ISCR Case 20-03456

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03456

grantedJul 7, 2022· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 63-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed several admitted incidents between 2007 and 2011, including copying and distributing a secret document, emailing sensitive information to a co-worker, and failing a classified computer audit. The applicant denied more recent allegations from 2015 and 2016, asserting that one instance involved receiving, not sending, classified information, and another involved sending unclassified "raw data" that was later determined to be classified when viewed as a whole.

Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 34(a), AG ¶ 34(g), and AG ¶ 34(h). However, the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 35(a) and AG ¶ 35(b).

The judge found that the applicant had successfully mitigated the security concerns. This determination was based on a clean record since 2016, positive recommendations from former managers, and favorable performance reviews. The elapsed time since the last admitted incident also indicated that similar behavior was unlikely to recur, leading to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a clean record for the last six years since 2016.
He provided favorable recommendations from former managers and positive performance reviews.
The time elapsed since the last incident indicated that similar behavior was unlikely to recur.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 34(a)raisedDeliberate or Negligent Disclosure of Protected Information to Unauthorized Persons
AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Sensitive Information
AG ¶ 34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Practices That Persist Despite Counseling by Management

Mitigating

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
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

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 16, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 21, 2022continued hearing after initial hearing on 2021-09-14
Decision dateJul 7, 2022

Cite For

Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guideline K Due to Elapsed Time Since Incidents
Importance of Favorable Recommendations in Security Clearance Decisions
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Evaluating 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	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that in 2007, about 15 years ago, he made a copy and sent a document that contained secret and/or sensitive information which prohibits it from being copied and distributed.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Copying of Information	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that also in 2007, he emailed a document to a co-worker that contained sensitive information.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Disclosure	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits that in September of 2011, about 11 years ago, he failed a weekly audit of his DoD classified computer.	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant denies that in March of 2016, about six years ago, that he sent classified information over an unclassified network. He avers that the data in question was sent to him.	For Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant denies that in March of 2015, about seven years ago, he sent classified confidential information over an unclassified network. He avers that he sent 'raw data' that was unclassified. It was later determined that the data, taken as a whole, was classified.	For Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admits that in 2007, about 15 years ago, he made a copy and sent a document that contained secret and/or sensitive information which prohibits it from being copied and distributed.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Copying of Information

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant admits that also in 2007, he emailed a document to a co-worker that contained sensitive information.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Disclosure

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant admits that in September of 2011, about 11 years ago, he failed a weekly audit of his DoD classified computer.

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.d

Applicant denies that in March of 2016, about six years ago, that he sent classified information over an unclassified network. He avers that the data in question was sent to him.

For Applicant

Unspecified Information Handling

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant denies that in March of 2015, about seven years ago, he sent classified confidential information over an unclassified network. He avers that he sent 'raw data' that was unclassified. It was later determined that the data, taken as a whole, was classified.

For Applicant

Unspecified Information Handling

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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