Summary
A 44-year-old defense contractor with 18 years of experience was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed seven security lapses occurring between March 2007 and August 2018. These included installing an unauthorized memory chip in 2007, bringing a personal cell phone into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in 2012 and 2018, and removing handwritten notes from a SCIF in 2013 that were later determined not to be classified.
Further allegations involved failing to properly secure classified information and containers in 2015, and removing classified information from a SCIF in 2016. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 34(g) and AG ¶ 34(h) were raised.
However, the applicant admitted to all lapses, took full responsibility, and demonstrated significant improvements in security practices, with no violations reported since August 2018. Mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 35(a), AG ¶ 35(b), and AG ¶ 35(d) were applied. Strong support from supervisors and colleagues, coupled with the absence of any compromise of classified information, led the administrative judge to grant the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant admitted to all security lapses and took full responsibility for his actions.
- He demonstrated significant improvements in security practices over the last three years, with no violations since August 2018.
- Strong support from supervisors and colleagues highlighted the applicant's integrity and reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Practices That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
- AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual's Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
- AG ¶ 35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security Responsibilities
- AG ¶ 35(d)appliedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Promptly Reported, There Is No Evidence of Compromise, and It Does Not Suggest a Pattern
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 26, 2020
- Answer filedMar 27, 2020
- Hearing heldDec 17, 2021
- Decision dateMay 11, 2022
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guideline K Due to Improved Practices
- Importance of Self-reporting Security Incidents
- Support From Supervisors as a Mitigating Factor in Security Clearance Cases