Summary
A 56-year-old cyber-security analyst was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons detailed allegations that the applicant attempted to access an information technology system using another employee’s security token and regularly used an unauthorized personal USB storage device to transfer work-related data. These actions violated company business ethics and operational standards, raising questions about judgment and compliance.
Disqualifying conditions under both guidelines were considered, including conduct involving questionable judgment and unauthorized system access. However, the applicant admitted to the allegations, and the judge found that the infractions occurred over two years prior and had not recurred.
Mitigating conditions were applied, noting that the applicant's actions were a misguided attempt to efficiently fulfill job responsibilities. The applicant acknowledged his poor judgment and had faced severe consequences for his infractions. Ultimately, the security clearance was granted.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's infractions occurred more than two years ago and have not recurred.
- The applicant's actions were motivated by a misguided attempt to fulfill job responsibilities efficiently.
- The applicant acknowledged his bad judgment and suffered severe consequences for his infractions.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 40(a)raisedUnauthorized Entry Into Any Information Technology SystemApplicant attempted to gain entry into his employer’s information technology system, but was unsuccessful.
- AG ¶ 40(f)appliedIntroduction, Removal, or Duplication of Hardware, Firmware, Software, or Media to or From Any Information Technology System When ProhibitedApplicant introduced an unauthorized personal thumb drive into his employer’s information technology system.
- AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue AreasApplicant's repeated violations of the rules for use of his employer’s information technology system.
- AG ¶ 16(f)appliedViolation of a Written or Recorded Commitment Made by the Individual to the EmployerApplicant's repeated violation of the conditions he agreed to in his non-disclosure agreement.
- AG ¶ 41(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior HappenedThe applicant's infractions occurred more than two years ago and have not recurred.
- AG ¶ 41(b)appliedThe Misuse Was Minor and Done Solely in the Interest of Organizational EfficiencyBoth incidents involved minor infractions in the use of an unclassified system.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has PassedThe behavior is unlikely to recur.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the BehaviorThere is no evidence of counseling or other positive steps taken by Applicant.
Key rule quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedNov 15, 2019
- Answer filedDec 13, 2019
- Hearing heldMar 9, 2020Hearing rescheduled from February 19, 2020.
- Decision dateMar 24, 2020
Cite for
- Mitigating Conditions Under Guidelines M and E
- Consideration of Time Elapsed Since Infractions
- Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations