KEYWORD: Guideline E 
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record
evidence.  The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct under any of the
Guidelines and an applicant’s worthiness for a clearance.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-00114.a1
DATE: 09/30/2014
DATE: September 30, 2014
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00114
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Brett K. Williams, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 26, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July
17, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of
fact; whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns;
and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent
with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor, having worked in that capacity since 2013.
He has been married for 25 years.  Applicant has held a security clearance without incident since
2001, and his retaining his clearance is a condition precedent for an upcoming promotion.
From 1990 until 2013, Applicant worked for a previous Defense contractor.  He was  director
of a department within the company.  In early 2013, Applicant had an inappropriate relationship with
a female subordinate (Y).  Although she did not work directly for him, she was employed within his
department.  On three occasions, the two met in parking lots away from the workplace, engaging in
kissing and other sexual contact.  
In June 2013, officials of Applicant’s employer became aware of the relationship.  They
conducted an investigation, during which Applicant was asked if he had exchanged text messages
with Y’s husband.  He answered “no.”  When the husband was asked the same question, he replied
that he and Applicant had exchanged text messages.  In these messages, Y’s husband sought a pay
raise for Y.  The messages also alluded to the inappropriate relationship.  The husband stated that
another female employee that learned of Applicant’s relationship with Y, expressing concern that
Y would get a promotion due to the relationship.  The husband stated that Y had become
“hysterical” upon learning that Applicant had told another employee about the matter.  Decision at
3.  The Judge quoted one of the messages from husband to Applicant: “Give me one good reason
why I shouldn’t tell your wife and give her pictures and show her all of the emails.”  Id.  
In June 2013, Applicant signed a notice from his employer advising him that he was being
fired.  The notice contained the following language:
Details of Incident:
You were interviewed during the course of an investigation into whether you had
engaged in an inappropriate and personal relationship with a subordinate employee.
During the course of the investigation you repeatedly denied the relationship and
made other statements in support of the denial.  The investigation revealed, however,
that these denials and other statements that you made were knowingly and
intentionally false.  Id.
The facility security officer (FSO) entered the above information into the Joint Personnel
Adjudication System (JPAS).  In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he told company
investigators that the husband had called him upset, stated that Y had had an affair in the past, and
expressed fear that she was doing it again.  Applicant stated that he told husband that he was not
having an affair with Y, but husband did not believe it.  Applicant stated that husband called him
3
later, leaving a voicemail in which he apologized, stating that he had been told that there was no
foundation for his suspicion of an extramarital affair between Applicant and Y.
Applicant’s Answer to the SOR stated that investigators inquired as to the last time he had
heard from husband, and he replied that it had been the previous Tuesday.  At the hearing, Applicant
testified that he had admitted the inappropriate relationship to the investigators.  He denied having
provided false information to them, denied that he told them he had not exchanged text messages
with husband, and stated that the only false information he provided during the investigation was
an inadvertent mistake as to the last time he had communicated with husband.  Applicant testified
that he had sought to have Y perform more of her duties in the office rather than at home.  He stated
that he was told that this was a form of harassment, for which he could be fired.  He also stated that
a Human Resources (HR) official told him that his dishonesty consisted of having given
investigators the wrong day of the week for his last contact with husband.
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant’s job termination raised concerns under Guideline E, the Judge
noted that Applicant had admitted the inappropriate relationship.  He also noted Applicant’s
testimony that his employer’s law department characterized his actions with Y as a form of
harassment.  Concerning Applicant’s contention that he had not made false statements during his
company’s investigation, the Judge concluded that it was not credible.  “Substantial evidence was
presented to show that he repeatedly denied to investigators that he had an inappropriate relationship
with [Y] and that he denied exchanging text messages with . . . husband.”  Id. at 7.  He stated that
Applicant’s conduct is recent and demonstrates a lack of honesty, trustworthiness, and good
judgment.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s favorable evidence, for
example his lengthy employment history, his having held a clearance for many years without
incident, and that he had been endorsed by a member of the state legislature.  However, the Judge
stated that Applicant had failed to present evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that his
security-significant conduct was behind him.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that he had made false statements to the
investigators about his relationship with Y.  We examine a Judge’s findings of fact to see if they are
supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See also
ISCR Case No. 12-03415 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).  The Judge noted that Applicant
acknowledged an inappropriate relationship with Y.  He also found that Applicant was in Y’s
supervisory chain.  See Tr. at 45.  Government Exhibit (GE) 4, Investigation Report, includes the
notice of termination containing the language quoted above about the circumstances underlying the
firing.  This description is detailed and specific as to the reason for the employer’s action, and a
reasonable person could find it believable.  We have previously stated that an employer’s
characterizations of events underlying an adverse action are entitled to“some deference.”  ISCR
Case No. 10-03886 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2012).  
1See also GE 1, Security Clearance Application, dated October 28, 2013.  Section 13A of this document asked
if Applicant had been fired from a job within the prior seven years.  He answered “yes.”  The application then asked for
the reason Applicant was fired.  Applicant stated “For not reporting harassment and following through with it.”  
4
We note the Judge’s determination that Applicant’s testimony lacked credibility, to which
we are required to give deference.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  In this regard, Applicant testified that the
description of his misconduct contained in the termination notice was “not accurate” and that he did
“not agree with” it.  Tr. at 83.  However, he also admitted that the HR person who drafted the
description in GE 4 was “honest and truthful,” providing no explanation for her to have
misrepresented his conduct.  Id.  Furthermore, Applicant’s SOR response advised that he had “run
into” Y at a department store parking lot on one occasion and had met her in a parking lot of a gym
on two others.  He stated that he had denied to Y’s husband that he was having an affair with Y, and
that the husband subsequently apologized for his accusation to the contrary.  Nowhere does the
response acknowledge a  relationship with Y that was obviously inappropriate, much less one that
included sexual contact. The Judge cited to this excerpt from the SOR response in his findings of
fact.  It supports his adverse credibility determination, in that it amounted to a denial of impropriety
with Y and therefore constituted a statement inconsistent with his hearing testimony.1  The SOR
Answer excerpt also lends force to the quoted language from GE 4.  The evidence, viewed as a
whole, supports the Judge’s finding that Applicant had falsely denied his inappropriate relationship
with a subordinate.  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial
record evidence, or they constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.
Applicant contends that the evidence does not raise concerns under Guideline E.  The
Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and
an applicant’s security worthiness.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014).
The concern in Guideline E is that conduct 
involving . . . 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.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15.  
In this case, evidence that Applicant abused his supervisory authority by conducting an inappropriate
relationship with a subordinate and that he repeatedly provided false statements during the
subsequent investigation is sufficient to raise a concern that he lacks candor and is unwilling to
comply with rules and regulations.  Applicant’s presentation is not sufficient to rebut the
presumption of nexus.  
Applicant’s brief recites in considerable detail his response to the SOR.  To the extent that
he is contending that the Judge failed to consider this response or other evidence, he has not rebutted
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither has he
demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06824 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 9, 2012).  
5
 The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board