Summary
A 61-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite two allegations under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) for mishandling classified information. The first allegation, from approximately August 2017, involved the loss of a Secret classified accountable item. The second, from about March 2017, stated the applicant left a classified container unsecured within a Secret closed area. These incidents raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 34(g) and AG ¶ 34(h).
However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 35(a), AG ¶ 35(b), and AG ¶ 35(d). The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors: the applicant's extensive history of compliance with security protocols before these incidents, a demonstrated positive attitude toward security responsibilities, and full acceptance of responsibility for the violations.
Crucially, there was no evidence that classified information was compromised due to the applicant's actions. The judge concluded that granting the security clearance was consistent with national interest.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant had a long history of compliance with security protocols prior to the incidents.
- The applicant demonstrated a positive attitude towards security responsibilities and accepted full responsibility for the violations.
- There was no evidence of compromise of classified information as a result of the applicant's actions.
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)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It 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 JudgmentThe violations occurred within a short time frame and were not isolated incidents.
- AG ¶ 35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security Responsibilities
- AG ¶ 35(d)appliedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Promptly Reported, There Is No Evidence of Compromise, and It Does Not Suggest a PatternThe applicant's actions were deemed inadvertent and there was no compromise.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 3, 2018
- Answer filedNov 8, 2018
- Hearing heldMay 8, 2019
- Decision dateJul 16, 2019
Cite For
- Positive Attitude Towards Security Responsibilities Under Guideline K
- Mitigating Factors Related to Inadvertent Violations of Security Protocols
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions