CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03647 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03647denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03647

deniedOct 5, 2021· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior) and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a felony conviction for attempted sexual assault and the applicant's ongoing probation.

The Statement of Reasons detailed that in May 2017, the applicant was arrested and charged with Electronic Enticement of a Minor after soliciting a sexual liaison with an individual who was, in fact, a law enforcement officer. This led to a subsequent conviction for felony attempted sexual assault.

The judge determined that the applicant's criminal conduct, specifically the felony conviction and current probation until July 2023, raised significant security concerns. No mitigating factors were established to offset these concerns, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was convicted of felony attempted sexual assault and is currently on probation until July 2023.
The applicant's criminal conduct raised significant security concerns under Guidelines D and J, with no mitigating factors established.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCurrently on Parole or Probation
AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedSexual Behavior That Causes Vulnerability to Coercion

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 5, 2021
Answer filedApr 15, 2021
Hearing heldAug 4, 2021
Decision dateOct 5, 2021

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Sexual Behavior Under Guideline D
The Impact of Ongoing Probation on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The applicant solicited a sexual liaison with someone he believed to be a minor, which was actually an undercover law enforcement officer. The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct, including a felony conviction for attempted sexual assault, raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated by his work history or the passage of time since his conviction.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant solicited a sexual liaison with an alleged minor, who was actually someone in law enforcement.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Admitted	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline D). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

Bond Amendment: the decision notes incarceration over one year or a dishonorable discharge — a statutory bar to SCI / Special Access / Restricted Data eligibility absent a waiver.

The judge ruled against the applicant regarding the criminal conduct allegations. The applicant was arrested and convicted of felony attempted sexual assault, which raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated by his work history or other factors.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in May of 2017, and charged with Electronic Enticement of a Minor. He was subsequently convicted of Felony Attempted Sexual Assault.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 20-03647 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tara Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se October 5, 2021

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On May 7, 2020, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). On April 5, 2021, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guidelines J and D. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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) effective within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on April 15, 2021, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on June 14, 2021. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on July 7, 2021. I convened the hearing as scheduled on August 4, 2021. The Government offered Government Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 13, which were admitted into

evidence. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered Applicant Exhibits (AppXs) A through E, which were admitted into evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on August 18, 2021. The record was left open for the receipt of additional evidence. On September 1, 2021, AppXs F through H were submitted, and received without objection. The record closed at that time.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted both of the allegations in SOR. (TR at page 20 line 25 to page 22 line 11.) After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is a 52-year-old employee of a defense contractor. (GX 1 at page 7.) He has been employed with the defense contractor since May of 2020. (GX 1 at page 11.) He is married, and has two adult children. (GX 1 at pages 22–23, and 27.) Guideline J: Criminal Conduct & Guideline D, Sexual Behavior 1.a. and 2.a. Applicant was arrested in May of 2017, and charged with Electronic Enticement of a Minor. He was subsequently convicted of Felony Attempted Sexual Assault. Applicant solicited a sexual liaison with an alleged minor, who was actually someone in law enforcement. (TR at page 42 line 12 to page 53 line 14, and GXs 6–12.) He was sentenced to 18 month confinement, which Applicant served, was placed on probation until July of 2023, and is required to register as a sex offender. (TR at page 42 line 12 to page 53 line 14, and GX 13.)

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. The administrative judge must consider all available, 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 national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the

Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”

evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

ANALYSIS

Guideline J: Criminal Conduct AG ¶ 30 sets forth the security concerns pertaining to criminal conduct: 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. AG ¶ 31 describes three conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: (a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; (b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; and (c) individual is currently on parole or probation.

Applicant was convicted of a felony. He served 18 months in confinement. Applicant is on probation as a result of his felony conviction until July of 2023. The evidence establishes the above three disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 32 provides two conditions that could mitigate the above security concerns raised in this case: (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 (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. Sufficient time has not passed since Applicant’s felony conviction, given the fact that he is on probation until July of 2023. Although he provided evidence of a successful work history with his employer (AppX D), that evidence does not outweigh the fact that he is now on probation. The evidence does not establish mitigation under either of the above conditions. Guideline D, Sexual Behavior The security concern relating to the guideline for Sexual Behavior 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. No adverse inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 13. All are potentially applicable in this case: (a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted; (b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop;

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment. Applicant attempted a sexual liaison with a person he believed to be a minor. His conduct was criminal, and represents sexual behavior that reflects a lack of discretion or judgment. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 14 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 14 including: (a) the behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature; (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; (c) the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress; (d) the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet; and (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. None of the above mitigating conditions apply. Applicant, a convicted felon and registered sex offender, is still on probation for his criminal conduct.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s national security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline J and D in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant has submitted a plethora of supporting statements from those that know him well. (AppX C.) However, overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Criminal Conduct and Sexual Behavior security concerns.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline D: 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 the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge