ISCR Case 03-11408.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-11408.h1

deniedJul 23, 2007· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old aeronautical engineer was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), and K (Handling Protected Information) due to a history of mishandling classified information, making false statements, and criminal conduct. The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the cumulative impact of these issues.

Specific allegations included removing a 15-20 page classified training handout from a ship, forgetting it at his parents' home, and instructing his father to burn it, without reporting the incident to the Navy. Additionally, while in charge of a technical library, he discovered missing classified manuals and initially delayed reporting them, resulting in a non-punitive letter of reprimand for his role. He also removed a classified schematic diagram of a nuclear power plant, kept it as a souvenir for 18 months to two years, and then destroyed it without reporting the incident.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to rebut or mitigate the cumulative effect of his actions. His false statements during the security clearance process were deemed serious misconduct, and his history of mishandling classified information demonstrated a lax attitude toward safeguarding sensitive data.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to rebut or mitigate the cumulative effect of his history of mishandling classified information, false statements, and criminal conduct.
The applicant's false statements during the security clearance process were serious misconduct that could not be easily explained away or mitigated.
The applicant's history of mishandling classified information demonstrated a lax attitude towards safeguarding sensitive information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
DC 2appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
DC 7appliedDeliberate or Negligent Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified Information

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant’s loyalty. Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance.”
— Executive Order 10865, § 7.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 7, 2007
Answer filedFeb 19, 2007Amended reply filed on 02/27/2007
Hearing heldJun 20, 2007
Decision dateJul 23, 2007

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Mishandling Classified Information Under Guideline K
False Statements During the Security Clearance Process as Disqualifying Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Raising Concerns About Judgment and Reliability Under Guideline J

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
1.a–1.h	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 5 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a–1.h

8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 5 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant removed a 15 to 20-page classified training handout from the ship when he made a trip to visit his parents. He discovered the handout when he arrived at his parents’ home. He did not report the matter, and intended to return the handout to the ship. He forgot the handout at his parents’ home. During the drive back to the ship, he remembered the handout. He exited the interstate at the first opportunity and called his father. He told his father to burn the handout in the fireplace. Applicant never reported this incident to the Navy.	Against Applicant	Removed Classified to Personal Space	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	—	—
1.b	In about 1991 or 1992, while serving onboard the same ship, Applicant was, on short notice, put in charge of his department’s technical library. He immediately started to inventory the classified materials and discovered a few manuals were missing. He did not report the missing manuals that night, and he resumed his inventory the following morning thinking the manuals would likely turn up. He reported the matter to his supervisor. An investigation was conducted. It resulted in the department’s security officer and his supervisor being reprimanded. He received a non-punitive letter of reprimand for his role in the incident.	Against Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	—	—
1.c	In about 1992, while serving as the custodian of his department’s technical library onboard the aircraft carrier, he removed a classified schematic diagram of the nuclear power plant. He was revising a technical manual and replaced the old schematic with the revised schematic. Instead of destroying the old schematic, he kept it as a souvenir, hiding it under his bunk on the ship. When he was reassigned in June 1992, he took the schematic with him. He kept the schematic for 18 months to 2 years until he decided he should not keep it any longer. He destroyed it by cutting it up, placing it in a bag, and putting it in the trash. Applicant never reported this incident to the Navy.	Against Applicant	Removed Classified to Personal Space	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c… (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location	—	—
1.d–1.h	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant removed a 15 to 20-page classified training handout from the ship when he made a trip to visit his parents. He discovered the handout when he arrived at his parents’ home. He did not report the matter, and intended to return the handout to the ship. He forgot the handout at his parents’ home. During the drive back to the ship, he remembered the handout. He exited the interstate at the first opportunity and called his father. He told his father to burn the handout in the fireplace. Applicant never reported this incident to the Navy.

Against Applicant

Removed Classified to Personal Space

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

—

1.b

In about 1991 or 1992, while serving onboard the same ship, Applicant was, on short notice, put in charge of his department’s technical library. He immediately started to inventory the classified materials and discovered a few manuals were missing. He did not report the missing manuals that night, and he resumed his inventory the following morning thinking the manuals would likely turn up. He reported the matter to his supervisor. An investigation was conducted. It resulted in the department’s security officer and his supervisor being reprimanded. He received a non-punitive letter of reprimand for his role in the incident.

Against Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

—

1.c

In about 1992, while serving as the custodian of his department’s technical library onboard the aircraft carrier, he removed a classified schematic diagram of the nuclear power plant. He was revising a technical manual and replaced the old schematic with the revised schematic. Instead of destroying the old schematic, he kept it as a souvenir, hiding it under his bunk on the ship. When he was reassigned in June 1992, he took the schematic with him. He kept the schematic for 18 months to 2 years until he decided he should not keep it any longer. He destroyed it by cutting it up, placing it in a bag, and putting it in the trash. Applicant never reported this incident to the Navy.

Against Applicant

Removed Classified to Personal Space

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

—

1.d–1.h

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES