ISCR Case 05-01220.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-01220.h1

deniedMar 30, 2007· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and software engineer, originally from Hong Kong, was denied a security clearance due to multiple security violations and poor operational security practices. The denial primarily stemmed from concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), with Guideline B (Foreign Influence) also considered.

The applicant was found to have committed deliberate security violations in October 2000, including twice improperly downloading classified information and once improperly transmitting classified files. He also deliberately violated company security regulations by transmitting proprietary information to unauthorized individuals. Furthermore, the applicant minimized the circumstances of his termination from a previous job on his May 2003 clearance application and during a July 2003 interview, failing to fully disclose that he was fired or that he improperly transmitted classified files. He also initially withheld that the files were classified during an interview, only revealing it after further questioning.

While the applicant had foreign contacts, including a friend in Hong Kong and a cousin in the People's Republic of China, and had traveled to both locations, the judge determined these did not create a significant vulnerability to foreign influence. The denial was ultimately based on the applicant's deliberate security violations, his consistent minimization of their severity, and his lack of accountability, which demonstrated a poor attitude toward security responsibilities.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant committed deliberate security violations by improperly downloading and transmitting classified information.
Applicant consistently minimized the severity of his security violations and denied responsibility for his actions.
The applicant's behavior demonstrated a lack of a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.11.1.2.1raisedUnauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information
E2.A2.11.1.2.2raisedViolations That Are Deliberate or Multiple or Due to Negligence

Mitigating

E2.A2.11.1.3.1rejectedActions That Were InadvertentThe security violations were deliberate.
E2.A2.11.1.3.2rejectedWere Isolated or InfrequentThe violations of company regulations regarding proprietary information were extensive.
E2.A2.11.1.3.3rejectedWere Due to Improper or Inadequate TrainingApplicant had been properly and regularly trained on security requirements.
E2.A2.11.1.3.4rejectedDemonstrate a Positive Attitude Towards the Discharge of Security ResponsibilitiesApplicant's behavior did not demonstrate a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2005
Answer filedOct 29, 2005
Hearing heldMay 4, 2006
Decision dateMar 30, 2007

Cite For

Deliberate Security Violations Under Guideline K
Lack of Significant Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Due to Poor Operational Security Practices Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a friend who is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Hong Kong	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a cousin who is a citizen and resident of the People's Republic of China.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Extended Family	People's Republic of China	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant traveled to Hong Kong in June 2000 to meet his prospective bride.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Hong Kong	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant traveled to the People's Republic of China in December 2001 with his mother.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	People's Republic of China	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's parents have contacts with Hong Kong.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Hong Kong	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has a friend who is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Hong Kong

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant has a cousin who is a citizen and resident of the People's Republic of China.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Extended Family

People's Republic of China

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant traveled to Hong Kong in June 2000 to meet his prospective bride.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Hong Kong

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant traveled to the People's Republic of China in December 2001 with his mother.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

People's Republic of China

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant's parents have contacts with Hong Kong.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Hong Kong

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant minimized the circumstances of his termination on his May 2003 clearance application. Instead of revealing that he was terminated or fired from this job, he stated only that he “left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.” Similarly, instead of revealing that he improperly transmitted classified files, he stated only that “I sent out some files to the client by mistakes (sic) . . .” He also minimized the circumstances of his termination during his July 2003 subject interview.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	During his initial questioning by the investigator, Applicant disclosed only the improper transmission of files. Only in response to further prodding by the investigator did he disclose that the files were classified.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant minimized the circumstances of his termination on his May 2003 clearance application. Instead of revealing that he was terminated or fired from this job, he stated only that he “left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.” Similarly, instead of revealing that he improperly transmitted classified files, he stated only that “I sent out some files to the client by mistakes (sic) . . .” He also minimized the circumstances of his termination during his July 2003 subject interview.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

3.b

During his initial questioning by the investigator, Applicant disclosed only the improper transmission of files. Only in response to further prodding by the investigator did he disclose that the files were classified.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant committed deliberate security violations during October 2000, when he twice improperly downloaded classified information and once improperly transmitted classified files.	Against Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Denied	(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location (c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately violated company security regulations by transmitting proprietary information to individuals with no need for the information.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Disclosure	Denied	(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location (c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant committed deliberate security violations during October 2000, when he twice improperly downloaded classified information and once improperly transmitted classified files.

Against Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Denied

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

(c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium

—

2.b

Applicant deliberately violated company security regulations by transmitting proprietary information to individuals with no need for the information.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Disclosure

Denied

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

(c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES