CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05127.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 14-05127.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/24/2016
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 14-05127.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: Chris Morin
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a retired military official who sought a security clearance after the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations involved the applicant's conduct related to a program known as AB2, which he had significant involvement in while in the military, and subsequent actions taken as CEO of a contractor company that received a contract for AB2 shortly after his retirement.
Key facts included an investigation by the DoD Inspector General that identified irregularities in the handling of the AB2 contract, as well as the applicant's communications with government officials that were deemed to violate 18 U.S.C. § 207, which prohibits former government employees from representing private interests in matters they were involved in while in government. The applicant admitted to some communications but denied wrongdoing, arguing that the Office of General Counsel's advice was advisory and not binding. The administrative judge found that the applicant's actions demonstrated poor judgment and dishonesty, raising concerns about his ability to protect classified information.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled against the applicant, affirming the adverse decision based on the applicant's failure to accept responsibility for his actions and the serious nature of the violations. The judge concluded that the applicant's conduct warranted concerns under Guideline E, while some security concerns under Guideline K were mitigated due to the lack of intent to mishandle classified information. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the judge's findings deemed consistent with the allegations in the SOR.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · Against Applicant
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05127.a1

deniedJun 24, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

A retired military official was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from the applicant's violations of post-government employment advice and the mishandling of classified information.

Specifically, the applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 207 by engaging in prohibited communications with government officials despite receiving multiple advisories against such conduct. The judge found the applicant's actions demonstrated dishonesty and poor judgment, raising significant national security concerns regarding his ability to protect classified information.

The applicant's claims of ignorance regarding classified information on his unclassified laptop were deemed not credible and did not mitigate security concerns. His failure to accept responsibility for his actions further contributed to the denial. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶¶ 14, 16, and 18 were raised, while only AG ¶ 35(a) was applied as a mitigating condition.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 207 by engaging in prohibited communications with government officials after receiving multiple advisories against such conduct.
The applicant's conduct showed dishonesty, poor judgment, and an unwillingness to comply with the law, raising concerns about his ability to protect classified information.
The applicant's claims of ignorance regarding the presence of classified information on his unclassified laptop were not credible and did not mitigate security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 14raisedGuideline E: Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 16raisedGuideline K: Handling Protected Information
AG ¶ 18raisedGuideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems

Mitigating

AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedMitigating Condition 35(a)The judge found insufficient evidence to support that the applicant's conduct was unlikely to recur.

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 issuedOct 31, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 18, 2016
Decision dateJun 24, 2016

Cite For

Violations of Post-government Employment Advice Under Guideline E
Handling of Classified Information Under Guideline K
Use of Information Technology Systems Under Guideline M

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

Full decision

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