Security clearance adjudications are often about patterns, not promises. A recent Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) case is a reminder that even years of employment, treatment, and partial recovery may not be enough to overcome long-standing concerns, especially a porn addiction the applicant shows a persistent inability to stop.
In a recent security clearance case, the Department of Defense declined to grant a security clearance to an applicant in his mid-30s whose case involved concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). After an Administrative Judge denied eligibility in October 2025, the applicant appealed—and the Government cross-appealed portions of the decision. The DOHA Appeal Board ultimately affirmed the adverse decision.
A Long History With Serious Consequences
The applicant was first granted a clearance in approximately 2011 and built a career as a software engineer supporting DoD contractors. But alongside that career ran a deeply concerning personal history.
The applicant admitted that he had been addicted to pornography since early adolescence and acknowledged repeatedly searching for content involving underage girls. In 2013, while in his early 20s, he downloaded pornographic material using the search term “underage girls.” One of the files was hosted by law enforcement, which led to a raid of his home and criminal charges in 2014 for possession of child pornography.
He ultimately pled guilty to one misdemeanor count, received probation before judgment, and was required to attend Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA) and submit to computer monitoring. His probation was terminated early and his record later expunged, but the clearance consequences were just beginning.
Although he eventually reported the charges to his employer, his clearance was suspended, and a Statement of Reasons followed. Despite these events, a DOHA judge found the concerns mitigated in 2018 and restored his eligibility.
That decision, however, would not age well.
Relapse, Workplace Misuse, and Termination
While still under scrutiny from both probation and the clearance process, the applicant relapsed in 2017 and resumed viewing pornography. By 2018, only months after his clearance was reinstated, his new employer flagged his work computer for pornography-related search terms.
While no child pornography was found, investigators discovered that he accessed pornographic content with themes similar to his prior illegal behavior, including websites known to host child exploitation material and malware. The applicant was terminated for misuse of company systems and mischarging time.
The case made clear that this was not an isolated lapse. It was part of a recurring cycle: abstinence, relapse, consequences, and renewed promises of reform.
The 2024 Statement of Reasons
In 2024, DoD issued a new SOR, cross-alleging concerns across three adjudicative guidelines. Central to the Government’s case was the applicant’s own admission: despite years of therapy, support groups, and serious legal and professional consequences, he had been unable to stop.
At the 2025 hearing, the applicant testified that he had been abstinent from pornography since late 2024 and had established boundaries with his devices. He described support from his wife, church leaders, and SAA, and submitted letters from a therapist addressing relapse prevention.
But the record also showed gaps. His SAA participation was inconsistent, he had never completed the 12 steps, lacked a sponsor, and had relapsed multiple times—including during periods when his clearance was under active adjudication.
Appeal and Cross-Appeal
On appeal, the applicant argued that the judge mischaracterized certain facts, including his attempt to install blocking software on a work computer and the circumstances of his termination. The Appeal Board rejected these arguments, finding that they amounted to disagreements with how the judge weighed the evidence, not legal error.
The more significant issue came from the Government’s cross-appeal.
While the judge ultimately denied the clearance, she had made a favorable finding that the applicant’s pornography addiction alone did not raise security concerns under Guideline D. The Appeal Board sharply disagreed.
The Board held that the judge failed to properly apply the disqualifying condition covering “a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop.” Given the applicant’s repeated relapses—some involving illegal content, some occurring while under supervision or adjudication—the record overwhelmingly supported that condition.
This was not about moral judgment. It was about demonstrated inability to control behavior despite extensive intervention.
Why This Case Matters
This decision reinforces a principle that shows up repeatedly in DOHA cases: treatment is not the same as mitigation.
Effort matters. Disclosure matters. Support systems matter. But adjudicators are ultimately tasked with answering one question—whether the behavior is unlikely to recur. When the record shows a long pattern of relapse after consequences, treatment, and second chances, doubt remains.
And under clearance law, doubt is decisive.
As the Appeal Board reiterated, eligibility may be granted only when it is “clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” When an applicant’s history shows repeated inability to stop high-risk behavior—particularly behavior that intersects with criminal law and workplace misuse—those doubts will be resolved in favor of national security.
The Takeaway
For clearance holders and applicants alike, this case is a reminder: effort is necessary, but may be insufficient given the gravity of issues and frequency of relapse. Mitigation requires sustained, verifiable change over time—and the burden is on the applicant to show that the past truly is the past.
In this case, DOHA concluded it was not.
