Summary
A 49-year-old information technology systems engineer was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), and M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from a history of employee theft, criminal conduct, and unauthorized use of information technology.
Specific allegations included the theft of approximately 25 pieces of clothing between 1989 and 1990, which was also cited as criminal activity. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have stolen numerous computer hardware items, such as computer towers, monitors, keyboards, and laptop computers, between 2000 and 2007. Further concerns involved illegal downloading of movies from 1993-2008, music from 2008-2011, and various computer software, games, and emulators.
Despite some admissions and positive character references, the judge found the applicant's explanations for her conduct not credible, which undermined her claims of rehabilitation. The judge concluded that the applicant's admissions of theft and unauthorized IT use, coupled with her continued untrustworthy behavior, raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant's admissions of theft and unauthorized use of information technology raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
- The judge found the applicant's explanations for her conduct to be not credible, undermining her claims of rehabilitation and responsibility.
- The applicant's continued untrustworthy behavior, including illegal downloading, further supported the denial of her security clearance.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- AG ¶ 30(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 40(e)appliedUnauthorized Use of Any Information Technology System
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so InfrequentWhile the applicant's past offenses were remote, her subsequent untrustworthy behavior negated full mitigation.
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior HappenedThe applicant's ongoing conduct raised doubts about her reliability despite the passage of time.
- AG ¶ 41(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior HappenedThe applicant's lack of acceptance of responsibility for her actions undermined the applicability of this mitigating condition.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 14, 2017
- Answer filedDec 5, 2017
- Hearing heldJan 9, 2020
- Decision dateFeb 26, 2020
Cite For
- Credibility Issues Impacting Mitigation Under Guideline E
- Ongoing Criminal Conduct Affecting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Unauthorized Use of Information Technology Systems as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline M