ISCR Case 03-02155.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-02155.h1

deniedAug 23, 2004· Hon. Michael J. Breslin· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to a history of serious sexual offenses against children. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information).

The applicant admitted to sexual crimes against a child in 1981 and was convicted of aggravated sexual battery of a child and indecent liberties with children between 1985 and 1986. These convictions resulted in a 13-year confinement sentence, though he was paroled after approximately four years. Additionally, the applicant was arrested for assault in 1985, but those charges were dismissed.

The judge determined that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his criminal conduct and failed to provide evidence of rehabilitation or treatment for his past behavior. Furthermore, under 10 U.S.C. § 986, the applicant was ineligible for a security clearance due to his conviction, requiring a waiver that was not granted.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of serious sexual offenses against children, including a conviction resulting in a 13-year sentence.
The applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or treatment for his past behavior.
Under 10 U.S.C. § 986, the applicant is ineligible for a security clearance due to his conviction.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A4.1.1raisedSexual Behavior
E2.A5.1.1raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A11.1.1raisedSecurity Violations

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedCriminal ConductThe offenses were not recent, but their egregious nature limits mitigation.
E2.A4.1.3.2rejectedSexual BehaviorThe offenses were not isolated incidents and continued over several years.
E2.A5.1.3.5rejectedPersonal ConductWhile the applicant completed his sentence, he did not demonstrate significant steps to mitigate vulnerability to coercion.
E2.A11.1.2.2notedSecurity Violations

Key Rule Quoted

“"The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance."”
— Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2003
Answer filedDec 15, 2003
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the matter decided on the written record.
Decision dateAug 23, 2004

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J for a History of Criminal Conduct
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline D for Sexual Behavior Involving Criminal Offenses
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline K for Security Violations Related to Possession of Classified Materials.

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
1.a	Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
1.b	Sexual behavior which reflects a lack of discretion or judgment.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

1.a

Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted.

Against Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

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

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

—

1.b

Sexual behavior which reflects a lack of discretion or judgment.

Against Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.c–1.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–3.a	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–3.a

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested by civilian police authorities in 1985 and charged with assault, but the charges were later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted to sexual crimes against a child in 1981.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual battery of a child, and indecent liberties with children, between 1985 and 1986.	For 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	—	—
1.d	Applicant was sentenced to 13 years confinement, but was paroled after about 4 years in jail.	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	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested by civilian police authorities in 1985 and charged with assault, but the charges were later dismissed.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant admitted to sexual crimes against a child in 1981.

Against Applicant

Sexual Offense Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual battery of a child, and indecent liberties with children, between 1985 and 1986.

For 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

—

1.d

Applicant was sentenced to 13 years confinement, but was paroled after about 4 years in jail.

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
4.a–4.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

4.a–4.b

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

For Applicant

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES