1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-01033
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On April 16, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant enumerating security concerns arising under
Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In a May 10, 2012, response, Applicant denied all allegations and requested a
hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. DOHA assigned the case to me on June
7, 2012. The parties agreed to a hearing date of July 10, 2012, and a notice to that
effect was issued on June 15, 2012.  I convened the hearing as scheduled. Applicant
gave testimony and presented no witnesses. Department Counsel offered two
documents, which were admitted as exhibits (Exs.) 1-2 without objection. After the
hearing, I requested additional information on a topic referenced during the hearing. It
was submitted by Department Counsel, received without objection, and accepted into
the record as Hearing Exhibit (HE) 1. The transcript of the proceeding (Tr.) was
received on July 18, 2012. On July 19, 2012, Department Counsel forwarded without
objection a two-page document from Applicant, which was accepted as Ex. A. Based on
 A second polygraph was conducted about three weeks later concerning topics that were “more of the      1
same” about viewing pornography, but there is no reference to its content in the present case file. Tr. 25-27.
 Tr. 14. As redacted, it appears that the “Case Facts” materials in Ex. 2 (Interrogatories, dated Mar.9, 2012)      2
at 152-154 reflect a summary of information culled from interviews and polygraphs previously administered.
The author of the “Case Facts” is not identified. Neither the polygrapher, an interviewer, or an unredacted copy
of the Summary was presented at the hearing. All references to the Summary’s content herein are from the
“Case Facts” section in Ex. 2 (Interrogatories, dated Mar. 9, 2012).
 Tr. 23.      3
2
a review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant met his burden of
mitigating the security concerns raised. Clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old corporate vice president of a defense contractor. He
has been with that entity since 2002. Applicant is a graduate of a U.S. military academy
and has a degree in engineering. He is married and has three children. He has
maintained a security clearance for over 25 years. 
In September 2008, Applicant voluntarily sought and underwent the investigation
process of another agency for a security clearance. His decision was optional; he was
not required by his position to obtain such access and he understood the vetting
process of that agency. During the investigation, he was subject to interviews and at
least one polygraph examination.  He did not take notes during the interviews or1
polygraph questioning. He never saw or approved for accuracy any version of the final
Summary, which he was later provided and ultimately forwarded to DOD for this
process. After the conclusion of a polygraph administered on or about September 23,
2008, Applicant was ultimately disapproved for a clearance at the other agency. In July
or August 2010, he appealed the other agency’s adverse determination. That action is
still pending. 
The basis for the SOR allegations is the redacted Summary that Applicant
provided DOD from the other agency. It is referenced interchangeably as the Summary
and the clearance decision statement.  It was provided by Applicant to DOHA in2
response to an interrogatory request. The same allegation is raised under three
different guidelines. It states that “between 1998 and 2008, [Applicant] deliberately
searched for and viewed sexually explicit images of underage females.” The term
“sexually explicit” is undefined.
Applicant disputes the accuracy of the Summary. He has consistently admitted
that he searched for and viewed sexually explicit images of women on the Internet
between 1998 and 2008. He credibly and adamantly denies a number of the comments
attributed to him regarding his alleged intentional search for images of underage
females. At the hearing, he stated, “I had no specific knowledge that [the models] were
over 18. But I had no specific knowledge that they were under 18.”   He argued that,3
taken as a whole, the Summary makes no sense. 
 The SOR is phrased with regard to “sexually explicit images” without definition. No definition was offered      4
at the hearing. The Summary does not explain its use of the term “sexual activity” or “sexually explicit images.”
18 U.S.C. Chapter 110 (Sexual Exploitation of Children and Other Abuse of Children) provides some
guidance. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines child pornography as a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct. It specifies that the minor be a person under the age of 18. In addition, 18 U.S.C. §1466(a)
finds that it is a depiction of a person under the age of 18 who is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and
is obscene or involves bestiality, sado-masochistic abuse, or intercourse, including actual or simulated genital-
genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal intercourse which lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value. Under these definitions, it appears sexually explicit conduct requires specificity, particularly
with regard to the conduct in which the model is engaged. It also requires that the model actually be under
the age of 18. 
 Applicant denied ever having employed such a definition. Tr. 23.      5
 Applicant credibly denies ever having owned a personal laptop computer. The Government argues that      6
because he kept his web searches a secret from his wife for years, he, too, could have kept the existence of
a laptop  at home and used for these purposes a secret. The Government’s suggested theory is plausible,
but not probable. Given the precautions Applicant already took to conceal his pursuit of pornography from his
wife, there was no logical reason for Applicant to have increased her level of suspicion by making a costly
purchase and concealing something as notable as a laptop computer in their home or vehicle.  Performing
his searches on the home computer and clearing the history files after his searches would be more than
sufficient to disguise his activities from his otherwise unsuspecting wife.
 Later, it is noted that Applicant “would look up the names of actors he has recently seen while watching      7
movies or the television.” In its phrasing and focus, the Summary seems to suggest that all such random
searches eventually culminated in nude imagery. 
3
The Summary opens directly by stating Applicant has viewed nude images of
fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year old girls. The images allegedly contained underage
females posing in different positions as well as engaging in sexual activity with other
females, males, or both sexes. This is the only reference in the Summary indicating the
models at issue were not appearing by themselves. It does not explain what constituted
“sexual activity” or describe the females’ poses.  4
The Summary states that Applicant determines approximate age by physical
development, noting that “a fifteen year old would usually not have any breasts, and
have little or no pubic hair.”  It is unclear whether this standard was meant for5
application only to females or to both sexes. No other references are made regarding
males. The Summary states that he looked for underage imagery ten-percent of the
time he conducted such searches.
The Summary states and Applicant agrees that he viewed images of nude
women without detection by his wife or anyone else for a decade. He disagrees that he
did so by using “his personal laptop computer when home alone,” noting he never
owned a personal laptop.  6
It further states that Applicant would use Google to search for the name of a
“young athletic female, usually runway models, adult film stars, or young movie stars
such as the young girl in [a popular family movie franchise]. After these images appear,
he continues to click on the images until he comes across nude images of them.”7
Applicant agreed he searched for such images using this haphazard approach and via
links to other websites. The Summary does not identify the “young girl” from the high
 HE-1 (Post-hearing submission, indicating the youngest of the three leading female starlets was 17 when      8
the first film was released). 
 Merriam-W ebster defines “disclaimer” as: “a denial or disavowal of a legal claim, a repudiation.” See      9
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclaimer (as of Sep. 23, 2012).
 Tr. 21.      10
4
school movie, but it is noted that the actresses portraying upperclassman ranged from
17 to late-20s in the 2006 film, then were progressively older in the 2007 and 2008
sequels.8
Elsewhere, the Summary states that he “will not go to sites which contain
disclaimers stating the individuals depicted on the sites are eighteen years of age or
older. Subject indicated he has seen the disclaimer on some sites and has chosen not
to proceed to the sites after viewing the disclaimer.”  9
 
The Summary reports that Applicant stated he saw a “fifteen year old girl” on the
Internet in July 2008. It is not noted whether this model had pubic hair or breasts, or
indicate upon what basis he concluded her age. It later states that he has never seen a
prepubescent model on the Internet, and noted that he would not feel comfortable
viewing such content. In contrast, Applicant has consistently stated that he last viewed
nude images on the Internet in June 2008.
   
The Summary concludes by noting that Applicant has two daughters. It reports
that he was occasionally excited by the sight of his teenage daughter’s friends “in midriff
tops and short shorts,” and by attractive students he sees pass his house on their way
to high school. It does not define the term “excited” with any specificity or explain the
significance of these remarks. Of similarly vague relevance is the statement that he had
seen his daughter, who lives along with Applicant, her mother, and her siblings, naked. 
The Summary is unsigned. There is no indication that Applicant was given the
opportunity to review or correct the notes of either the interviewers or polygrapher
before the final Summary was comprised. Applicant finds the redacted Summary to be
“the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.”  10
There is scant use of quoted material in the redacted Summary, little indication
of the questions posed to Applicant, and no signature space for either Applicant, the
interviewer, the polygrapher, or the author. In response to Applicant’s request for his
file, a July 8, 2010, letter from a senior adjudication officer responding to a request for a
copy of the investigative file noted that “certain categories of U.S. Government
Information, such as polygraph records, are exempt in their entirety from release.” That
letter is followed by several pages of boilerplate language concerning the release of
information, and instructions as to how one can request a personal appearance. What
follows at Ex. 2, page 151, are redacted sections concerning an applicant’s biographical
information and current processing, including blank sections for credit report and
polygraph information. The Summary’s Case Facts are followed by a section for
recommended action, i.e., security disapproval.
 Ex. 2 (Interrogatories, Interview, at 140).      11
 Id.      12
 Tr. 36-37.      13
 Tr. 11.      14
 Tr. 12.      15
 For example, Applicant pointed to the oddly worded sentence in the Summary that states he “will not go      16
to sites which contain disclaimers stating the individuals depicted on the sites are eighteen years of age or
older,” (emphasis added)  thus implying he avoided sites where the models were of legal age. Tr. 21.The
Summary does not explain why a site offering nude images of legal, adult models would need to disclaim its
models are of legal age, as opposed to inquiring whether the viewer is of legal age to see them. 
5
Applicant last viewed nude images on the Internet in or just prior to June 2008,
when he disclosed his web searches to his wife. He stopped searching for pornography
because he felt it was not appropriate, and because he felt if he had to sneak around to
view it, he should not be doing it. He also found the searches antithetical to his religious
faith.
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on August 25, 2010.
On that form, he noted that he had a clearance denied as the result of the polygraph
clearance process, and wrote that he had requested review of that determination.
During an interview on October 19, 2010, Applicant told Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) investigators that “while he had done nothing illegal, being a
married, Catholic man with children, he was indeed embarrassed and ashamed of”
viewing pornographic images.  He also told the OPM investigator that the “female11
polygraph examiner seemed to take offense to subject’s admission.”  Later, at the12
hearing, he suggested the polygrapher did not understand the Internet search methods
for finding images of nude women on the Internet.13
Applicant argues that the Case Facts in Ex. 2 (Summary) contain information
that was taken out of context or highly embellished,  completely untrue,  and generally14 15
irrational. He pointed to portions that made questionable sense.  He takes the16
allegation and accompanying innuendo in the Summary as a personal affront,
particularly the juxtaposition of information regarding his daughter and her friends within
the framework of attributed statements purporting to detail his intentional pursuit of
sexually explicit images of underage females on the Internet. 
While Applicant admits that he disclosed the fact he would search on Google or
Yahoo for images of nude women, he stresses he did not conduct such searches on a
regular basis. It was only something he did “from time to time, over a ten-year period,”
 Tr. 23.      17
 Tr.  23. See also 18 U.S.C. Chapter 110, noted above at footnote 4, section on “Congressional Findings,”      18
citing to Pub. L. 108-21, Title V, Sec. 501 (Apr. 30, 2003), 117 Stat. 676 (“Child pornography circulating on
the Internet has, by definition, been digitally uploaded or scanned into computers or has been transferred over
the Internet, often in different file formats. . . . An image seized . . . is rarely a first-generation product, and the
retransmission of images can alter the image so as to make it difficult for even an expert conclusively to opine
that a particular image depicts a real child.” 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      19
  ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      20
6
and that he had quit looking for such images before the polygraph.  He reiterated it17
would be impossible for him to know the ages of models found on the Internet.  18
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all 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 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a19
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  20
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 safeguard classified information.
 Id.      21
 Id.      22
 AG ¶ 12.      23
7
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about
potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt as to whether an applicant should be allowed access21
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.22
Analysis
Guideline D – Sexual Behavior
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 duress can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  Here, Applicant admits that he secretly looked for sexually explicit images23
of females on the Internet between 1998 and 2008. Evidence was presented indicating
that Applicant admitted searching for and viewing sexually explicit of underage females
during that same time. Such facts are sufficient to raise Sexual Behavior Disqualifying
Conditions AG ¶ 13(a) (sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the
individual has been prosecuted), AG ¶ 13(c) (sexual behavior that causes an individual
to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress), and AG  ¶ 13(d) (sexual behavior
of a public nature and/or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment). With disqualifying
conditions raised, the burden moves to Applicant to mitigate security concerns.
According to the refuted Summary, Applicant stated that he viewed Internet
images of 15, 16, and 17-year-old females on the Internet who were modeling or
engaging in unspecified sexual activity. It also notes that he last saw a 15-year-old
model shortly before or in June 2008. The Summary does not mention how Applicant
knew the legal ages of those models, it does not define with any specificity the type of
“sexual activity” in which the model or models were allegedly engaged, nor does it
provide a basis for implying the activity at issue was one legally proscribed. Indeed, if
anything, his attributed comments begged further inquiry to clarify these points. 
The Summary does convey that Applicant “explained a fifteen-year-old would
usually not have any breasts, and have little or no pubic hair.” This appears to be his
basis for determining the age of the younger models he viewed. At best, this comment
is anecdotal. It seems to be based on Applicant’s opinion or belief that Internet
 In the event the actress alluded to but unnamed as the “young girl” in the family film franchise was the      24
sole 17-year-old playing a leading character, it is noted that the film was the product of a family studio and for
a family audience. It is unlikely the producers would have retained a 17-year-old actress for future sequels if
she had nude images available on the Internet.
 Tr. 23.      25
8
photographs are uniformly accurate representations of their subjects, or on his
perception of female maturation. It does not provide a legal measurement of age.
Moreover, the Summary later relates that Applicant stated he has never viewed, nor
would he feel comfortable viewing, “prepubescent women.” Given his description of a
15-year-old girl’s physical attributes, this statement could be viewed as incongruous
with his admission that he purposefully risked viewing such girls in that age range while
surfing the Internet. Indeed, in order to embrace the Summary as a consistent
expression of Applicant’s questioning, one would have to conclude that Applicant defied
statistics by haphazardly searching for, and only discovering, images of 15-year-olds
with notable busts and pubic hair, while somehow screening out images of what he
apparently defined as the majority of 15-year-old females en route.  
Moreover, it is the legal age of the model, not the belief or illusion that they are or
might be underage, that may proscribe viewing nude underage models in a sexual
context. Fantasy is not necessarily fact, particularly in the world of legitimate adult
erotica and the era of image editing software, where a 30-year-old housewife can
believably portray a 17-year-old high school cheerleader. Indeed, it is also a common
practice in the general film industry to have actors and actresses well into their 20s
playing teenage roles.  Here, the images viewed are not available and are not24
described. There is no evidence of an industry standard outside of adult film requiring
Internet posters to certify the ages of their models. There is no evidence Applicant knew
any of the models were underage. The fact that Applicant may have thought, guessed,
or fantasized that some models were between the ages of 15 and 17 is irrelevant;
neither thought, guesswork, or fantasy makes the models underage. Indeed, he was
highly credible at the hearing when he stated, “I had no specific knowledge that [the
models] were above 18. But I had no specific knowledge that they were under 18.”     25
Applicant admits, however, that he has surfed the Internet for images of nude
women at various times between 1998 and 2008. He has been consistent in his denials
regarding intentional searches for images of underage females. It is highly plausible
that in conducting broad and random Internet searches for naked females he may have
encountered images of females who actually were only approaching 18, were made to
appear to be in the 15-17 age range, or who were either posed or in garb intended to
suggest the model was in her teen years. Random web surfing, particularly for
something of a sexual nature, may well result in unsolicited pop-ups, unintended links,
or inaccurate results. Either through the recognition that such Internet surfing was a
waste of time or antithetical to his religious convictions, he quit such surfing by June
2008. He disclosed his past Internet searches to his wife, putting her on notice that it
was a practice in which he had engaged. He honestly disclosed that he had a clearance
denied due to polygraph test failing on his SF-86, thus providing notice to investigators
 AG ¶ 30.      26
9
that there was an issue concerning his 2008 investigation. He has not revisited
pornography or nude sites in over four years. Sexual Behavior Mitigating Condition AG
¶14(b) (the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such
circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) and AG ¶ 14(c) (the behavior no
longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress) applies.    
Guideline J – Criminal Conduct 
The concern under this guideline is that criminal activity creates doubt about a
person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into
question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.  In26
this case, Applicant admits he actively searched for and viewed images of naked
females on the Internet. The Government submitted material reflecting that Applicant
admitted to intentionally searching for and viewing images of nude underage females.
If true, this is sufficient to raise Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 31(c)
(allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was
formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). 
Statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2256 note that it is the age of the minor, not the
age the viewer believes that model to be, that establishes whether an image is
potentially proscribed. As noted in the preceding section, there is no evidence that any
of the nude models Applicant viewed were, in fact, underage. The Summary supporting
the allegation fails to point to evidence establishing, and articulates no rational basis for
concluding, he actually viewed underage females. In disputing multiple admissions
attributed to him in the Summary, Applicant credibly denies ever having intentionally
searched for or viewed nude underage models on the Internet. At best, his attributed
admission was based on fantasy or speculation, not on the actual age of the models,
which is the legally determining factor as to whether criminal conduct occurred.
Consequently, no disqualifying condition applies.  
However, if the Summary were to be construed as completely accurate, the only
indication that Applicant committed a criminal offense is his attributed admission that he
viewed nude underage females. Apparently, he based this conclusion in terms of his
stereotype of physical attributes alone of some of the models he viewed. This, however,
does not establish that the models were underage. Indeed, given modern photographic
methods and the nature of the Internet, Applicant’s admission is based on mere
guesswork. As Applicant noted, he had no evidence of any of the models’ actual ages.
Such factors are sufficient to give rise to Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition AG ¶
32(c) (evidence that the person did not commit the offense).  
Moreover, Applicant ceased looking for all nude imagery by June 2008. He had
quit surfing the Internet for such images by June 2008. He did so out of embarrassment
 AG ¶ 15.      27
10
and remorse that he was acting in a covert manner behind his wife’s back, and in an
attempt to become reconnected to his religious convictions. He confessed his past
Internet searching for such images to his wife. He disclosed his adverse polygraph
findings on his security clearance application. His abuse of the Internet appears to be
the only adverse conduct of record in his otherwise respectable life. It seems highly
unlikely that he will again use the Internet to search for any such images. In light of
these facts, I find that AG ¶ 32(d) (there is evidence of successful rehabilitation,
including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity,
remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement) applies.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because 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.  As addressed in the27
preceding sections, Applicant’s covert efforts and pursuit of Internet nudity shows
dubious judgment, raises questions concerning his trustworthiness, and made him
potentially vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, and duress. Therefore, Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(e) (personal conduct, or concealment of
information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect
the person’s personal, professional, or community standing. . . .) applies. Consequently,
the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns.
In searching for nude imagery, Applicant’s main concern seems to have been
keeping his wife unaware of his Internet pursuit. By June 2008, he had disclosed to her
the facts surrounding his search for sex-based imagery. He did so as the result of guilt,
the acceptance that it was a needless pastime, and in a reaffirmation of his faith. Their
marriage has survived. He provided notice of the adverse investigation’s results on his
SF-86. He provided this process with a copy of the redacted Summary. Even assuming
all the contents of the Summary are correct, Applicant has given up searching for such
imagery and has not done so in nearly four-and-a-half years. With his wife now
apprised of his past transgressions, it is highly unlikely he will ever again take the risks
of surfing the Internet for titillation. Based on the foregoing, I find that Personal Conduct
Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or
eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress) applies.
Furthermore, the Summary or the underlying investigation is, at best, untidy. The
Summary reflects poor effort to reconcile discrepancies, clarify references, or flesh out
damning admissions. First, the conflicting information as to whether Applicant saw 15-
year-old subjects is discussed above. Second, the attributed admission that he “will not
go to sites which contain disclaimers stating the individuals depicted on the sites are
 As noted in the facts above, the Summary states that Applicant only looked for underage models ten-      28
percent of the time.
 In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the Supreme Court found that the term      29
“indecent” has no legal meaning in the context of the Internet. Notice is taken that since that time, the software
industry has attempted to help police the Internet with regard to indecent or adult content. In matters related
to nudity, violence, profanity, or Entertainment Software Board-rated content, the Adult Verification System
(AVS) is the system used on the Internet to legally protect against the dissemination of restricted material to
minors. It is the standard gateway to such materials and requires evidence that the viewer is an adult. It does
not certify the content contained on the website except as being adult in nature. 
11
eighteen years of age or older” makes little sense. To believe he would eschew such
cites simply because of this disclaimer leads to the conclusion that he either avoided
cites with this disclaimer or he was solely looking for cites devoted to showing underage
models. The latter interpretation conflicts with his attributed statement that he searched
for nude images of celebrated athletes, runway models, and stars of adult film,
individuals who are almost invariably 18 or older. The former interpretation implies he
found some sense in avoiding viewing options where the models were certified as 18
during the ninety-percent of the time he was specifically looking for adult models.  It is28
hard to fathom how one so haphazardly searching for such content should become so
selective over a disclaimer declaring that its contents are legal. Moreover, the standard
“disclaimer” on such cites is not to warn that the models are of legal age, but to advise
that the site’s content is age restricted and to ascertain whether the viewer is 18 years
of age or older.  Given Applicant’s denials of this statement, it remains unclear if such29
“disclaimers” regarding viewer restrictive but legal content are commonly used.   
Third, the starlets in the high school film noted were between the ages of 17 and
over 25 when the film was released in 2006. By 2008, all cast members were over 18,
one was nearing 30, and all were under contract to a family studio unlikely to provide
on-going support for a wayward starlet. To label any of these women as a “young girl” is
misleading. Fourth, the oxymoron created when the Summary  states that he would feel
uncomfortable “viewing prepubescent women” is worrisome in a Summary meant to
accurately convey statements made. Particularly in the absence of quotation marks, the
phrase needed clarification. Fifth, unless the interviewer or author perceived potential
risk, the references to Applicant’s daughter, her friends, and his home’s proximity to a
high school have no relevant nexus to Applicant’s alleged admissions. Their
juxtaposition only tend to suggest by innuendo a heightened level of prurient interest.
Sixth, the unsigned and redacted Summary’s minimal and selective use of quoted, as
opposed to attributed, material is scant and inconsistent. Given the problems with the
summary, I find that ¶ 17(f) (the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of
questionable reliability) applies in part.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶
2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c) should be considered. The ultimate determination of whether to
12
grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based on careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. As a witness, Applicant was highly credible in both his testimony and
demeanor. He is a mature and educated man who, in his ‘40s, admittedly searched for
nude female imagery on the Internet. He vehemently denies, however, having
intentionally searched for nude images of underage females, despite admissions to the
contrary noted in the redacted Summary he provided to the Government. The redacted
Summary contains unresolved flaws and unclarified statements. Such matters are
worrisome, particularly in the absence of an unredacted version of the Summary, copies
of the notes upon which the Summary was based, or testimony from its author. While
these flaws may not be sufficient to undermine the report in its entirety, they weaken
the presumption that it is an accurate reflection of Applicant’s questioning. It is not
immune from a weight and credibility analysis.  
Regardless, Applicant occasionally searched for nude Internet images. There is
no evidence his searches were an extension of a clinical mania or obsession. He
ceased viewing all nude imagery in June 2008. At that time, he confessed to his wife
that he had been covertly searching for nude images on the Internet. In doing so, he
was humbled and contrite. At the same time, he reconciled with the tenets of his faith.
His wife accepted his past transgressions, and the two remain married. He has not
searched for or viewed such images in nearly four-and-a-half years. He duly disclosed
that he had a clearance that was denied on his SF-86, thus giving notice that issues
were outstanding. He willingly provided DOHA with the redacted Summary
subsequently used as the basis for the allegations now at issue. There is no indication
he will again search for such material. His wife’s knowledge of his past transgressions
should help reenforce his commitment to staying away from sexual imagery of any kind.
  
As previously noted, the clearly consistent standard indicates that security
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. Any
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information. In light of
the Summary, Applicant’s highly credible testimony and demeanor, and the facts as a
whole, I have no reservations that Applicant will again search for such content in the
future and conclude that related security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. 
13
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline D: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance granted.
__________________________
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge