Summary
A 52-year-old engineer with a prior security clearance was denied a new clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The denial stemmed primarily from the applicant's mishandling of classified information, specifically storing lock combinations on a personal cell phone and subsequently disclosing these combinations to subordinates in an unclassified area.
While the applicant did not falsify his 2016 security clearance application and did not intend to mislead investigators, the judge found the security breach to be egregious. The violation compromised access to over 400 locks, requiring extensive corrective actions. Despite positive character references and completion of security training, the applicant's claim of inadequate training did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the violation.
The decision emphasized the applicant's failure to demonstrate a reliable commitment to safeguarding classified information. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 34(b), AG ¶ 34(c), AG ¶ 34(g), AG ¶ 16(a), and AG ¶ 16(b) were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 35(b), AG ¶ 35(c), and AG ¶ 35(a) were applied but ultimately deemed insufficient to overcome the gravity of the security breach.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant mishandled classified information by storing lock combinations on a personal cell phone.
- The severity of the security violation compromised access to over 400 locks, necessitating extensive corrective measures.
- The applicant's claim of inadequate training did not mitigate the egregious nature of the violation.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(b)raisedCollecting or Storing Protected Information in Any Unauthorized Location
- AG ¶ 34(c)raisedLoading, Drafting, Editing, Modifying, Storing, Transmitting, or Otherwise Handling Protected Information on Unauthorized Equipment
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe applicant did not falsify his security clearance application.
- AG ¶ 16(b)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe applicant's statements were not intended to mislead.
- AG ¶ 35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training
- AG ¶ 35(c)rejectedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate Training or Unclear InstructionsThe applicant's actions constituted improper handling of classified information regardless of training.
- AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe nature of the violation was too severe to conclude it would not recur.
Key Rule Quoted
“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 24, 2018
- Answer filedSep 11, 2018
- Hearing heldJun 3, 2019rescheduled from April 10, 2019
- Decision dateAug 30, 2019
Cite For
- Mishandling of Classified Information Under Guideline K
- Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
- Impact of Security Violations on Clearance Eligibility