Summary
A 32-year-old defense industry employee and former Navy crewman was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed two primary allegations: the applicant knowingly divulged classified information to his spouse without authorization, and he deliberately attempted to control his breathing to slow his heart rate during a polygraph, also withholding information during the examination.
The judge found significant security concerns stemming from the applicant's admitted use of polygraph countermeasures and his unauthorized disclosures of classified information to his spouse. These actions raised disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct and the handling of protected information.
While the judge acknowledged some mitigating factors, including the age of the allegations, these were insufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was ultimately denied.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to using countermeasures during a polygraph examination, which raised significant security concerns.
- The applicant's disclosures of classified information to his spouse were deemed problematic, despite his claims of good intentions.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(a)appliedDeliberate or Negligent Disclosure of Protected Information to Unauthorized Persons
- AG ¶ 34(g)appliedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 35(b)rejectedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security TrainingThe applicant was not in a position to be counseled or retrained.
- AG ¶ 35(c)rejectedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate Training or Unclear InstructionsThe applicant's actions were not due to inadequate training.
- AG ¶ 35(d)rejectedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Promptly Reported, There Is No Evidence of Compromise, and It Does Not Suggest a PatternThe applicant's actions were not deemed inadvertent.
Key Rule Quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 23, 2018
- Answer filedNov 5, 2018
- Hearing heldSep 10, 2019
- Decision dateJan 28, 2020
Cite For
- Security Concerns Related to the Use of Countermeasures During Polygraph Examinations
- Disclosure of Classified Information to Unauthorized Persons
- The Impact of Time Elapsed on Mitigating Security Concerns