1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-13664
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Elizabeth L. Newman, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Based on a review of the entire record, Applicant has failed to meet his ultimate
burden of persuasion under the sexual behavior and personal conduct guidelines. Eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant was interviewed by another government agency (AGA) on November 17,
2005, and July 23, 2008. On March 5, 2009, he provided a response to AGA September
18, 2008 letter disapproving his sensitive compartmented information access (SCI). He
certified and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on
April 8, 2010. He provided a signed affidavit to an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on November 15, 2010.
 Exhibit page numbers are located in the lower right hand corner of the page, unless otherwise noted.1
2
On October 24, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under sexual behavior (Guideline D) and
personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG), implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on November 19, 2012. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on January 15, 2013, for a hearing on February 1, 2013. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, four Government exhibits (GE) 1-4 were
admitted in evidence without objection.  Applicant’s exhibit (AE) A was admitted into1
evidence without objection. References to the transcript will be cited as Tr. followed by the
page number. DOHA received the transcript on February 11, 2013. The record closed on
February 11, 2013. 
Rulings on Procedure
On January 23, 2013, the Government filed a Motion to Amend the SOR 1.b by
replacing “pornography” with “nude and sexually explicit photos,” and replacing “August
2008" with “2002.” Applicant had no objection to the proposed amendment and the motion
was granted. (Tr. 13-14) The Motion to Amend has been entered into the record as Hearing
exhibit (HE) 1.
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains two allegations under the sexual behavior guideline and one
allegation under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant denied SOR 1.a. He admitted
SOR 1.b in part and denied in part. He indicated that his answers to SOR 1.a and 1.b also
apply to SOR 2.a. 
The following factual findings include consideration of the expansive type of
questions asked by examiners during polygraphs and interviews, along with the passage
of time since Applicant’s polygraph and interview. I have also taken into account his
experience with previous polygraphs and mental approach to taking the 2005 polygraph
and being interviewed in 2008. 
Applicant is 61 years old. He has been married since August 1979. He has three
sons, ages 31, 28, and 21. In June 1973, he received a bachelor’s degree in electrical
 Applicant had been interviewed by AGA at least one time before the November polygraph. (Tr. 92)2
3
engineering. He worked for several contractors until June 1983, when he began working
for his current employer. His present position is lead information systems engineer. He has
held security clearances since September 1973. (Tr. 91) His application for SCI access was
denied in September 2008. He seeks to retain his security clearance. 
Overview
The following dates are cited to provide a chronology of events in Applicant’s
security investigation:
November 17, 2005. Applicant participated in a polygraph examination with AGA for
approval of access to SCI.  One of the issues discussed was his viewing at home or work2
of nude and sexually-explicit images of underage or adult females on the Internet. 
July 23, 2008. Applicant had a face-to-face interview with a case manager from AGA
to discuss his viewing of sexually-explicit material of underage and adult females at home
or at work. 
September 19, 2008. The senior adjudication officer informed Applicant by letter that
he was disapproved for access to SCI on August 19, 2008. The decision was based on use
of technology systems, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. 
March 5, 2009. Applicant submitted a typed response to the senior case manager.
In the response, he indicated that he disagreed with the disapproval letter. He opined that
the redacted statements in the July 23, 2008 report (which included the redacted
statements in the November 2005 polygraph) were “incorrect and/or greatly exaggerated,”
and resulted from his misunderstanding the questions of the interviewer, or the interviewer
misunderstanding Applicant’s answers. Next, he addressed each sentence of the case
manager’s July 23, 2008 memorandum. Applicant stated, “The lack of knowing the specific
topic (in July 2008 interview) meant that I was unable to think about it ahead of time in
order to collect my thoughts.” (GE 2 at 296)
November 4, 2010. An affidavit signed by Applicant and subscribed by an
investigator from the OPM. 
SOR 1.a. Viewing nude and sexually-explicit pictures of underage females
A redacted version of the November 2005 polygraph report of AGA indicates that
Applicant had 500 to 1,000 images on his home computer involving underage females who
 At the hearing, he did not recall making the statement identifying the approximate number of underage3
images of girls or their age range. (Tr. 98)
4
were 11 or 12 to 17 years old. His best estimation of the youngest naked girl images were
approximately 11 to 13 years of age. He stated it was difficult at times to differentiate ages
15 to 17. Applicant would view and download images of sexual acts or images no matter
the age of the participants. He indicated about 20 to 25% of the images he obtained
through news groups (NG) were probably females less than 18. The report reflects that
Applicant stated adult females 18 to 50 were his first priority, then younger females 11 or
12 to 17, if the images were available and he was interested in them. He was embarrassed
to admit he liked girls under 18. (GE 2 at 280) 
In his March 2009 response, Applicant stated that the estimated number of
underage females was not accurate because he wanted to be “over inclusive.”  He believed3
that naked girls were not child pornography if they did not show anything sexually
provocative. In the period of dial-up Internet, Applicant used NG to download emails. If
there were any suggestive indicators the images could be underage females, he did not
download the email. Applicant did not know where the “20 to 25%” originated in the
November 2005 polygraph. Applicant denied the statement that  he liked girls under 18. He
stated his primary position, which he reiterated at the hearing, that during his search
through NG email, if there was any suggestion the contents related to young subjects, he
would not download the email. Applicant also testified that based on earlier polygraphs, the
examiner’s objective was to uncover all avenues of influence leading Applicant to
confessing more than what really occurred. According to Applicant when the words
“pornography” and “computer” came up during previous interviews, it was convenient to
answer in the affirmative that he had viewed something pornographic. Then if his security
knew he had seen pornography, a foreign agent could not use this information as a basis
for coercion. (GE 2 at 301-302; Tr. 27-29, 30, 39-40, 44-45, 98, 100) I have weighed
Applicant’s polygraph and interview statements against his written explanations and
testimony claiming the statements are inaccurate, exaggerated, or false. I do not find his
explanations credible. 
According to Applicant’s July 2008 redacted personal interview with AGA, he
reported viewing pornography once every two weeks since 2002, spending about a half
hour to an hour. He downloaded the images from his home computer onto 12 to 15 disks
after his November 2005 polygraph because he was embarrassed by it in his polygraph.
Applicant estimated there were about 12,000 images of underage girls on the disks. (GE
2 at 276)
In his March 2009 response, Applicant indicated he may have made the statement
(regarding viewing frequency), but he exaggerated when he labeled all the stored images
5
pornography because he did not know the definition of pornography. The images he stored
were of naked women in provocative positions. His embarrassment was due to the naked
women and other images being sexually suggestive. On reflection, he believed the images
were suggestive and not pornographic. The statement identifying the approximate number
of underage images was incorrect. The number “12,000" represented the total number of
images Applicant might have stored altogether and not the number of underage girls. In
other documentation, Applicant explained the “12,000" number referred to NG email
attachments. He noted the NG did not identify the ages of the females in the pictures so
whenever he saw a file name that implied youthful content inside, he did not download the
file. (GE 1 at 137, GE 2 at 296-297) Applicant’s explanations have been carefully
evaluated, but are not credible. 
Subsequently during his July 2008 personal interview with AGA, Applicant stated he
did not recall viewing underage pornography. He stated that he was unsure he had any
images of underage girls. Then he stated he had one or two disks of underage images. He
stated he had images of 14 to 15 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds. He surmised the
underage images were 14 to 15-year-old girls because the girls had fully developed breasts
and a young face. The images were girls only. He stated he was not good at identifying the
ages of the images of the young girls. (GE 2 at 277)
In his March 2009 response, Applicant indicated the first statement in the foregoing
paragraph was true because he never intentionally downloaded pictures of underage girls.
He was attempting to be as accurate as he could for the examiner. In the remainder of the
paragraph, Applicant was trying to convey his uncertainty of the ages of the “girls/women.”
He never accessed sites that featured young girls and he never attempted to access an
illegal site. Applicant recalled that some of the women in the pictures were either smoking
or drinking, illegal activities for females not of legal age. Applicant believed the women to
be younger than his wife. He doubted his ability to distinguish between women 30 or 20
years younger than his wife. 
At the hearing, he believed he had no pictures of females under 18 years of age.
The persistent questioning of the examiner and interviewer about the ages in the pictures
induced Applicant to think that some of the females may have been younger than he
originally thought. (GE 298-299; Tr. 46-47) I am not persuaded by Applicant’s explanations
that he did not view nude and sexually-explicit pictures of underage females at home on
the Internet. 
Applicant testified that he purchased his home computer in 1984. He did not view
sexually-explicit pictures because of family obligations. He indicated he began viewing
nude material in the summer of 2003 because he had just purchased a newer computer
6
in December 2002, and he had diminishing family obligations. He had access to sexually-
explicit material at home and at work through NG beginning in November 1991. (Tr. 35, 37-
38; AE A at 5) 
SOR 1.b. Viewing adult nude and sexually-explicit photos on work computer. 
The July 2008 interview with AGA reflects that Applicant viewed pornography on his
work computer from 1999 to 2002. His viewing frequency was a half hour to an hour after
his work shift. Other coworkers were also viewing pornography. Applicant viewed two
sexually-oriented magazine web sites on his work computer. He never viewed pornography
on a government computer except one time in 2005. (GE 2 at 276)
In his March 2009 response, Applicant stated that, “when I viewed sexually-explicit
or suggestive images on my work computer, there was no company policy prohibiting this
use.” (GE 2 at 298) Applicant observed that the pictures were similar to sexually-oriented
magazine pictures. He stopped viewing the pictures when his employer implemented a
policy prohibiting viewing of sexually-oriented web sites. At the hearing, Applicant was
asked about the July 2008 AGA viewing-frequency statement on his work computer
between 1999 and 2002. He replied that he did not recall making the statement. (GE 2 298;
Tr. 96-97)
 
Applicant obtained AE A (an article explaining that NGs were introduced at his
employment in November 1991) to establish reference points that would assist him in
remembering when he began viewing NGs. He explained that the employer provided an
avenue to the NGs and identified a subgroup of the NGs that were permitted through his
employer’s computer network. Because Applicant had no access to sexually-explicit
material on his work computer before November 1991, his statement of having access to
sexually-explicit material on his work computer in the 1980s was incorrect. (GE 2 at 255)
Applicant stopped accessing sexually explicit sites after his employer implemented a policy
prohibiting access to pornography some time after 1995 when web sites at his employer
became available. (Tr. 38-39, 60-61, 68, 71-72, 78-79) 
The November 2005 polygraph indicates Applicant viewed sexually-oriented
magazine cites an estimated ten times from his work computer. In his March 2009
response and his answer to the SOR, he indicated the statement was true, but it was not
in violation of any company policy. He questioned whether viewing a certain sexually-
oriented magazine cite was considered pornographic. At the hearing, he reduced the
estimated number of times he viewed the sexually-oriented magazine web site to one
occasion, and did not return when the site requested that he subscribe to the magazine.
In his March 2009 response, he explained the one time he searched for sexually-
explicit pictures on his government computer was related to his work as a facilitator for a
7
monthly group. His search revealed no sexually-explicit images. (GE 2 at 298; Tr. 68, 79-
80, 82, 85-86) 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that the only women he accessed on his work
computer were through the super model (SM) NG. He never tried to access nude SM NG,
or any other NG that began with the word “nude” because the sites were not permitted or
available in his employer’s subset of NGs. The photos of the SM NG email looked like
publicity shots or magazine photos. The women were fully clothed, having portions of their
breasts exposed. Applicant saw more exposed breasts on an American beach than he saw
in the photos. (Tr. 60-61, 66-67, 77, 86)
On cross-examination, Applicant was asked to review GE 4 (affidavit he signed in
November 2010) addressing what nude pictures he viewed on his work computer.
According to the affidavit, he stated that at the time (he could not recall the time frame or
frequency) when there was no company policy, he viewed pictures of SM clothed and
topless on his work computer. He was asked to view a second statement on the same page
indicating that he viewed topless images by himself or with other employees. Applicant
could not recall either statement. (GE 2 at 16; Tr. 76, 86-90) 
On two occasions during the July 2008 interview with AGA, Applicant offered to turn
the disks over to the case manager. After the interview ended, Applicant informed the case
manager by telephone that he was going to discard the disks because keeping the
pornographic images was not worth the trouble he had encountered in trying to get a
security clearance. Applicant stopped accessing sexually-explicit sites and discarded all the
stored disks after his July 2008 interview. His reason was that the follow-up questions
asked by the interviewer did not seem to flow from his responses, prompting him to feel
“out of sync” with the questions the interviewer had asked him. He did not want to
jeopardize his security clearance. He has not viewed any sexually-explicit material since
July 2008 and he has no intentions of viewing the subject matter in the future. (GE 2 at
276-278; Tr. 47, 53-54)  
Applicant stated that he never was a part of any group or chat room engaged in
pornography. He never paid for pornographic material. He never paid for prostitution
services. He was never stimulated by accessing pornography at work and he was partially
aroused at home. Applicant testified he has no intent of accessing sexually explicit
materials in the future. (GE at 277, 300; Tr. 82)
After he received the denial letter from AGA, Applicant told his wife that he viewed
sexually-explicit material on his home computer. He told other employees at work that he
viewed sexually-explicit material on his home or his work computer. He showed his
department head, the systems engineer (witness A), and three other employees the denial
letter that he received from AGA. He told them that the underage image findings by AGA
8
were incorrect. The total number of pictures that he stored was misidentified by AGA as the
total number of underage pictures. (GE 4 at 20; Tr. 74-78)
Character Evidence 
Witness A testified that she has worked for Applicant’s employer for 14 years.
Currently, she is a systems engineer. She works with government agencies in identifying
security issues or implementing new cybersecurity systems. She has known Applicant for
about five years and had daily contact with him as his task leader for about one and a half
years. After being taken off a task in late 2008 or early 2009, Applicant advised witness A
he could no longer continue in his position because he had been denied SCI access for
viewing pornography on the Internet. Applicant told witness A he had stopped and she
believed him. He told her the activity occurred years ago and not during the time he was
supporting her task. Witness A believes Applicant’s security clearance access should be
retained based on his trustworthiness, reliability as a team player, and an outstanding job
performance. (Tr. 110-117)
Applicant’s wife testified she is employed by a law firm as a tax lawyer. She married
Applicant in 1979. She remembered viewing the AGA denial letter advising Applicant that
his security clearance was going to be denied for viewing pornography on line. She did not
remember whether the letter indicated at work or at home. She never saw him looking at
sexually-explicit materials. She was not surprised that Applicant admitted viewing sexually-
explicit materials during the security clearance proceeding. Applicant spent a lot of time on
the computer and would turn the computer screen off when she entered the computer room
of their home. Applicant’s wife surmised he was viewing something even though she never
saw sexually-explicit materials. After she read the denial letter, she recalled his time on the
computer was reduced. He no longer turned the computer off. When Applicant told her that
he did not view any pictures of underage children, she believed him. She did not believe
she asked him whether he had viewed nude photos or sexually-explicit material on his work
computer. Applicant’s wife considers her husband to be trustworthy and honest. He has a
good memory, but is not good with names. She believes his security clearance should be
continued. (Tr. 120-134) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information. The decision should also include a careful, thorough evaluation of
a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings together all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
9
permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.l5., the 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 applicant
has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Sexual Behavior
AG ¶ 12 defines the security concern:
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 the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and
ability to protect classified information. No adverse inference concerning
standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual
orientation of the individual.
AG ¶ 13 describes three conditions that may be potentially disqualifying:
(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or duress; and 
(d) sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that reflects lack of judgment.
 There is sufficient record evidence that establishes both allegations under  the
sexual behavior guideline. Though the record does not identify a date when Applicant
began viewing underage females on the Internet, the polygraph and interview contain
sufficient detail that has not been satisfactorily rebutted. In the November 2005 polygraph,
Applicant indicated he had between 500 and 1,000 images of underage females on his
home computer, with the youngest naked girl between 11 and 13 years old. In July 2008,
he had up to 12,000 pictures of underage girls. 
In the November 2005 polygraph, Applicant admitted his embarrassment in viewing
the underage images of girls. As he explained in his July 2008 interview, he downloaded
the pictures from his computer to disks because he was embarrassed by the revelation in
his November 2005 polygraph. He turned off the computer screen when his wife walked
10
through the computer room at their home. He did not reveal his conduct to his wife and
company employees until after he received the denial letter in September 2008. 
Regarding Applicant’s viewing of nude and sexually-explicit pictures of adult females
on his work computer from the 1980s to 2002, there is documentary evidence that
Applicant did not have access to sexually-explicit material on his work computer until
November 1991. The record reflects that he viewed sexually-explicit material from 1999 to
2002, and his viewing frequency was two or three times a month for a half to an hour after
work. Applicant claims that he only viewed SM NG provided through his employer’s subset
of NGs, and not other nude NGs because the nude prefix was not available in his
employer’s NG selection list. Applicant’s claim is substantially discredited by his November
2010 affidavit stating that he admitted viewing clothed and topless SM on his work
computer in his office after hours. He showed some of the pictures to other employees.
Applicant exercised poor judgment in saving and storing underage images of girls on his
home computer. He exercised poor judgment in viewing nude and sexually-explicit pictures
of adults on his work computer after hours, even though no policy was in effect during the
period. AG ¶¶ 13(c) and 13(d) apply. 
AG ¶ 14 describes two pertinent conditions that may be potentially mitigating:
(b) the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under
unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on
the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and
(c) the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or
duress. 
There is no evidence that Applicant has viewed sexually-explicit pictures of
underage girls since he discarded them in July 2008. There is no evidence that he has
viewed sexually-explicit pictures of adult women on his work computer since 2002.
However, the extensive number of explanations minimizing or denying any conscious
viewing of nude and sexually-explicit pictures of underage girls and his discrepant positions
about viewing sexually-explicit pictures of adults on his work computer raise continuing
security concerns about his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. AG ¶¶ 14(b) and 14(c)
are not applicable.  
11
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth in AG ¶ 15:
AG ¶ 15. 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 contains one disqualifying condition that is relevant to Applicant’s conduct:
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct,
that creates 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....
Applicant’s accessing of nude and sexually explicit pictures of underage females on
his home computer and adult females on his work computer has been addressed under the
sexual behavior guideline discussion. The activity creates a vulnerability to pressure under
AG ¶ 16(e).
There are three pertinent mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17:
(c) the offense was 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 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.
In November 2005 and July 2008, Applicant admitted viewing sexually-explicit
pictures of underage females on his home computer and sexually explicit pictures on his
work computer. The sexual behavior was not minor and Applicant continues to deny he
deliberately viewed sexually explicit pictures of underage females. He threw away all the
12
pictures after the interview in July 2008. Even though he showed the AGA denial letter to
his wife and he informed other employees about viewing pornography at home and at work,
I am unable to confidently conclude that he was completely forthright with his wife and other
company employees.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding for Applicant under the personal conduct guideline. I have also weighed
the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept.
In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following factors set forth in 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 the participation was
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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate decision of whether the granting or continuing eligibility
for a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be
a judgment based on common sense after a careful review of the guidelines, which are to
be evaluated in the context of the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 61 years old. He has been married since 1979 and has three adult-age
children. He has been employed by a defense contractor since 1983 and is currently a lead
systems engineer. Witness A described Applicant’s job performance as outstanding.
Witness A considers him to be trustworthy. His wife believes he is honest and has a good
memory except for names. Both believe he should retain his security clearance. 
On the other hand, Applicant provided information to AGA in November 2005 and
July 2008, that he downloaded and viewed nude and sexually-explicit pictures of under age
females on his home computer. He told AGA that he viewed sexually explicit pictures of
adult females. In both AGA statements, he provided age details, viewing frequencies, and
period of viewing. 
Beginning in March 2009, Applicant began denying or minimizing the complete
extent of his misconduct. First, he faulted the timing of the July 2008 interview. Because
he was not told of the specific topic in advance, he was not able to prepare himself.
13
Second, the expansive nature of the questions in the polygraph and interview led Applicant
to overstate or confess more than the truth. If Applicant was trying to be as honest as he
could during the 2005 polygraph and the 2008 interview, then overstating his viewing of
nude and sexually-explicit pictures of underage girls is not a reasonable or responsible
method of foreclosing avenues of coercion. Third, Applicant’s failure to recall detailed parts
of AGA statements and the statements he wrote in an affidavit he signed in November
2010 about viewing nude pictures of adults on his work computer after hours, cannot be
overlooked. 
Applicant has indicated that when he viewed nude and sexually-explicit pictures of
adult females on his work computer, it occurred after business hours, and there was no
company policy banning the access of sexual pictures. His viewing of nude pictures on his
work computer demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of common sense. Having weighed
the disqualifying conditions with the mitigating conditions, and all the facts and
circumstances in the context of the whole-person concept, Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns under sexual behavior and personal conduct. 
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline Et): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge