DATE: April 19, 1999
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN G. METZ, JR.
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Carol A. Marchant, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 29 October 1998, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)(Item 1) to Applicant, stating that DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding(1) that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On 6 November 1998, Applicant answered the SOR (Item 3) and requested an administrative decision on the record. Applicant did not respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM)--issued 16 December 1998; the record in this case closed 29 January 1999, the day the response was due at DOHA. The case was assigned to me on 13 April 1999. I received the case on 15 April 1999 to determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the factual allegations of the SOR; accordingly, I incorporate Applicant's admissions as findings of fact.
Applicant--a 25-year old employee of a defense contractor--seeks access to classified information.
The allegations of the SOR revolve around Applicant's zoophilia--his sexual attraction to animals and his sexual activity with dogs from approximately 1987 to June 1996. On 13 August 1998, Applicant described his zoophilia to a special agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS)(Item 5):
I would like to take this opportunity to explain that I am a zoophile, sexually attracted animals. I fantasize about sexual activities with anthropomorphic (cartoon character types) animals, friendly big cat like a lion, any medium to large size dog, horses, cows, etc., but to actually engage the animal must be a dog. The reason I state it must be a dog because a dog is the only animal who has the closest personality to a human being.
My first sexual encounter with a dog was when I was about fourteen years old. We had a female family dog, named [name of dog]; she was a husky. [The dog] was not house broken well enough to stay in the main part of the home so she mainly stayed in the basement with my cat. I was initially afraid of [the dog], but after many trips to the basement to feed her and my cat I lost my fear of her. I then became very fond of [the dog] and liked to pet her. [The dog] had a habit of putting her nose in my crouch. When she did this it sexually aroused me so [the dog] basically initiated sexual encounters. The sexual contact between me and [the dog] only consisted of allowing her to lick my penis and nothing more. The first time I allowed her to lick my penis was on a dare. A friend was visiting, and he dared me to let her lick my penis. So I unzipped my pants, exposed my penis and [the dog] licked it a few times. I cannot recall how many times I engaged in this type of activity with [the dog]. [The dog] died about a year later.
After [the dog's] death, I did not engage in sexual activities with a dog until I purchased a male dog named [name of dog]. I purchased [the dog] in Nov[ember] [19]95, but did not engage in sexual activity with him until around Jan[uary] [19]96. I became sexually involved with [this dog] through thoughts of [my first dog]. When I petted [this dog], I often thought about [my first dog] and became sexually aroused. But I did not initially engage in sex with [this dog] it was only petting at first. Eventually the petting led to sexual encounters. The sexual encounters with [this dog] consisted of allowing [this dog] to lick my penis on a nightly basis. Also, on one occasion, I tried to lick his penis. When I tried to lick his penis he bounced away as if he did not like it so I never tried to lick his penis again. [This dog] liked peanut butter and butter so I encouraged [this dog] to lick my penis by putting them on my penis. When I moved back to my father's home in Apr[il] [19]96 it was difficult to have sexual encounters with [this dog] because I was concerned my father would find out so our encounters were less frequent. Around June [19]96 I stopped having sexual contact with [this dog]. I stopped the contacts because in reading the bible I noted one of the laws of the bible prohibited man from having sexual contact with animals.
I realize that I am a zoophile and cannot change the way I am. However, I realize it is wrong to engage in sexual acts with animals so I will refrain from this sort of activity in the future. When I see an animal and become sexually aroused, I pray to God and this gives me the strength to control my thoughts, emotions and actions. I never sought professional help for my problem. I did, however, discuss my sexual contacts with dogs with a roommate. The roommate did not seem to have any problem with my relationship with [this dog] and seemed to have an understanding about it because on occasions he would throw me a jar of peanut butter and state "have fun." I never did anything to harm any animals. I learned a lot about zoophilia from accessing a chatroom on the Internet where I could converse with other zoophiles. I have never engaged in any other sexual misbehavior. When [the DSS Agent] discussed moral behavior with me during my interview conducted on 05 Aug[ust] [19]98, I did not inform him about my sexual encounters with [my two dogs] because this matter is private in nature and embarrassing to me.
I could not be blackmailed, threatened, pressured or coerced into disclosing classified information to unauthorized individuals or otherwise acting against the best interest of national security, based on the above information or for any other reason. I would immediately report any such attempt to proper authorities.
Applicant has apparently not received any treatment for his zoophilia, or been formally diagnosed as a zoophile.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented. Each adjudicative decision must also assess the factors listed in Section F.3. and in Enclosure (2) of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of seriousness, recency, motivation, etc.
Considering the evidence as a whole, the following adjudication policy factors are most pertinent to this case:
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (CRITERION D)
Sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, subjects the individual to undue influence or coercion, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(2) compulsive or addictive sexual behavior when the person is unable to stop a pattern of self-destructive or high-risk behavior or that which is symptomatic of a personality disorder;
(3) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to undue influence or coercion;
(4) sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that which reflects lack of discretion or judgment.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
None.
Burden of Proof
Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons. If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to Applicant to establish her security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."
CONCLUSIONS
The Government has established its case under criterion D. Although Applicant's periods of actual sexual misconduct were limited to one year when Applicant was approximately fourteen years old and six months between January and June 1996, that sexual misconduct--and the mind set which accompanied it--raises substantial doubts about Applicant's fitness for access to classified information. Although Applicant apparently ceased the misconduct in June 1996, there are addictive or compulsive elements to his behavior which suggest to me that the conduct may recur; certainly the behavior is symptomatic of a personality disorder. His concern for having the misconduct discovered--as evidenced by his conduct when he moved back in with his father in April 1996 and his initial reluctance to disclose the information to the DSS Agent--suggest that Applicant is vulnerable to undue influence or coercion, notwithstanding Applicant's assertions that he could not be blackmailed by his conduct. Finally, his sexual misconduct reflects a lack of discretion and judgment.
Applicant's initial sexual experiences with animals occurred during his adolescence; however, resumption of the sexual misconduct as an adult means that mitigating factor 1 is unavailable to Applicant. Further, the conduct which Applicant has admitted is sufficient to raise doubts about his access to classified information. Applicant has the burden of mitigating those concerns and his evidence is insufficient to do so. Applicant initially cut back on his misconduct because he moved in with his father and did not want to be discovered; however, that decline in misconduct is not enough to demonstrate that Applicant is unlikely to engage in the misconduct in the future. Applicant's statements of new-found religious objection to continuing the misconduct provide some mitigation of his misconduct, but not enough to overcome the adverse inferences urged by the Government. Finally, the record does not indicate that Applicant has any true sense of the impropriety of his conduct or has taken any steps to understand the sources of his sexual attraction to animals and otherwise deal with that attraction. Under the circumstances, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the Government's case. I find criterion D against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Criterion D: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
John G. Metz, Jr.
Administrative Judge
1. Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992--and amended by Change 3 dated 16 February 1996 (Directive).