ISCR Case 01-20163.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-20163.h1

deniedNov 24, 2003· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old former federal supervisor was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant's conduct included engaging in an improper sexual relationship with one subordinate and making inappropriate sexual advances toward two other women he supervised, violating agency policies. This behavior led to a formal complaint, an investigation, and a Notice of Proposed Removal from his federal position.

Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose these sexual advances to his wife, raising concerns about transparency. While the applicant had a history of alcohol consumption that raised security concerns, this was not considered a current issue.

The judge found the applicant's defenses regarding his conduct unconvincing, as they were not corroborated by multiple witnesses. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinates, violating agency policies.
The applicant's conduct was deemed unbecoming of a federal supervisor, leading to a Notice of Proposed Removal.
The applicant's defenses regarding his conduct were not credible, as corroborated by multiple witnesses.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E1raisedReliable, Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates, Employers, Co-workers, Neighbors, and Other Acquaintances
E4raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation or Duress
E5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations, Including Violation of Any Written or Recorded Agreement Made Between the Individual and the Agency
D4raisedSexual Behavior of a Public Nature And/or That Which Reflects Lack of Discretion or Judgment
G5raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment

Mitigating

G2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 29, 2002
Answer filedNov 8, 2002
Hearing heldAug 27, 2003at a location near where Applicant works and lives
Decision dateNov 24, 2003

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline D for Sexual Behavior
Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline G for Past Alcohol Consumption Issues

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	Applicant engaged in an improper sexual relationship with a subordinate, Woman #1, while he was her supervisor.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Admitted	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
2.b	Applicant made improper sexual advances towards Woman #2, which were reported during an investigation.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Denied	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
2.c	Applicant made inappropriate sexual advances towards Woman #3, leading to a formal complaint and investigation.	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Denied	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant engaged in an improper sexual relationship with a subordinate, Woman #1, while he was her supervisor.

Against Applicant

Workplace Sexual Misconduct

Admitted

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

2.b

Applicant made improper sexual advances towards Woman #2, which were reported during an investigation.

Against Applicant

Workplace Sexual Misconduct

Denied

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

2.c

Applicant made inappropriate sexual advances towards Woman #3, leading to a formal complaint and investigation.

Against Applicant

Workplace Sexual Misconduct

Denied

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate while he was her supervisor, which was inappropriate and against agency policy.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant made improper sexual advances towards two other women he supervised, violating agency sexual harassment policies.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.c	Applicant's conduct was deemed unbecoming of a federal supervisor, leading to a Notice of Proposed Removal from his position.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose his sexual advances towards Women #2 and #3 to his wife, indicating a lack of transparency and honesty.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate while he was her supervisor, which was inappropriate and against agency policy.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.b

Applicant made improper sexual advances towards two other women he supervised, violating agency sexual harassment policies.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.c

Applicant's conduct was deemed unbecoming of a federal supervisor, leading to a Notice of Proposed Removal from his position.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.d

Applicant failed to disclose his sexual advances towards Women #2 and #3 to his wife, indicating a lack of transparency and honesty.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

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

FOOTNOTES

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION