Summary
A 43-year-old U.S. citizen, employed as a manufacturer for a defense contractor, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons alleged that on December 14, 2010, the applicant violated company policy by taking an unauthorized photograph of a sensitive item with his personal cellphone in a restricted area where photography was prohibited. This raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 16(c) and AG ¶ 16(d).
However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, specifically AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 35(a), and AG ¶ 35(d). The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors. The incident was determined to be an isolated occurrence, taking place over five years before the Statement of Reasons was issued.
Crucially, there was no evidence of any similar misconduct or recurrence of such behavior since the December 2010 event. The applicant also demonstrated cooperation with security protocols and expressed regret for his actions, leading the judge to conclude that the incident was unlikely to recur.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's conduct was an isolated incident that occurred over five years prior to the SOR.
- There was no evidence of recurrence of similar behavior since the incident.
- The applicant demonstrated cooperation with security protocols and expressed regret for his actions.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Taken Other Positive Steps
- AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Happened so Infrequently
- AG ¶ 35(d)appliedThe Violation Was Inadvertent, It Was Promptly Reported, and There Is No Evidence of Compromise
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 13, 2016
- Answer filedAug 1, 2016Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision based on written record.
- Decision dateAug 16, 2017
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to Isolated Incidents
- Handling of Protected Information Under Guideline K with No Evidence of Recurrence
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations.