ISCR Case 19-02136

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02136

deniedJan 6, 2021· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 60-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and K (Handling Protected Information). The denial stemmed from a pattern of concerning behavior, including multiple job terminations and a significant security violation.

Specific allegations included terminations from various positions between 2004 and 2018 for reasons such as unsatisfactory performance, non-compliance with directions, failure to complete tasks, sending critical emails to clients, and lack of professionalism. Additionally, the applicant received an incident warning in 2015 for chastising co-workers.

A critical factor in the denial was a 2013 incident where the applicant unauthorizedly took a classified document home and transported it to another classified site the following day. Despite some mitigating factors, the judge concluded that the applicant's overall conduct, including a history of traffic offenses, demonstrated questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules, ultimately raising serious doubts about reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct concerns due to a history of traffic offenses and multiple job terminations.
The applicant committed a significant security violation by taking a classified document home without authorization and did not report it promptly.
The applicant's conduct demonstrated questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 34(b)appliedCollecting or Storing Protected Information in Any Unauthorized Location
AG ¶ 34(g)appliedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Sensitive Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so InfrequentThe applicant's conduct cannot be viewed in isolation; collectively, it reveals a pattern of poor judgment.
AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained CounselingThe applicant did not fully accept responsibility for his actions.
AG ¶ 17(e)rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate VulnerabilityThe applicant's history of conduct raises ongoing concerns about his reliability.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 31, 2020
Answer filedFeb 6, 2020
Hearing heldNov 16, 2020
Decision dateJan 6, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Handling Protected Information Under Guideline K
Impact of a History of Traffic Offenses and Job Terminations on Security Clearance Eligibility

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was terminated from a job in July 2004 for unsatisfactory performance.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.b	Applicant was terminated from another job in March 2005 for not complying with his manager’s directions.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.c	SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that Applicant was terminated from a job in July 2008. There is no evidence in the record that the termination was for conduct that would raise a security concern.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant was terminated from a job in November 2010 for failing to complete a customer-requested task.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.e	Applicant’s employment was terminated in about December 2012 for sending an e-mail to a client that was critical of the client.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.f	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant received an incident warning letter from an employer in about July 2015 for raising his voice and chastising co-workers for not displaying their badges.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.h	Applicant was terminated from his job with the above employer in about February 2016 for failing to comply with directions.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.i	SOR ¶ 2.i alleges that Applicant was terminated from employment in October 2016 for failure to meet expectations. His security clearance was unable to be processed because of the 2013 security incident.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.j	Applicant was terminated from a job in about February 2018 for lack of professionalism.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.k–2.l	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was terminated from a job in July 2004 for unsatisfactory performance.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.b

Applicant was terminated from another job in March 2005 for not complying with his manager’s directions.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.c

SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that Applicant was terminated from a job in July 2008. There is no evidence in the record that the termination was for conduct that would raise a security concern.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

—

2.d

Applicant was terminated from a job in November 2010 for failing to complete a customer-requested task.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.e

Applicant’s employment was terminated in about December 2012 for sending an e-mail to a client that was critical of the client.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.f

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

2.g

Applicant received an incident warning letter from an employer in about July 2015 for raising his voice and chastising co-workers for not displaying their badges.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.h

Applicant was terminated from his job with the above employer in about February 2016 for failing to comply with directions.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.i

SOR ¶ 2.i alleges that Applicant was terminated from employment in October 2016 for failure to meet expectations. His security clearance was unable to be processed because of the 2013 security incident.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

—

2.j

Applicant was terminated from a job in about February 2018 for lack of professionalism.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Unknown

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.k–2.l

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	In September 2013, Applicant took a classified document home without authorization from one site and transported it to another classified site the next day.	Against Applicant	Removed Classified to Personal Space	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location (c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

In September 2013, Applicant took a classified document home without authorization from one site and transported it to another classified site the next day.

Against Applicant

Removed Classified to Personal Space

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

(c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION