Summary
A 57-year-old former facility security officer with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The allegations stemmed from the applicant's mishandling of company proprietary information in 2015.
Specifically, the applicant was found to have transferred or downloaded over 1,600 files, including proprietary data, to a company-approved external hard drive (Passport #1) without authorization. During a subsequent company investigation in 2015, when asked to return Passport #1, the applicant instead returned a different external hard drive (Passport #2). Concurrently, he retained and intentionally destroyed Passport #1, which contained the proprietary information, without employer authorization.
The judge determined that the applicant's intentional destruction of the company-owned hard drive, coupled with his inconsistent accounts of these events, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. This conduct suggested an attempt to conceal adverse information, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant intentionally destroyed a company-owned external hard drive containing proprietary information without authorization.
- The applicant provided inconsistent accounts regarding his actions and the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the hard drive.
- The applicant's conduct suggested an attempt to conceal adverse information.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 34(b)raisedDeliberate or Negligent Failure to Comply with Rules and Procedures
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedUnauthorized Use of Information Technology Systems
- AG ¶ 40(b)raisedMishandling of Protected Information
- AG ¶ 40(d)raisedDeliberate Destruction of Information
- AG ¶ 17(c)raisedFailure to Provide Truthful Information
- AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant's actions were part of a pattern of behavior leading to serious misconduct.
- AG ¶ 41(a)rejectedThe Individual Did Not Intend to Harm National SecurityThe applicant's intent was questioned due to the nature of his actions.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Steps to Mitigate the Security ConcernsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns.
Key rule quoted
“It is well-established law that no one has a right to a security clearance.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedOct 9, 2017
- Answer filedOct 26, 2017
- Hearing heldApr 20, 2018rescheduled due to government shutdown
- Decision dateApr 12, 2019
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Mishandling of Proprietary Information
- Impact of Inconsistent Accounts on Credibility
- Seriousness of Unauthorized Destruction of Company Property