CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02006 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 18-02006

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date7/29/2019
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought a security clearance after being found culpable for two significant security violations under Guideline K, which pertains to the handling of protected information. The allegations included the improper shipment of classified hardware to a foreign military in February 2013 and the placement of an order for classified parts from a foreign vendor in June 2014 without the necessary security specifications. The Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a Statement of Reasons detailing these concerns, asserting that the applicant's actions were inconsistent with national security interests.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the violations but attributed them to reliance on incorrect advice from a program engineer manager. He provided evidence of corrective measures taken by both himself and his employer to prevent future occurrences, including implementing new procedures and receiving additional training. The applicant had no prior security infractions and had held a security clearance since 2004.
The administrative judge ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant, granting the security clearance. The judge noted the applicant's acknowledgment of his mistakes, the steps taken to rectify the issues, and the absence of any prior violations as significant mitigating factors. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions, while serious, did not demonstrate a willful disregard for security protocols, and thus, granting the clearance was consistent with the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline KHandling Protected Information · For Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02006

grantedJul 29, 2019· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old supply chain manager was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline K, which addresses the handling of protected information. The Statement of Reasons detailed two primary allegations. First, in February 2013, the applicant caused the improper shipment of classified hardware to a foreign military, violating security and export control requirements. Second, in June 2014, he placed an order for classified parts from a foreign vendor without the necessary contract security classification specifications to protect the hardware.

These actions raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 34(g) and AG ¶ 34(h). However, the decision to grant clearance was influenced by several mitigating conditions, specifically AG ¶ 35(a), AG ¶ 35(b), AG ¶ 35(c), and AG ¶ 35(d).

The applicant demonstrated significant remedial actions following the violations. He completed over 40 hours of security training and implemented new procurement procedures to ensure compliance with regulations. Crucially, there was no evidence that classified information was compromised as a result of the violations.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant took significant remedial actions to improve security procedures after the violations.
He completed over 40 hours of security training and implemented new procurement procedures to ensure compliance with regulations.
There was no evidence of compromise of classified information despite the violations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 35(a)appliedBehavior Occurred Infrequently or Under Unusual Circumstances
AG ¶ 35(b)appliedResponded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training
AG ¶ 35(c)appliedViolations Due to Improper or Inadequate Training or Unclear Instructions
AG ¶ 35(d)appliedViolation Was Inadvertent, Promptly Reported, and Does Not Suggest a Pattern

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 22, 2018
Answer filedNov 19, 2018
Hearing heldMay 7, 2019
Decision dateJul 29, 2019

Cite For

Mitigation of Security Violations Under Guideline K
Importance of Remedial Actions in Security Clearance Cases
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudication Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had committed violations related to the handling of classified information, specifically involving the improper shipment of classified hardware and the placement of an order for classified parts without proper security specifications. However, the judge ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant, noting that while there were security concerns, there was no proven compromise of protected information and the applicant had taken steps to address the issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant caused the improper shipment of classified hardware to a foreign military in February 2013, in violation of security and export control requirements.	For Applicant	Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info	Admitted	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…	Claimed Other Documented Other Credited Other
1.b	In June 2014, he placed an order for classified parts from a foreign vendor without contract security classification specifications in existence to ensure that the classified hardware would be protected.	For Applicant	Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info	Admitted	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…	Claimed Other Documented Other Credited Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline K). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.