Opinion ID: 403539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Sexual Misconduct and Incidents of Indiscreet Behavior

Text: 43 The Army also relied upon evidence of incidents allegedly involving sexual misconduct or other indiscreet behavior by petitioner, which it viewed as immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct under the Regulation, AR 604-5, P 3-1a (17). See Tr. 111-12. In particular, much of the testimony focused upon several events that occurred while petitioner and his wife were acting as advisers on a girl scout trip through Germany. Having reviewed the testimony concerning all of these incidents, we conclude that it too is inadequate, even in conjunction with the other evidence presented by the Army, to support the MSPB's decision.
44 One of the central weaknesses in this portion of the Army's case, as in the rest of the Army's presentation, is that the allegations of misconduct were based entirely on hearsay evidence. 16 Many of these allegations were vitiated by the sworn testimony of petitioner and his wife describing the circumstances of the incidents involved. Thus, although the Army has maintained its position that all of the incidents of allegedly improper behavior together comprise a legitimate basis for revoking petitioner's clearance, the evidence shows that many of the incidents, as explained by petitioner, are so far removed from anything immoral or notoriously disgraceful as to be of no assistance to the Army. For example, the Army argued that petitioner had purchased beer for a minor girl scout in a restaurant during their trip through Germany. Petitioner acknowledged having purchased beer for the girl scout, Tr. 72, but explained that it was reasonable to permit the girl to sample a beer (she in fact took only one sip) because it was in a controlled environment in which he and his wife were present, it was not contrary to any local law or custom, and (t)he restaurant was full of young people of similar age ... many of whom were drinking beer. Tr. 82-83. Petitioner's wife recited the same account of the incident, emphasizing that allowing the girl to sample beer was not unnatural because in the surroundings there were young people drinking beer. Tr. 130. Similarly, the Army's bald and, given the evidence, misleading allegation that petitioner displayed pictures of nude females to girl scouts during the same trip was totally defused by petitioner's explanation of the incident. 17 Since the Army did not offer testimony disputing petitioner's accounts of either of these two incidents, it is clear that this evidence does not demonstrate immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct or otherwise provide a legitimate basis under the Army's Regulation for revoking petitioner's clearance. 18 45 Other allegations by the Army arguably demonstrate indiscretion by petitioner. For example, the Army appears to rely particularly heavily on a single incident in which petitioner admittedly recited an off-color rhyme in the presence of girl scouts. Merely showing indiscretion by petitioner, however, is inadequate under the Army's own Regulation to support the revocation of petitioner's clearance. Even if an incident such as this one could rationally be viewed as involving immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct, it is not clear from the Army's evidence that it is of a serious enough degree-an inquiry mandated by the Army Regulation-to justify revocation of petitioner's security clearance. 19 46 The critical weakness in this portion of the Army's case, however, is its failure to demonstrate a rational nexus between petitioner's allegedly immoral and notoriously disgraceful conduct and his ability to protect classified information. The MSPB decision in fact contains no discussion at all of whether such a nexus exists. 20 47
48 The Army's presentation before the MSPB did include general allegations of a rational nexus based upon all of the evidence against petitioner. In explaining their decision to revoke petitioner's clearance, the Army officers who testified invoked certain talismanic phrases-lack of reliability, instability, lack of judgment, indiscretion-that at least suggest a nexus to petitioner's ability to safeguard classified information. See Tr. 45-47, 56-57, 99-100. 21 We do not mean to condone any of petitioner's off-the-job behavior, or to suggest that it involved no indiscretion at all. Nor do we suggest that demonstrations of poor judgment or indiscretion can never constitute a sufficient showing of nexus. For several reasons, however, we believe the circumstances of this case demand a more concrete showing of a rational nexus between the various allegations of misconduct and indiscretion and petitioner's ability to safeguard sensitive information. 49 First, none of the incidents of allegedly improper behavior involved classified or sensitive information or the protection of such information. Second, none of the incidents in any way concerned the Army or the work petitioner performed in the Army. Nor were these the type of incidents that, by their very nature, had some obvious bearing on petitioner's ability to do his job and to safeguard sensitive information. 22 Third, the other evidence in this case that was explicitly work-related-such as petitioner's work evaluations and career appraisals, which the Army apparently never considered in deciding whether to revoke petitioner's clearance-contains no negative appraisals concerning petitioner's judgment, reliability or stability. On the contrary, they show that petitioner had performed stably and admirably in his position. See Tr. 23-25, 57-59; App. 49-54, 63; note 1 supra. (Furthermore, as shown above, the claims regarding the alleged on-the-job security violations are at best unfounded allegations and at worst patently frivolous charges.) Fourth, the Army does not contend that any of the incidents of improper behavior involved a violation of any law, local custom or Army regulation. 50 Finally, the rational nexus requirement is perhaps nowhere more important than where an adverse action is taken against an individual on the basis of lawful, consensual, social behavior that is considered by his superiors to be immoral or notoriously disgraceful. Without the limitations provided by the nexus requirement, such a standard would give the Army virtually free reign to purge itself of persons found to be distasteful under the sacrosanct guise of protecting the national security. As this court noted in Norton v. Macy, 417 F.2d 1161 (D.C.Cir.1969): A pronouncement of 'immorality' tends to discourage careful analysis because it unavoidably connotes a violation of divine, Olympian, or otherwise universal standards of rectitude. Id. at 1165. True to that maxim, the Army in this case has invoked standards of morality in depriving petitioner of his security clearance and his job, but has failed to provide any careful analysis of the connection between the incidents of allegedly immoral or improper behavior and petitioner's ability to execute the responsibilities associated with his Top Secret clearance. 51 Thus, under the circumstances of this case, in order to rely on its evidence of improper or indiscreet behavior in revoking petitioner's security clearance, the Army was required to show some specific connection between that evidence and petitioner's ability to safeguard the information to which the security clearance gave him access. This is not an onerous requirement. It merely compels the Army to comply with the standards of reasonableness and nonarbitrariness in its own Regulation. Because the Army has plainly failed to satisfy these standards, the adverse actions taken against Hoska cannot stand.