ISCR Case 20-02747

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02747

deniedNov 22, 2022· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old engineer with a Bachelor's degree was denied a security clearance due to serious misconduct involving the use of company technology and providing false statements during investigations. The administrative judge found that the applicant's actions raised significant security concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

Between November 2017 and July 2018, the applicant repeatedly used his company laptop to stream and view pornographic material, violating company policy and introducing malware into the company's IT system via his YouTube and Instagram accounts. He utilized "InPrivate Browsing" to evade detection. In July 2018, he provided false or misleading statements to company officials investigating his misconduct and was subsequently given the option to resign in lieu of termination.

In February and March 2020, the applicant again provided false or misleading statements to Department of Defense investigators, claiming he believed viewing explicit content was acceptable because the site was not blocked, despite knowing otherwise. On security clearance applications dated March 29, 2019, and December 6, 2019, he falsely stated his reason for leaving previous employment was a lack of career path following an inadvertent malware incident from a YouTube video, and that he received a two-week paid suspension for this incident. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in serious misconduct by using company technology to access pornographic material, violating company policy.
The applicant provided false or misleading statements during investigations, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness.
The applicant's actions introduced malware into the company's IT system, raising significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 39raisedFailure to Comply with Rules, Procedures Guidelines, or Regulations Pertaining to Information Technology Systems
AG ¶ 15raisedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2021
Answer filedMar 4, 2022
Hearing held—decided on the written record without a hearing
Decision dateNov 22, 2022

Cite For

Serious Misconduct Involving Use of Company Technology Under Guideline M
Lack of Candor and Dishonesty Under Guideline E
Impact of False Statements 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	See the discussion set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.c. above.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	In July 2018 Applicant provided false or misleading statements to company officials who were investigating his acts of misconduct described above in subparagraphs 1.a, and 1.c.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	At the conclusion of the company’s investigation, Applicant was given an option to resign in lieu of being terminated form employment for his acts of misconduct described above.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant provided false or misleading statements to the Department of Defense investigators during his interviews in February and March 2020, by stating that he thought because the site was not blocked, it was acceptable to view content from the site; when in fact he knew viewing explicit content of this sort was not acceptable and that others had gotten into trouble for viewing similar content.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.e	Applicant completed a security clearance application dated March 29, 2019, and December 6, 2019. In response to Section 13A, which asked him about his 'Employment Activities,' Applicant provided the reason for leaving his previous employment as there being no long-term career path following an incident involving an inadvertent accessing of malware embedded in a YouTube video while at work.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.f	The same questionnaire, also asked Applicant under Section 13A, entitled, 'Received Discipline or Warning,' about the particulars of the discipline he received. Applicant stated that he was suspended with pay for roughly two weeks for the incident, and that the investigation into the incident with malware was accessed via a YouTube video.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

See the discussion set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.c. above.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

2.b

In July 2018 Applicant provided false or misleading statements to company officials who were investigating his acts of misconduct described above in subparagraphs 1.a, and 1.c.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.c

At the conclusion of the company’s investigation, Applicant was given an option to resign in lieu of being terminated form employment for his acts of misconduct described above.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

2.d

Applicant provided false or misleading statements to the Department of Defense investigators during his interviews in February and March 2020, by stating that he thought because the site was not blocked, it was acceptable to view content from the site; when in fact he knew viewing explicit content of this sort was not acceptable and that others had gotten into trouble for viewing similar content.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.e

Applicant completed a security clearance application dated March 29, 2019, and December 6, 2019. In response to Section 13A, which asked him about his 'Employment Activities,' Applicant provided the reason for leaving his previous employment as there being no long-term career path following an incident involving an inadvertent accessing of malware embedded in a YouTube video while at work.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.f

The same questionnaire, also asked Applicant under Section 13A, entitled, 'Received Discipline or Warning,' about the particulars of the discipline he received. Applicant stated that he was suspended with pay for roughly two weeks for the incident, and that the investigation into the incident with malware was accessed via a YouTube video.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	On multiple occasions between November 2017 and July 2018 Applicant used his company computer (laptop) to stream and view pornographic videos and/or images (sexually explicit material) in violation of company policy.	Against Applicant	Pornography or Inappropriate Content on System	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant used the 'InPrivate Browsing' mode while using the internet explorer browser to stream and view the explicit pornographic videos and images to evade detection of websites he visited while surfing the internet.	Against Applicant	Negligent IT Security Practice	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant introduced malware computer viruses onto the company’s IT System by using his company assigned computer to stream and view pornographic videos and/or images via his YouTube and Instagram accounts.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

1.a

On multiple occasions between November 2017 and July 2018 Applicant used his company computer (laptop) to stream and view pornographic videos and/or images (sexually explicit material) in violation of company policy.

Against Applicant

Pornography or Inappropriate Content on System

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant used the 'InPrivate Browsing' mode while using the internet explorer browser to stream and view the explicit pornographic videos and images to evade detection of websites he visited while surfing the internet.

Against Applicant

Negligent IT Security Practice

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant introduced malware computer viruses onto the company’s IT System by using his company assigned computer to stream and view pornographic videos and/or images via his YouTube and Instagram accounts.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media

Denied

—

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