ISCR Case 03-25340.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-25340.h1

deniedJan 26, 2006· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to multiple concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant admitted to several extramarital affairs while on official business, some with foreign nationals, which he did not report to his security officer and kept secret from his wife. He also acknowledged inappropriate workplace conduct, including touching a female coworker, which resulted in a written warning.

Further issues included the applicant's misuse of government computers for personal activities, such as accessing online dating services while on duty. This misuse led to verbal counseling and, in one instance, his termination from a job in 2002 after he publicized his future official government travel to a Middle Eastern country on a dating website, potentially jeopardizing his work team. Additionally, he failed to comply with security regulations by inserting an unscanned, virus-infected disk into a government computer in 1997.

The applicant also falsified material facts on multiple SF-86 forms and employment applications. He failed to disclose previous job terminations, including one in 2000 for unprofessional behavior and another in 2002 for misusing a government computer. These actions, combined with the admitted extramarital affairs and misuse of government technology, led to the denial of his security clearance, as they raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness, compliance with regulations, and potential vulnerability to coercion.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple extramarital affairs while on official business, raising concerns of vulnerability to coercion.
He falsified information on security clearance applications regarding his employment history and terminations.
The applicant engaged in inappropriate conduct in the workplace and misused government technology, undermining trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.1raisedReliable, Unfavorable Information About the Applicant's Unprofessional Conduct and Questionable Judgment Was Provided by Coworkers and Associates.
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Applicant Deliberately Falsified Material Facts on Two Security Clearance Applications and a Job Application.
E2.A5.1.2.4raisedThe Applicant's Inappropriate Touching of a Female Coworker and Multiple Unreported Sexual Affairs While on Official Duty Raised Security Concerns.
E2.A5.1.2.5raisedThe Applicant's Use of a Government Computer to Access an Online Dating Service and Failure to Follow Established Policies Raised Security Concerns.
E2.A11.1.2.2raisedThe Applicant's Failure to Comply with Security Regulations Raised Doubts About His Trustworthiness.
E2.A4.1.2.4raisedThe Applicant's Public Sexual Behavior in the Workplace Raised Concerns.
E2.A4.1.2.3raisedThe Applicant's Extramarital Affairs Made Him Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 16, 2005
Answer filedJun 1, 2005
Hearing heldOct 7, 2005
Decision dateJan 26, 2006

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Impact of Falsifying Information on Security Clearance Applications
Vulnerability to Coercion Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline D

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
3.a	Applicant touched a female coworker inappropriately on or about December 16, 2002, resulting in a written warning from his employer on December 17, 2002	Against Applicant	Workplace Sexual Misconduct	Admitted	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
3.b	From December 3, 1996, to at least June 4, 2004, and while he was married, Applicant engaged in approximately 10 sexual affairs while traveling on official business outside the U.S; that his wife was unaware of approximately five or six of the affairs and Applicant did not want her to know about them	Against Applicant	Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk	Admitted	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
3.c	Applicant did not report any of these extra-marital affairs with foreign nationals to his security officer	Against Applicant	Unspecified Sexual Behavior	Admitted	(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
3.d	As alleged in ¶ 1.f. of the SOR, he was verbally counseled in early 2004 for using official U.S. government computers, while on duty, to look at photos of an on-line dating service	Against Applicant	Online Sexual Misconduct	Admitted	(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

3.a

Applicant touched a female coworker inappropriately on or about December 16, 2002, resulting in a written warning from his employer on December 17, 2002

Against Applicant

Workplace Sexual Misconduct

Admitted

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

—

3.b

From December 3, 1996, to at least June 4, 2004, and while he was married, Applicant engaged in approximately 10 sexual affairs while traveling on official business outside the U.S; that his wife was unaware of approximately five or six of the affairs and Applicant did not want her to know about them

Against Applicant

Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk

Admitted

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

—

3.c

Applicant did not report any of these extra-marital affairs with foreign nationals to his security officer

Against Applicant

Unspecified Sexual Behavior

Admitted

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

—

3.d

As alleged in ¶ 1.f. of the SOR, he was verbally counseled in early 2004 for using official U.S. government computers, while on duty, to look at photos of an on-line dating service

Against Applicant

Online Sexual Misconduct

Admitted

(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 falsified material facts on a SF-86 he executed on August 9, 2001 when he answered "no" to Question 20 and deliberately failed to disclose he had been fired from a job.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	On March 7, 2000, he had been fired from a job for unprofessional behavior in the workplace.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	On May 1, 2002, he had been fired from a job for using a government computer to access the Internet to visit a dating service web site, where he gave notice of his assignment to a Middle Eastern country, thereby publicizing his future official government travel and putting his work team at risk.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d	He falsified material facts on an employment application on May 21, 2002, when he listed "cut backs" as the reason he was terminated from Job 2 and "lost contract" as the reason he was terminated from Job 1.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.e	He falsified material facts on the SF-86 he executed March 31, 2004, by responding to Question 20 by answering "yes" and then listing that he had been fired from Job 2 but deliberately failing to disclose he had been fired also from Job 1.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.f	He had been verbally counseled in early 2004 for using official U.S. government computers, while on duty, to look at photographs of an on-line dating service.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.g	For the information set forth in ¶¶ 2.a., 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c. of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant falsified material facts on a SF-86 he executed on August 9, 2001 when he answered "no" to Question 20 and deliberately failed to disclose he had been fired from a job.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.b

On March 7, 2000, he had been fired from a job for unprofessional behavior in the workplace.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

1.c

On May 1, 2002, he had been fired from a job for using a government computer to access the Internet to visit a dating service web site, where he gave notice of his assignment to a Middle Eastern country, thereby publicizing his future official government travel and putting his work team at risk.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

1.d

He falsified material facts on an employment application on May 21, 2002, when he listed "cut backs" as the reason he was terminated from Job 2 and "lost contract" as the reason he was terminated from Job 1.

Against Applicant

Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.e

He falsified material facts on the SF-86 he executed March 31, 2004, by responding to Question 20 by answering "yes" and then listing that he had been fired from Job 2 but deliberately failing to disclose he had been fired also from Job 1.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.f

He had been verbally counseled in early 2004 for using official U.S. government computers, while on duty, to look at photographs of an on-line dating service.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

1.g

For the information set forth in ¶¶ 2.a., 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c. of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to comply with security regulations when he neglected to have a disk scanned before inserting it into his Government computer. The disk was infected with a virus which, in turn, infected his computer on March 6, 1997, in violation of the policy and procedure of the federal agency where he was assigned.	Against Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to comply with security regulations when he neglected to have a disk scanned before inserting it into his Government computer. The disk was infected with a virus which, in turn, infected his computer on March 6, 1997, in violation of the policy and procedure of the federal agency where he was assigned.

Against Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant used a government computer at the federal agency where he was assigned to access an on-line dating service and arrange a date in a Middle-Eastern country where he was assigned on official government business.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	(e) unauthorized use of any information technology system	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant used a government computer at the federal agency where he was assigned to access an on-line dating service and arrange a date in a Middle-Eastern country where he was assigned on official government business.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Admitted

(e) unauthorized use of any information technology system

—

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