of two to three years. He said that this sexual activity
with his sisters and cousins ended in December 2000, when he moved to a distant
state.  His SF 86, however, reflects that he did not move to that state until July 2004.10 11
He further stated that the sexual activity with his sisters and cousins ended in July 2000,
five months after he turned age 18. Applicant has undergone no treatment or counseling
for sexual problems.  12
Applicant told the investigator that he had contacted the fathers of all his related
female victims, told them what had happened, and apologized for his actions. He said
he was inspired to do so when he realized that they would be giving their daughters in
marriage and he “wanted them to know that their daughters had been ‘dirtied’.”  He13
further said that all the related family members have forgiven him.
A police incident report from Applicant’s home town was filed on October 6,
2006, alleging that, on that date, Applicant and his next-younger brother (three and a
half years his junior) sexually abused their two sisters by forcibly fondling them.  On14
that date, Applicant was 24 years old, and his brother was 21. Their sisters were 15 and
14. 
About two months after their daughter was born, Applicant’s wife left him and
moved back to his hometown to live with his parents because he assaulted her. He did
not deny the assault, or others in which she alleged that he beat and choked her.
However, he claimed that the incidents happened while he was asleep. His wife filed a
police complaint on March 14, 2009, in his hometown, resulting in an Incident Report
charging him with Serious Domestic Assault.  He subsequently attended marriage15
counseling with a psychiatrist, once a week for nine weeks. He then ended this
counseling, without having completed treatment or obtaining any prognosis.16
Item 6 at 6. 17
Item 4; Item 11; Item 12.18
Item 6 at 7; Item 4.19
Item 8. 20
4
Applicant said that his financial problems began when his wife moved to live with
him in December 2005.  Since that time, he incurred the 15 delinquent debts as alleged17
in SOR ¶¶ 3.a through 3.o, totaling $34,546. These debts range from a $26 telephone
bill to a $7,059 charged-off credit card account that is in collections. Applicant admitted
to each of these debts.  He denied the $350 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.p, involving an18
overdrawn checking account. This debt does not appear on his credit reports. The
allegation was based on his description of the debt to an OPM investigator. He provided
no reason for his formal denial of the debt, nor any explanation of what happened to it.19
On March 8, 2010, Applicant responded to interrogatories from DOHA
concerning his debts. He explained that he had not made any payments toward any of
them. He said that he was “just over halfway building up my ‘emergency fund’ see
[website address]. So currently I have done nothing to resolve [any of the debts].”  He20
did not provide any evidence to support his assertion that he was saving any money.
Nor did he provide evidence of either financial counseling or a current budget that would
indicate that additional financial problems are unlikely to arise. 
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.
5
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the
Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant
or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to
obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides:
“[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty
of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes the DCs under this guideline. The specific Guideline E
concern raised by the SOR allegations is:
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
6
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s
personal, professional, or community standing. . .
Applicant admitted that he sexually assaulted and molested his two young
sisters, three cousins, and the six-year-old daughter of family friends, over several
years, including at least several times after he turned 18. He has yet to be formally
charged with any of these sex crimes. His Serious Domestic Assault of his wife led to
their separation in March 2009, and a resulting police report in his hometown. Applicant
made no showing that his employer had any knowledge of these matters. There is also
no indication that his wife is aware of his extensive history of child molestation. These
facts establish concerns under AG ¶ 16(e), and shift the burden to Applicant to establish
mitigation.
AG ¶ 17 provides personal conduct MCs. The only MCs with potential
applicability to the foregoing security concerns are: 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Minimal, if any, mitigation under AG ¶ 17(c) was established. Applicant’s sexual
and domestic assaults were repeated and relatively recent. No unique circumstances
were established to provide any justification for this conduct, which could easily recur
and casts serious ongoing doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and
judgment. AG ¶ 17(d) was not established because he unpersuasively tried to minimize
the seriousness of his crimes and their sexual nature. He attended some marriage
counseling, but his ongoing concealment of the nature of his actions from friends,
coworkers, and his wife portends continuing vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation,
and duress. AG ¶ 17(e) was therefore not established.
Guideline D, Sexual Behavior
AG ¶ 12 expresses the security concern under this guideline:
Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or
emotional disorder, reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may
subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or
7
duress can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness
and ability to protect classified information. No adverse inference
concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the
basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.
AG ¶ 13 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The sexual behavior DCs raised by the evidence in this case are:
(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has
been prosecuted;
(b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high risk sexual behavior
that the person is unable to stop or that may be symptomatic of a
personality disorder; and
(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or duress.
Applicant’s sexual assaults and molestation of his two young sisters, his three
cousins, and the six-year-old daughter of family friends establish security concerns
under AG ¶¶ 13(a), (b), and (c). The degree and extent of sexual misconduct that
Applicant committed reflect a serious lack of judgment or discretion, and establish an
ongoing vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress. The burden thus shifts to
Applicant to extenuate or mitigate these security concerns flowing from his admitted
behavior.
AG ¶ 14 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns (MCs):
(a) the behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no
evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;
(b) the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under
such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(c) the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and 
(d) the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet.
Some of Applicant’s sexual misconduct occurred when he was under 18 years
old, but it continued after he reached the age of majority, precluding mitigation under
AG ¶ 14(a). In particular, a police report reflects his forcible fondling of his sisters in
October 2006, when he was 24 years old. Applicant’s sexual behavior of concern
involved multiple incidents and victims, and was not under any unusual circumstances
8
that might explain it. Applicant offered no evidence from which to conclude that
recurrence of his predatory sexual gratification is unlikely, or that his reliability and
judgment have improved. Accordingly, mitigation under AG ¶ 14(b) was not established.
Applicant also failed to demonstrate mitigation under AG ¶ 14(c), as discussed above
under Guideline E. Much of Applicant’s sexual behavior of security concern was private,
in that it was not known to others. That would alleviate concerns under AG ¶ 13(d) for
public sexual acts, but his conduct did not reflect good judgment or discretion, and its
private nature forms the basis for ongoing coercion concerns under AG ¶ 13(c). 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set
out in AG ¶ 18:      
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
Department Counsel argued that the evidence established security concerns
under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant has been unable or unwilling to satisfy numerous debts over the past
six years, totaling over $34,500. Whether this was through unwillingness or inability, or
some combination of both, is not clear from the record evidence, but no other
explanation was offered. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and (c) were accordingly established, thereby
shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
9
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s delinquent debts, in excess of $34,500, arose over the past six years
and continue to date. Applicant failed to demonstrate that such problems are unlikely to
continue or recur, or that his reliability and trustworthiness have improved. The evidence
does not support the application of AG ¶ 20(a). 
Applicant was continuously employed throughout the period in question, with
minor exceptions, according to his security clearance application, and offered no
evidence that would support mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). He and his wife simply spent
more than they earned on a regular basis. Applicant did not undergo financial
counseling, and he offered no evidence to establish clear indications that the problem is
being resolved or is under control. MC 20(c) is therefore inapplicable. 
Applicant offered no evidence to corroborate any payment to any of the SOR-
listed creditors. Nor did he submit evidence of any arrangements to repay or otherwise
resolve any of those debts. No mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d) was proven. Finally,
Applicant denied the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.p, but he provided no proof that it was not
his debt, or that he took any action to otherwise resolve the issue. He therefore failed to
meet his burden of proof under AG ¶ 20(e). 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
10
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial irresponsibility spans the past six years,
and continues at present. It involves substantial debts to many different creditors
totaling more than $34,500, with no indication that such conduct has ended. He
demonstrated neither the means nor the willingness to fulfill his legal obligations to
these creditors. He also engaged in a pattern of sexually assaulting and abusing young
girls to whom he was related or knew as a family friend, and physically assaulted his
wife on multiple occasions before she left him. He offered no evidence of rehabilitation
or of responsible conduct in other areas of his life. The potential for pressure, coercion,
and duress from all of this misconduct remains undiminished. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his personal conduct, sexual behavior, and
financial considerations.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline D: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.p Against Applicant
11
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge