ISCR Case No. 25-00670

25-00670 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Alison P

O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Mark J. Thomas, Esq. 07/01/2026 Decision DORSEY, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant di

not mitigate the sexual behavior or criminal conduct security concerns. The personal conduct security concerns were not established. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On July 23, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline D (sexual behavior), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). Applicant provided a response to the SOR on November 7, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On December 11, 2025, Department Counsel from DOHA amended the Statement of Reasons (collectively the Statement of Reasons and the Amended State

ent of Reasons will be referred to as the “SOR”) and, on January 8, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR Amendment (collectively the November 7, 2025 and January 8, 2026 responses will be referred to as the “Answer”). The case was assigned to me on April 1, 2026.

The hearing was convened as scheduled on May 12, 2026. I admitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6 and Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through J, without objection. DOHA received a transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on May 19, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 55-year-old man seeking renewal of his security clearance eligibility. His employment status is unclear from the record. He graduated from high school in 1989 and attended about a semester of college before enlisting in the Army. He served on active duty in the Army from 1990 until 2001, earning an honorable discharge. He served in the Army Reserve from 2001 until 2003, again earning an honorable discharge. In 2003, he deployed to a combat zone for 10 months. He earned a multitude of awards and commendations for his service, including a Bronze Star. His specialty throughout the majority of his military and civilian career has been in information technology (IT). He is single after having one prior marriage from 1995 until March 2021. He has two adult children, ages 29 and 27. (Tr. 32-44, 66; GE 1; AE I) In 2021, shortly after Applicant's divorce, his younger son (C) moved back into Applicant’s home. A few months later, in the fall of 2021, C’s girlfriend, Ms. V, also moved into Applicant’s home. C and Ms. V had been dating since high school, so Applicant had known Ms. V since she was about 16 and considered her family and a potential daughter-in-law. Beginning sometime in 2023, without Ms. V’s consent, Applicant planted a small “spy camera” with a micro secure digital (SD) card and a motion sensor in the bedroom where she commonly changed clothes. He planted this camera on multiple occasions to try to film her while she was changing or undressed. He specifically purchased the camera for this purpose despite struggling with the propriety of its intended use. He planted the camera over a period of several months on a “semi-regular basis.” On August 10, 2023, after he failed to retrieve the spy camera the same night he planted it, she noticed the camera while she was on top of C on the bed in the room where she normally changed clothes. She and C took the camera to the local police station. Police reviewed the images on the SD card and concluded that Applicant planted the camera given the timing of his appearances on the video recordings. (Tr. 44-56, 66-70, 72-78; Answer; GE 2-6; AE A) Based upon the aforementioned evidence, on August 10, 2023, police executed a search warrant and seized Applicant’s phone, personal desktop computer, and his employer-issued laptop computer, among other items. They restrained him with a zip tie and read him his Miranda Rights but did not tell him he was “under arrest.” They released him after they executed the search warrant. As a result of their search, police ultimately found images and video on Applicant’s devices showing Ms. V in various stages of undress, including while naked. These recordings were labelled with words such as “after scouts” or “meeting” or “no underwear” or “shower.” In August 2023, police charged Applicant with visual surveillance-private area; private place-prurient intent; and peeping tom. One of the videos police obtained appeared to have been filmed in a bathroom not in Applicant’s home. Police eventually determined that, without Ms. V’s or her parents’ consent, Applicant also planted a similar spy camera in a 2

bat

room in Ms. V’s parents’ house so that he could film her showering. He planted the camera in Ms. V’s parent’s house while he was attending a “family game night” to which he was invited. He claimed that he only planted the camera in Ms. V’s parents’ house on one occasion. In September 2023, based upon the evidence of filming in Ms. V’s parents’ home, police charged Applicant with an additional charge of visual surveillance- private area; private place-prurient intent. Applicant pleaded guilty to all these misdemeanor charges and was sentenced to one year of incarceration with six months suspended and three years of supervised probation. He has completed his period of incarceration. He will be on supervised probation until about August 2027. Applicant provided a statement from his probation officer dated April 17, 2026, conveying that Applicant was in compliance with the terms of his probation, and that he was at a supervision level that required one face-to-face meeting per month. He was initially required to meet with his probation officer weekly. (Tr. 44-56, 66-70, 72-78, 80-82; Answer; GE 2-6; AE A) In October 2023, Applicant informed his supervisor about his criminal charges and at least some of the underlying conduct. Applicant’s employer at the time, Company P, terminated his employment in November 2023 partly because of his failure to secure its seized laptop computer. Applicant claimed that he waited until October 2023 to notify Company P about the charges because he was unsure of his reporting requirements and initially thought he did not need to report the charges because he had not been convicted. He claimed that when he eventually understood his reporting requirements after making some inquiries, he informed his supervisor at Company P the following day. (Tr. 50-53, 78-80; Answer; AE D) In SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, under Guideline D, the Government alleged App

icant’s August 2023 and September 2023 criminal charges and convictions. Under Guideline E, the Government cross-alleged the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b (SOR ¶ 2.a) and alleged his termination from Company P (except that it alleged the termination occurred in August 2023) (SOR ¶ 2.b). Under Guideline J, it cross-alleged the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b (SOR ¶ 3.a). In the Answer, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations except for SOR ¶ 2.b, which he denied. (Answer) From September 2023 until February 2024 and then from September 2024 through March 22, 2025, Applicant received bi-weekly treatment from a licensed clinical social worker and certified sex-offender treatment provider (Therapist C). The break in treatment between February 2024 and September 2024 coincided with his incarceration. Therapist C provided a letter stating that Applicant made significant progress with his therapy, was in a “low-risk range” given his lack of prior criminal history, had a positive prognosis, and his risk for recidivism was low. He noted that Applicant’s treatment ended on March 22, 2025, on Therapist C’s recommendation. Therapist C recommended that Applicant attend a Sexaholics Anonymous group. Since April 2025, he has attended Sexaholics Anonymous meetings at least once and, more recently, twice weekly. He has found the treatment rewarding and effective and has recently begun running the meetings himself. He claimed that he did not think to obtain help before he began filming Ms. V because sexaholism is a progressive disease that 3

one does not recognize is destructive until one’s behavior is discovered. He claimed that he had developed an interest in female undress early during his career in the Army that continued with his ex-wife but was left unfulfilled after his divorce. He testified that there were times that he tried to stop himself from filming Ms. V, but he ultimately gave in to “the hunger of the disease.” (Tr. 56-61, 70-72, 74-76, 83-84; Answer; AE B, C) During direct testimony, Applicant described the ways in which his actions and the legal consequences have affected him. He has been unable to maintain consistent employment and has very little savings. He claimed that neither his sons nor their families speak with him. He has never met his twin grandsons, who were born in September 2023. He lamented that these things resulted from “one poor decision.” When he was asked during cross-examination to explain why he thought his actions were based on “one poor decision” as opposed to multiple decisions on multiple occasions, he compared his decision-making process to baking a cake, in that there were multiple steps and ingredients required to bake it, but you still only made one cake. He claimed that he no longer has the same sexual fetish of seeing women undressing or naked, and that, given the consequences he had suffered and the support system he has in place, there was no chance that his criminal behavior would recur. He noted that he became more reclusive after getting out of jail and it took him a long time to become the social person he had been before. He opined that he thought he should be awarded security clearance eligibility because he is loyal, trustworthy, and loves his country. He noted that he has been able to separate his personal life from his work life and has continued to do well at work despite suffering some difficult occurrences, such as his divorce and the death of his father. (Tr. 60-66, 81-82; Answer; AE E-J) Applicant provided performance reviews from some of his employers for years prior to 2022 showing that he performed well at work, often exceeding expectations. He also provided employer-issued awards to this effect. He has completed several cybersecurity and other work-related training courses and received multiple professional accreditations. He has a history of volunteering his time and provided awards recognizing his efforts up to 2015. He provided a written statement that he would not engage in sexual misconduct that is criminal in nature upon pain of an automatic revocation of his security clearance. (Tr. 60-66, 81-82; Answer; AE E-J) Applicant called one other witness during his case in chief (Mr. L). This witness is a former colleague and friend of Applicant. Mr. L has held security clearance eligibility for over 30 years and has worked for government contractors throughout that period. Mr. L has known Applicant for about eight years, first meeting him in about 2018 when they both worked as government contractors supporting the U.S. military. While they worked together, Mr. L interacted with Applicant nearly daily at work. Mr. L claimed Applicant was proficient at his job and rated him among the top government contractors with whom he worked. Mr. L described Applicant as very trustworthy. Mr. L testified that he believed that Applicant was having issues with his security clearance eligibility because he failed to secure his work laptop computer that was seized as a result of a “foreign offense” for which he was terminated from his employment and convicted. Mr. L 4

initially testified that he was not aware of the nature of the underlying conduct that resulted in Applicant’s termination and conviction and that Applicant should retain his security clearance eligibility because any criminal conduct would be out of Applicant’s character. Upon further questioning on direct examination, Mr. L acknowledged that he did, in fact, understand that Applicant had been convicted for placing cameras in private spaces. Mr. L maintained that, given his knowledge of Applicant’s underlying conduct, Applicant should retain his security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 16-30) Applicant also provided character-reference letters from eight individuals. Some letters are from friends and colleagues with whom he worked. One is from his mother, and another is from his brother. His colleagues and friends note that he has consistently demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness, especially as it pertains to national security. They note his technical competence, work ethic, and attention to detail. Some note that Applicant has shared with them at least some of the issues relevant to this security clearance adjudication, but think it is an isolated incident not indicative of his overall character. His mother and brother wrote that they believe he is remorseful for his actions, has taken responsibility and accountability, and has undergone the necessary treatment to make this type of behavior unlikely to recur. To the extent they opine, all believe that he should maintain his security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 82-83, AE H) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny

icant’s August 2023 and September 2023 criminal charges and convictions. Under Guideline E, the Government cross-alleged the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b (SOR ¶ 2.a) and alleged his termination from Company P (except that it alleged the termination occurred in August 2023) (SOR ¶ 2.b). Under Guideline J, it cross-alleged the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b (SOR ¶ 3.a). In the Answer, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations except for SOR ¶ 2.b, which he denied. (Answer) From September 2023 until February 2024 and then from September 2024 through March 22, 2025, Applicant received bi-weekly treatment from a licensed clinical social worker and certified sex-offender treatment provider (Therapist C). The break in treatment between February 2024 and September 2024 coincided with his incarceration. Therapist C provided a letter stating that Applicant made significant progress with his therapy, was in a “low-risk range” given his lack of prior criminal history, had a positive prognosis, and his risk for recidivism was low. He noted that Applicant’s treatment ended on March 22, 2025, on Therapist C’s recommendation. Therapist C recommended that Applicant attend a Sexaholics Anonymous group. Since April 2025, he has attended Sexaholics Anonymous meetings at least once and, more recently, twice weekly. He has found the treatment rewarding and effective and has recently begun running the meetings himself. He claimed that he did not think to obtain help before he began filming Ms. V because sexaholism is a progressive disease that 3

one does not recognize is destructive until one’s behavior is discovered. He claimed that he had developed an interest in female undress early during his career in the Army that continued with his ex-wife but was left unfulfilled after his divorce. He testified that there were times that he tried to stop himself from filming Ms. V, but he ultimately gave in to “the hunger of the disease.” (Tr. 56-61, 70-72, 74-76, 83-84; Answer; AE B, C) During direct testimony, Applicant described the ways in which his actions and the legal consequences have affected him. He has been unable to maintain consistent employment and has very little savings. He claimed that neither his sons nor their families speak with him. He has never met his twin grandsons, who were born in September 2023. He lamented that these things resulted from “one poor decision.” When he was asked during cross-examination to explain why he thought his actions were based on “one poor decision” as opposed to multiple decisions on multiple occasions, he compared his decision-making process to baking a cake, in that there were multiple steps and ingredien

s required to bake it, but you still only made one cake. He claimed that he no longer has the same sexual fetish of seeing women undressing or naked, and that, given the consequences he had suffered and the support system he has in place, there was no chance that his criminal behavior would recur. He noted that he became more reclusive after getting out of jail and it took him a long time to become the social person he had been before. He opined that he thought he should be awarded security clearance eligibility because he is loyal, trustworthy, and loves his country. He noted that he has been able to separate his personal life from his work life and has continued to do well at work despite suffering some difficult occurrences, such as his divorce and the death of his father. (Tr. 60-66, 81-82; Answer; AE E-J) Applicant provided performance reviews from some of his employers for years prior to 2022 showing that he performed well at work, often exceeding expectations. He also provided employer-issued awards to this effect. He has completed several cybersecurity and other work-related training courses and received multiple professional accreditations. He has a history of volunteering his time and provided awards recognizing his efforts up to 2015. He provided a written statement that he would not engage in sexual misconduct that is criminal in nature upon pain of an automatic revocation of his security clearance. (Tr. 60-66, 81-82; Answer; AE E-J) Applicant called one other witness during his case in chief (Mr. L). This witness is a former colleague and friend of Applicant. Mr. L has held security clearance eligibility for over 30 years and has worked for government contractors throughout that period. Mr. L has known Appli

ant for about eight years, first meeting him in about 2018 when they both worked as government contractors supporting the U.S. military. While they worked together, Mr. L interacted with Applicant nearly daily at work. Mr. L claimed Applicant was proficient at his job and rated him among the top government contractors with whom he worked. Mr. L described Applicant as very trustworthy. Mr. L testified that he believed that Applicant was having issues with his security clearance eligibility because he failed to secure his work laptop computer that was seized as a result of a “foreign offense” for which he was terminated from his employment and convicted. Mr. L 4

initially testified that he was not aware of the nature of the underlying conduct that resulted in Applicant’s termination and conviction and that Applicant should retain his security clearance eligibility because any criminal conduct would be out of Applicant’s character. Upon further questioning on direct examination, Mr. L acknowledged that he did, in fact, understand that Applicant had been convicted for placing cameras in private spaces. Mr. L maintained that, given his knowledge of Applicant’s underlying conduct, Applicant should retain his security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 16-30) Applicant also provided character-reference letters from eight individuals. Some letters are from friends and colleagues with whom he worked. One is from his mother, and another is from his brother. His colleagues and friends note that he has consistently demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness, especially as it pertains to national security. They note his technical competence, work ethic, and attention to detail. Some note that Applicant has shared with them at least some of the issues relevant to this security clearance adjudication, but think it is an isolated incident not indicative of his overall character. His mother and brother wrote that they believe he is remorseful for his actions, has taken responsibility and accountability, and has undergone the necessary treatment to make this type of behavior unlikely to recur. To the extent they opine, all believe that he should maintain his security clearance eligibility. (Tr. 82-83, AE H) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative gui

elines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny

oubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 5

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts ad

itted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information ent