Summary
An engineer logistics specialist, aged 42, was denied retention of a top-secret security clearance. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant was involved in six security incidents between April 2014 and February 2016, with four resulting in a determination of culpability. Two of these incidents specifically related to the use of information technology, including a process called assured file transfer.
The Statement of Reasons cross-alleged all six incidents under Guideline E for personal conduct. Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 34(a), AG ¶ 34(g), and AG ¶ 34(h), while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 35(a) and AG ¶ 35(d) were applied.
Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the six incidents over a two-year period established a pattern of negligence. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that similar incidents would not recur, despite having no further incidents since February 2016. The evidence did not sufficiently mitigate the serious security concerns, despite the applicant's claims of inadvertence and good intentions.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant was involved in six security incidents over a two-year period, establishing a pattern of negligence.
- Four of the six incidents resulted in a determination of culpability or responsibility.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that similar incidents would not recur, despite having no further incidents since February 2016.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(a)raisedDeliberate or Negligent Disclosure of Protected Information to Unauthorized Persons
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedAny Failure 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
- AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedSo 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 JudgmentThe incidents occurred within a two-year period and were not infrequent.
- AG ¶ 35(d)rejectedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Promptly Reported, There Is No Evidence of Compromise, and It Does Not Suggest a PatternThe applicant's pattern of incidents indicated ongoing negligence.
Key Rule Quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 12, 2017
- Answer filedSep 20, 2017
- Hearing heldApr 12, 2018
- Decision dateNov 26, 2018
Cite For
- Pattern of Negligence in Security Incidents Under Guideline K
- Serious Security Concerns Stemming From Multiple Infractions
- Strict Scrutiny Applied to Claims of Reform or Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Cases