Summary
The applicant, a 58-year-old information systems security manager with a long history of holding a security clearance, faced allegations under Guidelines E, J, and M related to personal conduct, criminal conduct, and misuse of information technology systems. The applicant credibly denied allegations of theft and misuse, asserting he was unaware of a policy change regarding access to storage areas. The judge found the applicant's explanations credible and granted eligibility for access to classified information, citing favorable character evidence and a long history of compliance with security protocols.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant was terminated by his employer on June 6, 2017 for alleged theft of a company laptop (1.a). Applicant stated that his reason for leaving his employment in June 2017 was 'terminated employment.' (1.b). Applicant provided details about why he used the laptop and how he retrieved it after remembering where he put the device outside the SCIF (1.c). Applicant denied SOR 2.a because he did not commit a criminal offense when he used the laptop (2.a). Applicant maintains that he did not misuse technology systems as alleged under SOR 3.a (3.a).
The judge granted the clearance. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 41(a), AG ¶ 41(b), AG ¶ 41(c), AG ¶ 41(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's credible testimony dispelled security concerns regarding personal conduct, criminal conduct, and misuse of information technology systems; Favorable character evidence supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness; The applicant had a long history of holding a security clearance without significant issues.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's credible testimony dispelled security concerns regarding personal conduct, criminal conduct, and misuse of information technology systems.
- Favorable character evidence supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant had a long history of holding a security clearance without significant issues.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 41(a)appliedMitigating Condition 1The applicant's conduct occurred approximately two years ago and did not cast doubt on his reliability.
- AG ¶ 41(b)appliedMitigating Condition 2The violation of corporate policy was viewed as minor.
- AG ¶ 41(c)appliedMitigating Condition 3The applicant's actions were unintentional and he promptly corrected the situation.
- AG ¶ 41(d)appliedMitigating Condition 4The applicant was unaware of the policy change that restricted access to the storage area.
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 24, 2018
- Answer filedSep 18, 2018
- Hearing heldMar 18, 2019
- Decision dateSep 20, 2019
Cite For
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony in Mitigating Security Concerns
- Importance of Favorable Character Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
- Resolution of Doubts in Favor of National Security Eligibility