Summary
A 31-year-old mechanic for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems). The denial stemmed from allegations that the applicant knowingly and intentionally falsified non-destructive test record results for classified parts on 12 to 17 different occasions in January 2009 by copying computer files from previously tested parts and applying those results to new parts.
Furthermore, the applicant initially denied these actions when questioned by company personnel in March 2009, which was cited as a lack of candor. His involuntary separation from his previous employer following his admitted falsifications was also a factor.
The judge determined that the applicant's actions raised significant security concerns. Despite the applicant's subsequent remorse and positive performance in a new job, these factors were not sufficient to mitigate the seriousness and recency of the conduct. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant knowingly falsified non-destructive test record results for classified parts on multiple occasions.
- The applicant initially denied his actions when questioned by company personnel, indicating a lack of candor.
- The seriousness of the applicant's transgressions and the recency of the conduct did not support mitigation.
Conditions Referenced
- DC ¶ 40(a)raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Entry Into Any Information Technology System or Component Thereof
- DC ¶ 40(c)raisedUse of Any Information Technology System to Gain Unauthorized Access to Another System or to a Compartmented Area Within the Same System
- DC ¶ 40(e)raisedUnauthorized Use of a Government or Other Information Technology System
- DC ¶ 16(a)raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty
- DC ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases an Individual’s Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation or Duress
- MC ¶ 41(e)rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or DuressWhile the applicant demonstrated remorse and improved performance in a new job, the judge found that more time was needed to assess the applicant's reliability.
Key Rule Quoted
“A decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 21, 2010
- Answer filedAug 16, 2010
- Hearing heldNov 18, 2010
- Decision dateMar 30, 2011
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Falsification of Records Under Guideline M
- Lack of Candor During the Security Clearance Process Under Guideline E
- Consideration of Recency and Seriousness of Conduct in Security Clearance Determinations.