Summary
This case involved a 60-year-old Oracle database administrator whose security clearance was reviewed under Guideline K, concerning the handling of protected information. The Statement of Reasons cited three separate allegations (1.a, 1.b, 1.c) of deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules for handling protected information. Specifically, these allegations stemmed from three incidents where the applicant failed to properly secure a Special Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 34(g) and AG ¶ 34(h) were raised. However, the judge determined that the applicant's actions were not deliberate, but rather omissions influenced by health circumstances. Crucially, no classified information was compromised during any of the incidents.
The applicant also demonstrated a favorable response to counseling and a positive attitude toward security responsibilities. Mitigating conditions AG ¶ 35(a), AG ¶ 35(b), and AG ¶ 35(d) were applied, leading to a finding that the applicant demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's actions were not deliberate but rather acts of omission due to circumstances surrounding his health.
- There was no compromise of classified information as a result of the incidents.
- The applicant responded favorably to counseling and demonstrated a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Practices That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
- AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
- AG ¶ 35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Towards the Discharge of Security Responsibilities
- AG ¶ 35(d)appliedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Properly Reported, There Is No Evidence of Compromise, and It Does Not Suggest a Pattern
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedNov 27, 2017
- Answer filedDec 15, 2017
- Hearing heldNov 14, 2018
- Decision dateFeb 8, 2019
Cite for
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guideline K Due to Health-related Issues
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- The Importance of Favorable Responses to Counseling in Security Clearance Evaluations.