ISCR Case No. 26-00313

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00313 Appearances For Government: Brian Farrell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Joseph Owens, Esq. 09/25/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior) and E (Personal Conduct). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on June 5, 2024. On April 30, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines D and E. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR in an undated document and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on June 10, 2026. The case was assigned to me on June 17, 2026. On June 29, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled 1

to be conducted by video teleconference on August 19, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 10 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified but did not present the testimony of any other witnesses or submit any documentary evidence. The record closed upon adjournment of the hearing. DOHA received the hearing transcript on September 1, 2026. Evidentiary Issue GX 10 is a summary of an interview of Applicant by a security investigator on April 18, 2025. The summary was not authenticated as required by Directive ¶ E3.1.20. At the hearing, Applicant, who was represented by counsel, did not object to the lack of authentication. (Tr. 5) I construed his lack of objection as a waiver of the authentication required and admitted GX 10 in evidence. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 32-year-old network defense analyst employed by a federal contractor since June 2024. He received an associate degree in August 2004 and a bachelor’s degree in December 2006. He served in the Air National Guard (ARNG) from September 2007 to December 2023 and received an honorable discharge. He married in June 2023 and has three stepchildren, ages 15, 18, and 20. He received a security clearance in December 2007 and was cleared for sensitive compartmented information in February 2014 and again in October 2021. He has been employed by various federal contractors since July 2012, interrupted by several active-duty tours as a member of the ARNG. In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he denied all the allegations in the SOR. The evidence pertaining to the allegations in the SOR is summarized below. Guideline D, Sexual Behavior. SOR ¶ 1.a alleges that, from about 2000 to about September 2020, Applicant viewed sexually explicit and obscene material depicting minors in the form of anime (videos) and manga (comics) approximately two times a month and masturbated to this material about 75% of the time. During a polygraph examination on September 4, 2020, Applicant was questioned about his foreign travel and foreign contacts. At the end of the polygraph report, the examiner added the following comments: After [subject’s] physiological reactions were noted to the suitability questions, [subject] provided the following information: [subject] comes across pornographic images of 16/17 year olds while seeking out 2

pornography on Pornhub.com. [Subject] does not intentionally seek out pornographic material of minors but comes across it on occasion. [Subject] denied masturbating to images/videos depicting minors. Due to examiner oversight the frequency of [Subject] coming across these images/videos was not obtained. [Subject] is subscribed to various anime and comics which on occasion depict or tell stories about 16 year olds performing sexual acts. If he comes across such material as this he stops watching or reading the comic and denied masturbating to it. Due to examiner oversight, the frequency of [Subject] comes across these (sic) material was not obtained. (GX 4 at 3) A second polygraph report dated October 21, 2020, was prepared by another polygrapher and included the following statements: From 2000 through September 2020, [Subject] views (sic) child pornography in the form of anime (videos) and manga (comics) pornography two times a month on average. The characters are in sexual situations (nude and participating in sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus). His particular preference is for characters (male and female) that are below the age of 18 [years o

f age] in appearance, but over the age of 15 [years of age]. . . . He derives sexual satisfaction from this by masturbating to it “75% of the time.” His last time viewing this type of material was September 2020. The last time he masturbated to this material was August 2020. . . . He does not intend to view this material again but explained it is difficult to get away from. [Subject] explained that shows depicting 16 year olds in sexual situations is very common on [a large s treaming service of anime]. . . . (GX 4 at 5, emphasis added.) Applicant claimed that this polygraph examiner’s report does not accurately reflect his answers to the examiner’s questions, because he told the first polygrapher that if he comes across depictions of 16-year-olds performing sexual acts, he stops watching or reading the material. At the hearing, he testified that if he sees a depiction of a person that he believes is under the age of 18, he skips it or turns it off. (Tr. 19, 21) On September 1, 2023, a quality assurance specialist reviewed the audio recordings of the September 2020 and October 2020 polygraphs. He determined that the first polygrapher’s report was accurate as written, except for the statement that the frequency of coming across underage pornography was not obtained. The quality assurance specialist stated that this statement was incorrect, and the report should state: “[Applicant] initially said he has only come across these images/videos twice ever. He later said he comes across these images/videos once or twice a month.” The quality 3

assurance specialist determined that the October 2020 report was an accurate synopsis of the information discussed during the examination. (GX 5) When Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories in March 2026, he was asked if the statement of preference in the second polygraphy report was accurate, he answered that it was not accurate, because he does not prefer 15 to18-year-old anime characters. He admitted masturbating to sexually explicit material, but he said that if the material appears to involve someone under the age of 18, he becomes disgusted and loses interest. (GX 3 at 8-9) At the hearing, Applicant testified that he never told the examiner that he preferred pornography involving 15 to 18-year-old characters. He stated that he believed the polygrapher may have asked if he had come across participants who appeared to be between the ages of 15 and 18. He denied expressing a preference that that age group. (Tr. 65) The Appeal Board has held that an applicant’s polygraph admissions “carry evidentiary weight and are due enhanced credibility when against the applicant’s interest. Accordingly, recantations of such admissions must be supported by ‘persuasive evidence’ to overcome their significance.” ISCR Case No. 23-01593 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2025) In this case, Applicant’s denials, standing alone, fall short of “persuasive evidence.” See SCR Case No. 10-08257 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Dec. 12, 2011), citing United States v. Villapando, 588 F.3d 1124, 128 (7th Cir. 2009), which held that Applicant’s false admission claim was unsupported where the record lacked evidence that the admission was the “result of physical abuse, psychological intimidation, or deceptive interrogation tactics sufficient to overcome the free will of a reasonable person.”). I conclude that SOR ¶ 1.a is established by the polygraph reports. Guideline E, Personal Conduct SOR ¶ 2.a cross-alleges the sexual conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. SOR ¶ 2.b alleges that Applicant intentionally falsified material facts during a personal subject interview in June 2022 by denying that he had a preference for sexual content involving children between the ages of 15 to 18. SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that he falsified material facts during the same personal subject interview by stating that if he believed that images depicted a character under 18 years old, he would immediately stop masturbating. These two allegations are established by the polygraph reports. SOR ¶ 2.d alleges falsification of material facts during an evaluation by a licensed clinical psychologist in March 2024 at the request of DCSA. During the psychological evaluation, Applicant told the psychologist that he enjoyed watching pornography at times because it “was easier than real relationships.” He said that if he became concerned about a female’s age, he would change the video. The psychologist believed that Applicant might have had a guilty conscience about the possibility of viewing sexually explicit 4

material involving underage individuals. She noted that Applicant had been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and generalized anxiety disorder by previous providers. She hypothesized that Applicant’s OCD and anxiety may have led him to “over- thinking” his answers to question during the polygraph due to a guilty conscience about the possibility of viewing underage individuals and caused him to fail the polygraph examination. She concluded that Applicant’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness are “reasonably intact.” (GX 6). Applicant told the psychologist that he stopped viewing pornography when he and his wife began living together in June 2023, and that he no longer has concerns about accidentally viewing illegal pornography in the future. (GX 6 at 5) However, in response to DOHA interrogatories in March 2026, he stated that he watches sexually explicit material, including anime, and was masturbating to it about four times a month. (GX 3 at 9) At the hearing, he testified that he last watched anime or manga pornography depicting “appropriate age-range characters” about two weeks before the hearing, which was in mid-August 2026, and that he watches it about once a month. (Tr. 51-52) On April 26, 2026, the psychologist issued an addendum to her psychological evaluation. She stated that Applicant “failed to disclose a twenty-year history (from 2000 to 2020) of viewing pornographical (sic) material in the form of anime (videos), manga (comics), and content via the [well-known] streaming service, averaging twice per month.” She concluded that “it is evident that [Applicant] knowingly concealed material and relevant information during the clinical interview.” (GX 7) SOR ¶ 1.d is established. SOR ¶ 2.e alleges that Applicant was terminated from his employment in April 2024 for lack of communication with leadership, timecard discrepancies, and falling asleep during a conference. This allegation is partially established. In February 2024, a contractor being supported by Applicant’s employer expressed concern about Applicant’s work schedule. His normal work schedule allowed him to work remotely outside the office, and it provided for a day off every other Monday. However, on several occasions, he changed his work schedule without notifying his supervisor or the contractor team members. On Friday and Monday, February 2 and 5, 2024, he took mental health days without notifying his supervisor or the contractor’s representative. The contractor informed Applicant’s employer that he had fallen asleep multiple times at customer sites. The contractor discussed the concerns with Applicant, who assured him that he would make the needed changes to avoid recurrence. In April 2024, Applicant fell asleep during a conference. At the hearing, Applicant testified that the sleeping incident occurred at a time of mental stress. His younger brother had died from a drug overdose caused by ingesting fentanyl, thinking it was cocaine, and the drug supplier was on trial for causing the death. Applicant was having difficulty sleeping, and his medical provider gave him a prescription for trazadone, with a prescribed dosage of 50 mg to 100 mg. He took the higher dose on the day before the conference. Shortly after the sleeping incident, his assignment to 5

support the contractor was terminated, but he was not terminated from employment. He testified that his employer was actively seeking another contract that could be assigned to him, but he accepted employment with another company before being assigned to another contract. (Tr. 24-27) His new employer is sponsoring him for a security clearance. (Tr. 24-27, 32; GX 9) Applicant’s performance issues resulted in his assignment to a particular contract being terminated, but he was not fired. Whole Person Evidence When Applicant was evaluated in March 2024, the psychologist noted that his supervisor described him as a hard worker and a conscientious individual. At that time, his supervisor had no concerns about his judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, work performance, or interpersonal functioning. Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. 6

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531. Analysis Guideline D, Sexual Behavior The concern under this guideline is set out in AG 12: Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense; reflects a lack of judgment or discretion; or may subject the individual to undue influence of coercion, exploitation, or duress. These issues, together or individually, may raise questions about an individual's judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Sexual behavior includes conduct occurring in person or via audio, visual, electronic, or written transmission. . . . The following disqualifying conditions under this guideline are relevant: AG ¶ 13(a): sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted; 7

AG ¶ 13(c): sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress; and AG ¶ 13(d): sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment. AG ¶ 13(a) is established. During the polygraph examination in October 2020, Applicant expressed a preference for pornography having characters below the age of 18 but over the age of 15, and he stated that he masturbated to it. AG ¶ 13(c) is established. Applicant’s expression of preference for depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct makes him vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress. AG ¶ 13(d) is established. Applicant’s conduct occurred in the privacy of his home, but it reflects lack of discretion or judgment. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 14(b): the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 14(c): the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress; and AG ¶ 14(d): the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet. AG ¶ 14(b) is not established. The first prong of AG ¶ 14(b) focuses on whether the conduct was recent. There are no bright line rules for determining when conduct is recent. The determination must be based on a careful evaluation of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of time has passed without any evidence of misconduct, then an administrative judge must determine whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient to warrant a finding of reform or rehabilitation. See ISCR Case No. 02-24452 at 6 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2004). The record does not contain specific evidence that Applicant intentionally viewed depictions of a minor child engaged in sexually explicit conduct after September 2020. However, he has been under pressure to protect his security clearance since that date. He has given conflicting evidence about his continued viewing of pornography, telling a psychologist that he stopped viewing it in June 2023 but then continuing to view it as recently as a few days before the hearing. He has admitted that he continues to review pornography from sources that are well-known and notorious for depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, but he claims that he meticulously shuts it off when it appears. I am not convinced that it will not recur. 8

AG ¶ 14(c) is not established. Applicant’s past conduct and proclaimed preference for pornography involving images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct continues to be a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress. AG ¶ 14(d) is not established. Applicant’s preference for and viewing of child pornography may be private, but it is not consensual or discreet. Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. . . .” The following disqualifying conditions under this guideline are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 16(b): deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official representative; AG ¶ 16(d): credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of . . . (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; and (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and AG ¶ 16(e): personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes . . . engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing. AG ¶¶ 16(b) and 16(e) are established. Applicant’s statements to a security interviewer and a psychologist were deliberately false. His conduct created a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, and would, if known, affect his personal, professional, and community standing. He carefully parsed his explanation of his viewing of pornography on websites notorious for child pornography. While claiming that he 9

viewed pornography for entertainment and relaxation, he also claimed that he was vigilant to terminate it if it unexpectedly showed sexual activity by minors. I found his explanation unconvincing. AG ¶¶ 16(d)(2) and 16(d)(3) are also established by evidence of Applicant sleeping on the job and changing his work schedule without notifying his supervisor or the contractor he was supporting. SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c allege a falsification during a personal subject interview by breaking Applicant’s explanation of his conduct into two separate allegations. The first allegation is that he falsely denied a preference for sexual content involving minors and the second allegation alleges how he reacts when he sees it. Both statements amount to a denial of preferring depictions of sexual conduct by minors. When the same conduct is alleged twice in the SOR under the same guideline, one of the duplicative allegations should be resolved in Applicant’s favor. ISCR Case No. 03-04704 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2005). Accordingly, I have resolved SOR ¶ 2.c in Applicant’s favor. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; AG ¶ 17(c): the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 17(d): the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and AG ¶ 17(e): the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; AG ¶ 17(a) is not established. Applicant has made no effort to correct his falsifications. To the contrary, he has repeated them during the adjudication of his security clearance application. AG ¶ 17(c) is not established for Applicant’s falsifications during the security clearance process, which are not “minor” because they undermine the integrity of the process. It is established for Applicant’s reassignment for multiple rule violations, which were minor and occurred under unique circumstances. 10

AG ¶¶ 17(d) and 17(e) are not established. Applicant has not acknowledged his behavior. He continues to visit sites where child pornography is available, and he has not been truthful about it. When he was interviewed by a psychologist in March 2024 , he stated that he stopped viewing pornography after his marriage in June 2023. However, he disclosed in March 2026 that he was watching pornography about four times and month, and at the hearing, he disclosed that he was watching it about once a month, including a recent time about two weeks before the hearing Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines D and E in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). I have considered his long record of service with federal contractors and the ARNG, while holding a security clearance. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines D and E, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not refuted or mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines D. He has mitigated the Guideline E concerns raised by his reassignment after substandard performance on a particular contract, but he has not mitigated the concerns raised by his falsifications during the adjudication of his application for a security clearance. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline E (Sexual Behavior): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT 11

Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.d: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.e: For Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge 12