Loading case…

ISCR 18-02592.a1: Guideline B security clearance appeal, denied (2021) · CASE

ISCR Case 18-02592.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02592.a1

Jan 6, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A male applicant in his 30s, holding a bachelor's degree and possessing IT experience, was denied a security clearance. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology).

The primary reasons for denial stemmed from the applicant's serious violations of his former employer's Internet use policy. He accessed hacking-related websites and attempted to obscure his online activity. The appeal board found his claims of educational intent insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by this conduct.

The board emphasized the applicant's incredibly poor judgment, especially considering his professional role in developing malware defenses. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 15 and 40 were specifically cited, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 40appliedUse of Information Technology

Key rule quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 7, 2020
Decision dateJan 6, 2021

Cite for

Affirmation of Denial Based on Serious Violations of Internet Use Policy Under Guideline E and M
Dismissal of Claims of Educational Intent as Insufficient to Mitigate Security Concerns
Emphasis on the Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on security concerns under Guidelines M and E. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in evidentiary rulings and in weighing the evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's conduct and its implications for national security.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline MGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated a former employer’s policies.
Legal error, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claims the Judge erred in an evidentiary ruling regarding the admission of the investigative report.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline M; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant contends that Department Counsel had a copy of the investigative report before the SOR was issued but did not make that document available to him until he requested a hearing. The record reflects that Applicant was provided a copy of GE 2 in Department Counsel’s discovery letter that was sent to him more than six months before the hearing was held. The Directive does not contain any provision that required Department Counsel to provide Applicant a copy of the investigative report when the SOR was issued. Applicant has failed to establish that the due process rights afforded him under the Directive were violated. Applicant notes that he was never investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or charged with any criminal violation even though some information in the investigative report reflects he engaged in such conduct. He is apparently relying on the lack of a criminal investigation or charges as a basis to argue the former employer’s investigative report lacks merit. Even though applicant was not investigated by law enforcement authorities and was never arrested, charged, or convicted of an offense, a Judge may still find the applicant engaged in misconduct that raises security concerns. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02592.a1 DATE: 01/06/2021 DATE: January 6, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02592 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

The Judge’s Pertinent Findings of Fact

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 30, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 27, 2019, Department Counsel amended the SOR by adding a Guideline B (Foreign Influence) allegation. On October 7, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B were not raised as an issue on appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on a single allegation that was cross-alleged under Guidelines M and E. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in an evidentiary ruling, whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Applicant violated a former employer’s policies, and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. Applicant, who is in his 30s, has earned a bachelor’s degree. He has been working in the information technology (IT) field for an number of years and has been working for a defense contractor for the past two years. In late 2014, Applicant’s employer suspected him of suspicious computer activity. The Judge specifically found: [A]nanalysis of one of Applicant’s computers indicated that he attempted to initiate a peer-to-peer connection with a remote host outside his employer’s network. This type of activity was prohibited because of its potential to bypass the employer’s security measures. (GE [Government Exhibit] 2 at 7) Further review of Applicant’s computer use “discovered attempts to obscure Internet activity by using an anonymous proxy that would hide the destination from [the employer’s] IT security

The Judge’s Pertinent Analysis

systems, as well as frequent visits to questionable download websites as far back as September 2015.” 1 (GE 2 at 7) Moreover, Applicant was visiting websites that provided tutorials regarding how to crack passwords and conduct network attacks, and that he had downloaded a copy of pirated software onto the network. (GE 2 at 9) After an investigation, Applicant was terminated for violation of his employer’s Internet use policy. (Answer at 1-2) Applicant admits that he demonstrated bad judgment accessing some of his “personal stuff” on his work computer. (Tr. 58) However, he contends that he visited hacking-related websites for educational and professional development, and that cyber-securityexperts need to understand how hackers operate in order to defend against them. (Answer at 2; Tr. 56) He characterized this concept as “ethical hacking,” and testified that he was earning an online certification in this field while working for his former employer. (Tr. 54) Applicant contends that his employer allowed him to use the office computer for studying and practical assignments related to his certification during down time. Also, Applicant testified that he made a mistake by not memorializing this permission in writing. (Tr. 57-58; 119) There were occasions on Applicant’s job when information technology specialists might need to visit websites related to hacking for research, or download password-cracking software to gain access to a system where a password was lost. These situations were exceedingly rare. (GE 2 at 8) Applicant’s employer characterized the volume ofhacking-related content combined withthe absence ofany specific project that required that type of information “disconcerting,” and characterized Applicant’s behavior as a demonstration of“incrediblypoor judgment.” (GE 2 at 9) [Decision at 3-4.] There is no evidence that Applicant misused information technology in the past five years. He has informed subsequent employers of his employment termination, completed security training courses, and is highly respected in his current job. The Judge, however, concluded: Applicant’s violations ofhis ex-employer’s Internet use policywere extremely serious, as they involved visiting websites containing network hacking and password- cracking tutorials. These violations were particularly egregious because Applicant was responsible, in part, with developing malware defenses for his employer. Under these circumstances, his behavior continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment, and AG ¶ 41(a) is inapplicable. Given the unusually high volume of visits to inappropriate hacking websites, and in light of 1 The quoted sentence from GE 2 at 7 does not contain the year “2015." Since GE 2 is dated in January 2015, it is apparent that document was referring to September 2014, vice 2015.

evidence that Applicant attempted to obscure some of his illicit Internet activity, AG ¶ 41(d) also does not apply. Efforts to conceal his conduct show consciousness of guilt, that is, he was aware that his Internet activity was not permitted. In sum, there is limited evidence of mitigating, but in light of the nature and seriousness of the violations, it is insufficient to fully mitigate the security concerns. [Decision at 7.]

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant essentially contends that the Judge erred in admitting into evidence an investigative report from his previous employer laying out Applicant’s network activity2 because it was not authenticated. The investigative report was a portion of GE 2. The Federal Rules of Evidence serve as a guide in industrial security cases. Directive ¶ E3.1.19. Unless the Directive provides otherwise, those rules of evidence may be relaxed to permit the development of a full and complete record. Id. The Appeal Board examines a Judge’s challenged evidentiary rulings to determine if they are consistent with the Directive and to determine if they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-05047 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 2017). The authentication issue that Applicant is raising on appeal was addressed below. At the hearing, Applicant was represented by counsel who objected to the investigative report on the grounds that it was not authenticated. Initially, the Judge ruled that portions of GE 2 were admissible, but the investigative report in that exhibit (GE 2 at 7-10) was inadmissible. Tr. at 11-19. After Department Counsel later offered into evidence email communications (GE 4-6) regarding GE 2, the Judge withdrew his initial ruling on the investigative report, decided to reserve making a ruling about the admissibility of those pages at that time, and provided the parties the opportunity to submitted additional matters regarding this issue after the hearing. Tr. at 71-78, 88-91, 146-147, and 160-161. In a post-hearing submission, Department Counsel offered another email, admitted into evidence as GE 7, that confirmed the investigative report was from the former employer’s internal personnel records. In the decision, the Judge noted that he had admitted pages 7-10 of GE 2 into the record. From our review of the record, we conclude the Judge did not err by admitting the investigative report into evidence. As a related matter, Applicant contends that Department Counsel had a copy of the investigative report before the SOR was issued but did not make that document available to him until he requested a hearing. The record reflects that Applicant was provided a copy of GE 2 in Department Counsel’s discovery letter that was sent to him on January 22, 2020, more than six months before the hearing was held. The Directive does not contain any provision that required Department Counsel to provide Applicant a copy of the investigative report when the SOR was issued. Applicant has failed to establish that the due process rights afforded him under the Directive were violated. 2 The previous employer was part of another branch of the U.S. Government and not within DoD. The previous employer’s investigative report was not a DoD personnel background report of investigation (ROI) that, as set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.20, would have required authentication.

Applicant notes that he was never investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or charged with any criminal violation even though some information in the investigative report reflects he engaged in such conduct. He is apparently relying on the lack of a criminal investigation or charges as a basis to argue the former employer’s investigative report lacks merit. Even though there is no evidence that an applicant was investigated by law enforcement authorities or that he was never arrested, charged, or convicted of an offense, a Judge may still find the applicant engaged in misconduct that raises security concerns. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-04931 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2005). Applicant also contends the investigative report in GE 2 contains unfounded allegations. In this regard, we have previously stated that an employer’s decisions and characterizations of events are entitled to some deference. Such deference extends to an employer’s internal investigation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00496 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 2019). It is also noted that the investigation in question was conducted by a Federal court, and there is a rebuttable presumption that Federal officials and employees carry out their duties in good faith. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02347 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015). Applicant’s challenges to the investigative report are not persuasive. Applicant argues that insufficient evidence was presented to show that he had knowledge of the former employer’s IT rules. This contention is not persuasive. Knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence. In this case, GE 2 contains a copy of the former employer’s Internet Use Policy that Applicant signed in June 2014. That document lists the two specific policies that Applicant’s termination letter states he violated. GE 2 at 2. Applicant certified that he had read his employer’s internet policy and would comply with it. GE 2 at 6. Furthermore, Applicant worked in the IT field for a number of years before his employment termination. From our review of the record, the Judge’s material findings and conclusions of a security concern are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02225 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2019). The remainder of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. He argues, for example, that his sole purpose in visiting the questionable websites was for professional development. The Judge noted this claim in his findings of fact. Based on the Judge’s conclusions that Applicant violated the former employer’s IT policies and attempted to concealhis conduct, it is apparent that he dismissed Applicant’s claimthat his visits to questionable websites were for authorized purposes. In this regard, it merits noting that we give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. None of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App A. ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board