ISCR Case 10-01892.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-01892.h1

deniedApr 16, 2012· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old principal systems engineer and Marine Corps officer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Between 1995 and July 2009, the applicant engaged in sexually explicit online chat groups, frequently soliciting and receiving sexual services from women met online, and had sexual intercourse with three of them. In July 2009, he was charged with felony solicitation of a minor, later pleading guilty to a misdemeanor solicitation charge. He received two years of probation before judgment and completed a court-ordered sex offender treatment program, with probation ending in August 2011 and treatment completed in January 2012.

Financially, the applicant accumulated significant delinquencies on multiple properties. These included a home equity loan, a property purchased for $344,000 with a $100,000 deficiency, two properties purchased in June 2005 for $155,000 and $181,000 with deficiencies of $27,862 and $35,082 respectively, and another property purchased for $308,000 with an $18,640 deficiency. Additionally, a home equity loan on a business property became delinquent in 2008, resulting in a $74,000 charged-off debt. He also failed to pay annual maintenance fees for a timeshare due to financial problems. One disputed debt was resolved in his favor and removed from his credit reports.

The denial was based on the applicant's long history of high-risk sexual behavior, which raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. The solicitation charge and associated criminal conduct were considered recent and serious. While the applicant completed a sex offender treatment program, this was deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns given the nature and duration of his conduct.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's long history of high-risk sexual behavior raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's solicitation charge and subsequent criminal conduct were deemed recent and serious, undermining his trustworthiness.
The applicant's completion of a treatment program was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns due to the nature and duration of his behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 13(a)raisedSexual Behavior

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedCriminal ConductWhile the applicant demonstrated some evidence of rehabilitation, it was not sufficient to fully mitigate the security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“"The 'clearly consistent with the national interest' standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2011
Answer filedNov 8, 2012
Hearing heldFeb 22, 2012Postponed from 02/13/2012.
Decision dateMar 1, 2012

Cite For

High-risk Sexual Behavior as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline D and J
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Despite Completion of Treatment Programs
Recent Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J.

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	Between 1995 and July 2009, Applicant participated in sexually explicit online chat groups. He solicited and received sexual services from women he met online on a frequent basis, and had sexual intercourse with three of them. In July 2009, Applicant was charged with solicitation of a minor, a felony offense. He pled guilty to a solicitation charge, a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to probation before judgment for a period of two years and he was ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program. He complied with all the court ordered conditions and was released from his probation in August 2011. Applicant’s behavior raises security concerns under AG ¶ 31(a) “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,” and AG ¶ 31(c) “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.	Against Applicant	Compulsive Sexual Behavior	Admitted	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted (c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

2.a

Between 1995 and July 2009, Applicant participated in sexually explicit online chat groups. He solicited and received sexual services from women he met online on a frequent basis, and had sexual intercourse with three of them. In July 2009, Applicant was charged with solicitation of a minor, a felony offense. He pled guilty to a solicitation charge, a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to probation before judgment for a period of two years and he was ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program. He complied with all the court ordered conditions and was released from his probation in August 2011. Applicant’s behavior raises security concerns under AG ¶ 31(a) “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,” and AG ¶ 31(c) “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.

Against Applicant

Compulsive Sexual Behavior

Admitted

(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a originated from a home equity loan that Applicant made against the equity of one of their properties. $117,000	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant purchased the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.b (for $344,000) in August 2006. The mortgage became delinquent for lack of payment, and he accumulated a deficiency of around $100,000. $100,000	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant purchased the properties alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c (for $155,000) and 3.d (for $181,000) in June 2005. The mortgages became delinquent in 2008. He accumulated a deficiency of $27,862 on the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c. $27,862	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant purchased the properties alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c (for $155,000) and 3.d (for $181,000) in June 2005. The mortgages became delinquent in 2008. He accumulated a deficiency of $35,082 on the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.d. $35,082	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.e	In February 2005, Applicant purchased the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.e, for around $308,000. He became delinquent on the mortgage in November 2008, and accumulated a deficiency of $18,640. $18,640	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.f	The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.f resulted from a home equity loan made against the equity of another of their business properties. In 2008, the loan became delinquent. Applicant accumulated $74,000 in debt, and the debt was charged off. $74,000	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.g	SOR ¶ 3.d and SOR ¶ 3.g allege the same delinquent $181,000 mortgage. Applicant credibly testified that he does not own any additional properties. He does not have any additional mortgages other than those alleged in the SOR. $181,000	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.h	Applicant and his wife purchased a timeshare property in 1997. SOR ¶ 3.h alleges that property’s delinquent annual maintenance fee, which Applicant failed to pay because of his financial problems. $0	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.i	Applicant disputed the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.i. The dispute was resolved in his favor and the debt is no longer posted in his most current credit reports. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a originated from a home equity loan that Applicant made against the equity of one of their properties.

$117,000

For Applicant

Personal Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant purchased the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.b (for $344,000) in August 2006. The mortgage became delinquent for lack of payment, and he accumulated a deficiency of around $100,000.

$100,000

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant purchased the properties alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c (for $155,000) and 3.d (for $181,000) in June 2005. The mortgages became delinquent in 2008. He accumulated a deficiency of $27,862 on the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c.

$27,862

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.d

$35,082

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.e

In February 2005, Applicant purchased the property alleged in SOR ¶ 3.e, for around $308,000. He became delinquent on the mortgage in November 2008, and accumulated a deficiency of $18,640.

$18,640

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.f

The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.f resulted from a home equity loan made against the equity of another of their business properties. In 2008, the loan became delinquent. Applicant accumulated $74,000 in debt, and the debt was charged off.

$74,000

For Applicant

Personal Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.g

SOR ¶ 3.d and SOR ¶ 3.g allege the same delinquent $181,000 mortgage. Applicant credibly testified that he does not own any additional properties. He does not have any additional mortgages other than those alleged in the SOR.

$181,000

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.h

Applicant and his wife purchased a timeshare property in 1997. SOR ¶ 3.h alleges that property’s delinquent annual maintenance fee, which Applicant failed to pay because of his financial problems.

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

3.i

Applicant disputed the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.i. The dispute was resolved in his favor and the debt is no longer posted in his most current credit reports.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Between 1995 and July 2009, Applicant participated in sexually explicit online chat groups. He solicited and received sexual services from women he met online on a frequent basis, and had sexual intercourse with three of them. In July 2009, Applicant was charged with solicitation of a minor, a felony offense. He pled guilty to a solicitation charge, a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to probation before judgment for a period of two years and he was ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program. He complied with all the court ordered conditions and was released from his probation in August 2011. Applicant successfully completed his sex offender treatment program in January 2012.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Between 1995 and July 2009, Applicant participated in sexually explicit online chat groups. He solicited and received sexual services from women he met online on a frequent basis, and had sexual intercourse with three of them. In July 2009, Applicant was charged with solicitation of a minor, a felony offense. He pled guilty to a solicitation charge, a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to probation before judgment for a period of two years and he was ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program. He complied with all the court ordered conditions and was released from his probation in August 2011. Applicant successfully completed his sex offender treatment program in January 2012.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

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

FOOTNOTES