Prostitution is an illegal act in all states across the U.S. with the exception of certain areas in Nevada, where it is strictly regulated. A subscriber on ClearanceJobs blog had a case they were reminded of from 15 years ago as prostitution and porn stars make headlines:
With the latest news of a certain President who kept time with a porn star, it reminded me of a case I did about 15yrs ago. I had an SES employee who liked to visit escorts while on government travel. But he paid privately, and law enforcement was never involved. Without going in too much detail he indicated he liked them to dress up, etc. as it’s something his wife wouldn’t do.
I don’t recall what the issue-code was back in the day, but I would guess it may be personal conduct. Just curious, in today’s age, if no one was hurt, law enforcement wasn’t involved, his spouse knew and he wasn’t open to blackmail, coercion, etc. What if anything would it be coded?
Marko Hakamma, ClearanceJobsBlog contributor recently wrote, “There are countries where [prostitution] is legal and regulated. Regardless of where it occurs, soliciting a prostitute is never a good idea for someone who has a security clearance.”
According to the adjudicative guidelines under sexual behavior, prostitution (or other things like pornography) could make you susceptible to blackmail, coercion, or exploitation by criminals, foreign intelligence operatives, or other individuals if they were to threaten telling on you to certain stakeholders (like family, a spouse, or your boss).
If this scenario took place within the U.S., the individual in this case would likely have engaged in a criminal act. Some states penalize the act of prostitution, and other states criminalize the act of seeking it out or arranging it. But what’s unclear is how this information – down to costume details – came up in the court of the security clearance background investigation. It sounds like a classic case of oversharing. And without knowing the details it’s hard to know if the applicant was right to disclose the issues. But what is clear is that he should have potentially done some soul searching with a counselor or a security clearance attorney before talking about his costume fetish with an investigator.
THE ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES
The adjudicative guidelines this could possibly be coded under would be Guideline D: Sexual Behavior, potentially Guideline E: Personal Conduct, and Guideline J: Criminal Conduct.
Guideline D: Sexual Behavior
Sexual behavior alone is rarely used for a clearance denial…in the old days, or today. When this adjudicative guideline does come in to play, it’s usually tied to criminal sexual behavior. If prostitution was solicited in a state where it is illegal, and the individual would go to great lengths to hide it (maybe from their boss if their spouse already knows), this situation could come under scrutiny.
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
This is a hypothetical disqualifier, but would come into play against this applicant if they lied about the prostitution on their SF-86 or during a polygraph.
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct
Law enforcement wasn’t involved in this scenario, but criminal offenses should be reported on the SF-86. Many applicants on the blog are unsure whether they were charged or arrested for experiences in their background, but the best thing to do is include the information on your SF-86, plus mitigating factors like time passed, references, or therapy you went through.
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” This case-by-case system is meant to consider the whole person, increase process security, and allow the lowest-risk/highest-need candidates to complete the process. However, it also creates a lot of questions for applicants. For this reason, ClearanceJobs maintains ClearanceJobsBlog.com – a forum where clearance seekers can ask the cleared community for advice on their specific security concerns. Ask CJ explores questions posed on the ClearanceJobs Blog forum, emails received, and comments from this site.
