Summary
This case involved a 46-year-old defense contractor with a military background, whose security clearance was challenged under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant hand-drew diagrams of a classified system, including classified IP addresses and site locations, and took them home. It was also alleged that the applicant improperly emailed a diagram with classified IP addresses and site locations over an unclassified network, and failed to comply with rules for handling protected information.
The judge found the applicant to be credible in denying these allegations. Crucially, there was no corroborating evidence to support claims that the applicant possessed classified documents at home or improperly emailed classified information. Furthermore, the applicant's supervisors were aware of and had approved his practice of bringing unclassified work home.
Based on the applicant's strong reputation and the lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations of wrongdoing, the security clearance was GRANTED.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant credibly denied allegations of mishandling classified information.
- There was no corroborating evidence that the applicant possessed classified documents at home or improperly emailed classified information.
- The applicant's supervisors were aware of and approved his practice of bringing unclassified work home.
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 ¶ 40(d)raisedDownloading, Storing, or Transmitting Classified Information on Unauthorized Systems
- AG ¶ 40(f)raisedIntroduction, Removal, or Duplication of Hardware or Software When Prohibited
- AG ¶ 33rejectedDeliberate or Negligent Failure to Comply with Rules Raises Doubt About TrustworthinessThe applicant's overall reliability and trustworthiness outweighed the concerns.
- AG ¶ 34rejectedConditions That Could Raise a Security ConcernThe applicant's actions were not found to be deliberate or negligent.
- AG ¶ 39rejectedFailure to Comply with IT Rules May Raise Security ConcernsThe applicant's practices were approved by supervisors.
- AG ¶ 40rejectedConditions That Could Raise Security Concerns Regarding ITThe applicant's actions did not demonstrate a pattern of violations.
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJul 3, 2018
- Answer filedJul 28, 2018
- Hearing heldJan 9, 2019
- Decision dateMar 16, 2020
Cite for
- Credibility of Applicant in Denying Allegations of Mishandling Classified Information
- Supervisory Approval of Practices Related to Handling Unclassified Work
- Lack of Corroborating Evidence for Allegations of Security Violations