ISCR Case 21-01367

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01367

grantedSep 13, 2022· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old U.S. citizen and business systems analyst was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including a 2012 accusation of nonconsensual sodomy with a shipmate, which the applicant admitted to but maintained was consensual. In 2017, he received nonjudicial punishment for sexual harassment, resulting in a reduction in rank and administrative separation from military service.

Further allegations included a 2008 felony kidnapping and assault charge, which the applicant denied guilt for, and a 2010 charge for destruction of property, which he attributed to a cohabitant changing a lock. These incidents collectively impacted his military career, leading to reductions in rate and premature termination of service.

Despite these issues, the administrative judge granted the clearance. The applicant provided credible exculpatory explanations for his past actions and demonstrated significant rehabilitation through therapy and improved personal relationships. The termination of his turbulent marriage was also noted as reducing the potential for future incidents.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided credible exculpatory explanations for his past conduct.
He demonstrated successful rehabilitation through therapy and improved personal relationships.
The applicant's turbulent marriage had ended, reducing the potential for future incidents.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 13(c)raisedVulnerability to Coercion
AG ¶ 13(d)raisedLack of Discretion in Sexual Behavior
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(c)appliedNo Reliable Evidence of Offense
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 14(b)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 14(c)appliedNo Longer Vulnerable to Coercion
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offenses or Time Passed
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment and Counseling
AG ¶ 17(f)appliedUnsubstantiated Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
— Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2021
Answer filedAug 8, 2021
Hearing heldJun 21, 2022conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateSep 13, 2022

Cite For

Successful Rehabilitation After a History of Criminal Conduct
Mitigating Factors Under Guidelines J, D, and E
Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a	In 2012, Applicant was accused of sodomizing a female shipmate without her consent. He admitted having anal intercourse with the female sailor, but he maintained that it was consensual.	For Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	In 2017, he received nonjudicial punishment for sexual harassment. He was reduced from petty officer first class to petty officer second class and processed for administrative separation.	For Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

2.a

In 2012, Applicant was accused of sodomizing a female shipmate without her consent. He admitted having anal intercourse with the female sailor, but he maintained that it was consensual.

For Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Admitted

—

2.b

In 2017, he received nonjudicial punishment for sexual harassment. He was reduced from petty officer first class to petty officer second class and processed for administrative separation.

For Applicant

Workplace Sexual Misconduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant's sexual behavior while in the Navy affected his personal and professional standing, resulting in reductions in rate and the eventual premature termination of his military service.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant's sexual behavior while in the Navy affected his personal and professional standing, resulting in reductions in rate and the eventual premature termination of his military service.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In 2008, Applicant was charged with felony kidnapping and assault. He admitted he was charged, but he denied that he was guilty.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In 2010, Applicant was charged with destruction of property. He stated that his cohabitant was upset about his long working hours and she changed the lock on the door of their residence while he was at work.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.c–1.i	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In 2008, Applicant was charged with felony kidnapping and assault. He admitted he was charged, but he denied that he was guilty.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

—

1.b

In 2010, Applicant was charged with destruction of property. He stated that his cohabitant was upset about his long working hours and she changed the lock on the door of their residence while he was at work.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

—

1.c–1.i

7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION