1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Redacted] )  ISCR Case No. 18-00036 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines D (Sexual 
Behavior), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on November 2, 2016. On 
June 6, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD 
CAF) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under 
Guidelines D, J, and E. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all adjudicative decisions on or after 
June 8, 2017. 
 
2 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on June 28, 2018, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on August 10, 
2018, and the case was assigned to me on August 15, 2018. On August 27, 2018, the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was 
scheduled for September 26, 2018. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government 
Exhibits (GX) 1 through 3 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant 
testified but did not present the testimony of any other witnesses or submit documentary 
evidence. I kept the record open until October 12, 2018, to enable him to submit 
additional evidence. He timely submitted Applicant’s Exhibit (AX) A, which was admitted 
without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on October 4, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 2.a, 
and 3.a. He denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 3.b. His admissions in his answer and at the 
hearing are incorporated in my findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 29 years old, unemployed, and has been offered a job with a federal 
contractor, contingent on obtaining a security clearance. He is unmarried and has no 
children. He received an associate’s degree in May 2010 and a bachelor’s degree in 
December 2015. He worked as a state produce inspector from May to August 2016. He 
has never held a security clearance. 
 
On April 4, 2014, an undercover police officer posted an ad on the Internet, 
identifying herself as a 13-year-old girl looking for someone to “hang out with.” Applicant 
responded to the ad and asked if she was really 13 years old and why she posted the 
ad. She told Applicant that she hated her mother, the boys at her school were “lame,” 
and she wanted to find someone else to hang out with. The conversation was 
interrupted and blocked by the internet service provider for about a week.  
 
About a week later, the undercover police officer emailed Applicant again, and 
they resumed their conversation. Applicant asked her what she thought they would be 
doing if they were alone together, but further conversation was blocked again by the 
Internet provider. She then contacted Applicant using another email account, and they 
resumed their conversation. Applicant told her that he wanted her to “strip” for him and 
perform various sexual acts. She responded that she was willing to perform as he 
requested. He sent her a photograph of himself and told her that he was a 24-year-old 
college student.2 (GX 3 at 5.) 
 
Based on Applicant’s conversations with the undercover police officer, Applicant 
was charged with two felonies: attempted indecent liberties with a child, and using a 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from his security clearance application (GX 1) unless 
otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
2 The police officer stated in her report that a screenshot of her ad, Applicant’s photo, and a trimmed- 
down version of the chat log were attached to her report, but none of these items were attached to the 
police report submitted by Department Counsel. (GX 3 at 5-6.) 
3 
 
communication device to solicit indecent liberties with a child. He appeared in court on 
March 31, 2015, represented by an attorney, and pleaded not guilty. After the trial 
commenced, he agreed to plead guilty to solicitation to commit a felony (also a felony 
under state law) in return for an agreement that any sentence to incarceration would be 
suspended. His plea of guilty was accepted, and he was sentenced to incarceration for 
three years, suspended, and placed on supervised probation for three years. (GX 3 at 
1-2.) The terms of his probation required that he attend weekly group-counseling 
sessions, and he did so for about two years. (Tr. 32.) He was not required to register as 
a sex offender because he was not convicted of the charges alleging a sex offense with 
a child. 
 
 On June 25, 2014, as part of his preparation for trial, Applicant underwent 
psychological and psychosexual testing by a licensed clinical psychologist certified as a 
sex-offender treatment provider. The psychologist concluded that Applicant “does not 
possess similar characteristics to those who sexually abuse children or force sex onto 
others (e.g., rape). Furthermore, he does not suffer from sexual dysfunction or desire 
disorder, and he is not preoccupied with sex.” He concluded that Applicant “did not 
endorse attitudes that are supportive of sexual offending behavior on the sexual interest 
questionnaires.” (AX A.) 
 
 Applicant was interviewed by a DOD security investigator on June 28, 2017. The 
summary of the investigator’s interview reflects that Applicant told him that he met the 
person on an “adults only” website, and that when she asked to meet with him he 
declined and exited the chat room. When they resumed their conversation about ten 
days later, she again asked to meet with him, but he did not agree to meet her. The 
summary of Applicant’s interview reflects that he described his conduct to the 
investigator as follows: 
 
Probably 10 days later, date not recalled, the Subject received an e-mail 
from the person stating that they (sic) wanted to continue chatting. For the 
next three to five days, the Subject chatted with the individual. As with the 
previous chats, they discussed sex, but the Subject never asked or 
propositioned the person. 
 
(GX 2 at 7.) 
 
 At the hearing, Applicant testified that he found the person’s ad on an “adults 
only” website. It indicated that she was 13 years old, and he asked her what she was 
doing on an adult website. He admitted that they talked about sexual acts, but he 
denied “propositioning” her and stated that he was not sure what “propositioning” 
means. (Tr. 27.) He expressed no difficulty understanding what “asking” means. He 
admitted asking her if she was willing to perform specific sexual acts with him, but he 
testified that he did not take the additional step of inviting her to visit him or offering to 
visit her. (Tr. 28, 46.) He testified: “Going through my head, it was talk. It was sex talk. I 
was probably horny and I said some things I regret. And that why – what I was trying to 
say is I never actually invited [her] over or anything like that. . . .” (Tr. 42.) 
4 
 
 Applicant’s parents, siblings, and several of his friends know about his conviction. 
His father attended the hearing for moral support. (Tr. 5.) At the hearing, Applicant 
assumed that his prospective employer was aware of his conviction, but he could not 
recall disclosing it on his job application or otherwise. (Tr. 34-35.) 
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 
of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge 
applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An 
administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 
10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the 
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense 
have established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in 
the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant 
from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden 
of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the 
criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-
01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr.20, 2016).   
5 
 
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 
01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, 
if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline D, Sexual Behavior 
 
 The SOR alleges that in April 2014, Applicant was charged with use of a 
computer to commit a sex offense with a minor and indecent liberties with a child by 
proposing a sexual act. It also alleges that he was convicted of solicitation to commit a 
felony; and that he was sentenced to supervised probation until March 31, 2018 (SOR ¶ 
1.a).3 The concern under this guideline is set out in AG 12:  
 
Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense; reflects a lack of 
judgment or discretion; or may subject the individual to undue influence of 
coercion, exploitation, or duress. These issues, together or individually, 
may raise questions about an individual's judgment, reliability, 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. 
Sexual behavior includes conduct occurring in person or via audio, visual, 
electronic, or written transmission. . . .   
 
The following potentially disqualifying conditions are relevant:  
 
AG ¶ 13(a): sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the 
individual has been prosecuted;  
 
AG ¶ 13(b): a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual 
behavior that the individual is unable to stop;  
 
AG ¶ 13(c): sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to 
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and 
                                                          
3 Arguably, Applicant was estopped from denying that he solicited the person to commit sexual acts with 
him. The doctrine of collateral estoppel generally applies in DOHA hearings and precludes applicants 
from contending that they did not engage in criminal acts for which they were convicted. ISCR Case No. 
95-0817 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Feb. 21, 1997). Department Counsel declined to assert collateral estoppel, on 
the ground that the record and the trial order pertaining to his civilian felony conviction does not contain a 
recitation of facts showing the acts on which the plea of guilty and conviction were based. (Tr. 17.) 
 
6 
 
AG ¶ 13(d): sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of 
discretion or judgment. 
 
 AG ¶¶ 13(a), 13(c), and 13(d) are established. Applicant admitted and was 
convicted of a sexual offense. Although he testified that his family and some of his 
friends were aware of his conviction, he had not specifically informed his prospective 
employer of his conviction and the facts underlying it. His sexual conversations with a 
person that he thought was a 13-year-old girl reflected lack of discretion and judgment. 
 
 AG ¶ 13(b) is not fully established. Applicant engaged in high-risk sexual 
behavior for several days. However, the psychologist’s report and Applicant’s 
successful completion of his probation tend to negate the element of this disqualifying 
condition that he is unable to stop his behavior.  
 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
AG ¶ 14(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 
judgment; 
 
AG ¶ 14(c): the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, 
exploitation, or duress; and 
 
AG ¶ 14(e): the individual has successfully completed an appropriate 
program of treatment, or is currently enrolled in one, has demonstrated 
ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan, and/or has 
received a favorable prognosis from a qualified mental health professional 
indicating the behavior is readily controllable with treatment. 
 
 AG ¶ 14(b) is not established. Applicant’s behavior occurred more than four 
years ago. However, he was on probation until March 2018 and faced incarceration for 
three years for any violation of his probation. Even though he has completed the 
probation, he remains under pressure to qualify for the security clearance on which his 
job offer depends. His sexual conversations were frequent and did not occur under 
unusual circumstances.  
 
 AG ¶ 14(c) is not established. Although Applicant’s family and some of his friends 
are aware of his felony conviction, he was unable to testify with any certainty that his 
prospective employer is aware of it. He has presumed that his prospective employer is 
aware of it, but he has not taken any affirmative steps to ensure that he is aware of it. 
 
 AG ¶ 14(e) is not established. Applicant apparently completed the program of 
group therapy required as a condition of his probation, but there is no evidence of a 
diagnosis or prognosis from that program. The psychological and psychosexual 
evaluation by the licensed clinical psychologist was not a treatment program, but was 
7 
 
limited to administering a battery of tests and interpreting of the results. While the tests 
administered to Applicant may indicate that he is not a sexual predator or a pedophile, 
they do not reflect the quality of Applicant’s discretion and judgment in his choice of 
persons with whom he chooses to interact sexually. To the extent that the group therapy 
and the psychosexual evaluation are mitigating factors, they are not determinative. The 
presence of some mitigating evidence does not compel a favorable security clearance 
decision. ISCR Case No. 12-00120 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2014). An administrative judge is 
required to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence 
outweighs the unfavorable evidence, keeping in mind that, once a concern arises 
regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption 
against granting a security clearance. ISCR Case No. 09-01652 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug 8, 
2011), citing Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 
U.S. 905 (1991). 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
 SOR ¶ 2.a cross-alleges the sexual behavior alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. The concern 
under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 30: “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.” 
 
Applicant’s admissions and the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing 
establish the potentially disqualifying condition in AG ¶ 31(b): “evidence (including, but 
not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of 
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, 
prosecuted, or convicted.” 
 
The following mitigating conditions are relevant:  
 
AG ¶ 32(a): so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior 
happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and 
 
AG ¶ 32(d): there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but 
not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, 
restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or 
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community 
involvement. 
 
 AG ¶ 32(a) is not established for the reasons set out in the above discussion of 
AG ¶ 14(b). AG ¶ 32(d) is not fully established. Applicant has completed his probation, 
including the required group therapy. He received a favorable diagnosis from a certified 
sex offender treatment provider. He returned to college after his conviction, earned his 
bachelor’s degree, and has been offered a job by a defense contractor. However, 
insufficient time has passed since he completed his period of probation. Furthermore, 
8 
 
as noted in the discussion under Guideline E below, he has not been fully candid with 
security investigators, and his lack of candor undermines a finding of successful 
rehabilitation. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 SOR ¶ 3.a cross-alleges the conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. The SOR also 
alleges in SOR ¶ 3.b(i) that Applicant falsified material facts during his June 2017 
interview with a security investigator as follows: 
[I]n approximately April 2014, you engaged in an online chat with a 
person believed to be a female and that you found the individual on [a 
website] under Adult Personnel’s (sic) when in fact you contacted an 
individual who had posted an ad on [the website] as a 13 year old female 
looking for someone to hang with.  
SOR ¶ 3.b(ii) alleges that Applicant falsified material facts when he stated that he never 
asked or propositioned the person for sex when in fact he told this individual that he 
wanted her to perform various sex acts on him. 
 The concern under this guideline is set out in 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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security 
investigative or adjudicative processes. . . .  
 
 The relevant disqualifying condition for the allegation that Applicant falsified 
material facts during his security interview is AG ¶ 16(b): “deliberately providing false or 
misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts 
to an . . . investigator . . . involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national 
security eligibility determination . . . .”  
 
 When a falsification allegation is controverted, as in this case, the Government 
has the burden of proving it. An omission, standing alone, does not prove falsification. 
An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an 
applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission. See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 
(App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). An applicant’s experience and level of education are relevant 
to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on a security clearance 
application was deliberate. ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010). 
 
 The relevant disqualifying conditions for the sexual behavior alleged in SOR ¶ 
1.a and cross-alleged under this guideline are: 
 
9 
 
AG ¶ 16(c): credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue 
areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other 
single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a 
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, 
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not 
properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; 
 
AG ¶ 16(d): credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered 
under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an 
adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available 
information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to 
comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that 
the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive 
information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: . . . (2) 
any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; and 
 
AG ¶ 16(e): personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's 
conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or 
duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such 
conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect 
the person's personal, professional, or community standing . . . . 
 
 The allegation in SOR ¶ 3.a(i) is poorly drafted, and it is difficult to determine the 
specific facts or omissions that are the basis for the allegation. It appears to be an 
attempt to allege that Applicant failed to disclose that he thought he was talking to a 13-
year-old girl. However, Applicant told the investigator that he was charged with indecent 
liberties with a child and soliciting sex using a computer. I conclude that intentional 
omission of material facts as alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a(i) is not established.  
 
However, the falsification alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a(ii) is established. Applicant told 
the investigator that he and the person he thought was a 13-year-old girl discussed sex 
but that he never asked or propositioned her for sex. Applicant admitted at the hearing 
that he asked the person if she was willing to perform specific sex acts with him, but he 
testified that he did not specifically ask her to meet him and perform the acts they had 
discussed.  
 
Applicant’s quibbling about whether he was asking for sex raises a question 
whether he has fully accepted the nature of his criminal conduct. Applicant asked the 
person whether she was willing to perform certain sex acts, and she responded in the 
affirmative. The fact that the conversation did not proceed further to an agreement 
regarding a specific time and place to meet does not negate the fact that a solicitation 
occurred.  
 
10 
 
A security clearance investigation is not a forum for an applicant to split hairs or 
parse the truth narrowly. An applicant who deliberately fails to give full, frank, and 
candid answers to the government in connection with a security clearance investigation 
or adjudication interferes with the integrity of the industrial security program. ISCR Case 
No. 01-03132 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2002). I conclude that SOR ¶ 3.a(ii) is established 
by the evidence and is sufficient to raise the disqualifying condition in AG ¶ 16(b). 
Applicant’s admission that he asked a person that he believed was a 13-year-old girl to 
perform specific sexual acts with him is sufficient to establish the disqualifying 
conditions in AG ¶¶ 16(c), 16(d), and 16(e). 
 
 The following mitigating conditions are relevant: 
 
AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the 
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the 
facts; 
 
AG ¶ 17(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; 
 
AG ¶ 17(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 contributed to 
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such 
behavior is unlikely to recur; 
 
AG ¶ 17(e): the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 
 
 AG ¶ 17(a) is not established. Applicant made no effort to clarify his statement to 
the investigator until the hearing. 
 
 AG ¶ 17(c) is not established. Applicant’s sexual behavior with a person he 
believed to be a 13-year-old girl was a felony and is not mitigated by the passage of 
time, for the reasons set out in the above discussion of AG ¶ 14(b). His falsification 
during his June 2017 interview with a security investigator was recent, because it 
affected the current adjudication of his application for a security clearance. It was 
serious, because it undermined the integrity of the security investigation. 
 
 AG ¶ 17(d) is not fully established. Applicant has acknowledged that he engaged 
in sexual conversations with a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl, but he has not 
acknowledged that he asked the girl to perform sexual acts with him. To his credit, he 
has completed the extensive group therapy mandated by the court, and he appears to 
have gained some insight into the foolishness of his behavior. 
 
11 
 
 AG ¶ 17(e) is not fully established. Applicant has presumed that his prospective 
employer is aware of his felony conviction for sexual behavior, but he has taken no 
positive steps to inform his employer about it. 
 
Whole-Person Concept  
 
 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. In applying the whole-
person concept, an 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 and applying the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d).4  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines D, J, and E in my whole-
person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the 
disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines D, J, and E, and evaluating all 
the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated 
the security concerns raised by his sexual behavior, criminal conduct, and personal 
conduct. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline D (Sexual Behavior): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:    Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 3.b(i):   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 3.b(ii):   Against Applicant 
 
                                                          
4 The factors are: (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.  
 
12 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the 
United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance 
is denied. 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge