Summary
A 61-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant solicited acts of prostitution while possessing a security clearance and engaged in questionable conduct that raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The denial was based on several factors. The applicant solicited prostitution on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance, which was deemed to demonstrate poor judgment and trustworthiness. Furthermore, the judge found the applicant's attempts to minimize his behavior and his lack of candor to be not credible, which undermined his expressions of regret and responsibility.
Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose his sexual behavior to his wife, family, or employer. This lack of disclosure indicated a continued vulnerability to coercion or exploitation, further contributing to the decision to deny the security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of judgment and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant solicited prostitution on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance, raising significant concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness.
- The applicant's attempts to minimize his behavior and lack of candor were not credible, undermining his claims of regret and responsibility.
- The applicant failed to disclose his sexual behavior to his wife, family, or employer, indicating a continued vulnerability to coercion or exploitation.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
- AG ¶ 13(b)raisedPattern of Compulsive, Self-destructive, or High-risk Sexual Behavior
- AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
- AG ¶ 13(d)raisedSexual Behavior Reflecting Lack of Discretion or Judgment
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
Key Rule Quoted
“The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 15, 2019
- Answer filedSep 20, 2019
- Hearing heldMar 5, 2020Applicant waived 15-day advance notice.
- Decision dateApr 22, 2020
Cite For
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guidelines D and E
- Lack of Candor and Attempts to Minimize Behavior as Disqualifying Factors
- Vulnerability to Coercion Due to Undisclosed Sexual Behavior