ISCR Case 15-04739.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04739.h1

grantedFeb 16, 2017· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old female defense contractor, with a U.S. Army background, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed several past incidents. In approximately 2002, she unintentionally took classified training material home, returning it the next day without reporting the incident. In 2009, she received a reprimand for failing to lock a secure area.

Further allegations from 2012 included a formal reprimand for poor judgment and conduct unbecoming a federal employee. This stemmed from transporting wine in a government vehicle and receiving a speeding ticket in the same vehicle in late 2011, leading to a verbal reprimand. In March 2012, she became intoxicated and disruptive at a military function, requiring her escort from the event. Additionally, in April 2012, she was found responsible for a security infraction for releasing classified information to an unauthorized individual.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's conduct was mitigated. She demonstrated credible remorse, received counseling, and showed a commitment to change. Positive character references indicated her behavior was atypical, and the passage of time since the incidents also contributed to the favorable decision.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated credible remorse for her past conduct.
Positive character references indicated that the applicant's behavior was atypical.
The applicant received counseling and showed a commitment to change.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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 ¶ 16(e)(1)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation
AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedSo Much Time Has Passed That the Behavior Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Obtaining Counseling
AG ¶ 35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 35(b)appliedResponded Favorably to Counseling and Demonstrates a Positive Attitude

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 25, 2016
Answer filedJun 6, 2016
Hearing heldAug 30, 2016
Decision dateFeb 16, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to Positive Character References
Mitigation of Handling Protected Information Under Guideline K Due to Counseling and Time Elapsed
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations.

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	It is alleged in the SOR that in approximately 2002, Applicant unintentionally took classified training course material home, and she returned the material the next day, but did not report the incident.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	It is alleged in the SOR that on June 6, 2009, Applicant received a reprimand for Practice Dangerous to Security, after she failed to lock a secure area.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	It is alleged in the SOR that on August 20, 2012, Applicant received a formal official reprimand for Poor Judgment and Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee for the following incidents: i. On November 10, 2011, during the time period Applicant was traveling on government business, while she was on temporary duty, she transported several bottles of wine in the Government vehicle. On November 11, 2011, Applicant received a speeding ticket while driving a Government vehicle. On December 12, 2011, Applicant receive a verbal reprimand for Inappropriate Usage of a Government Vehicle for Non-Official Business and Speeding. ii. On March 17, 2012, Applicant attended a military function which was also attended by senior ranking officials from Applicant’s organization and the Department of the Army. During the function, Applicant became extremely intoxicated and became so disruptive that it was necessary to escort her out of the event. iii. On April 10, 2012, Applicant was found responsible for a security infraction because, on April 4, 2012, she released classified information to an individual who was not cleared for access to that information.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that in approximately 2002, Applicant unintentionally took classified training course material home, and she returned the material the next day, but did not report the incident.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.b

It is alleged in the SOR that on June 6, 2009, Applicant received a reprimand for Practice Dangerous to Security, after she failed to lock a secure area.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

—

1.c

It is alleged in the SOR that on August 20, 2012, Applicant received a formal official reprimand for Poor Judgment and Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee for the following incidents: i. On November 10, 2011, during the time period Applicant was traveling on government business, while she was on temporary duty, she transported several bottles of wine in the Government vehicle. On November 11, 2011, Applicant received a speeding ticket while driving a Government vehicle. On December 12, 2011, Applicant receive a verbal reprimand for Inappropriate Usage of a Government Vehicle for Non-Official Business and Speeding. ii. On March 17, 2012, Applicant attended a military function which was also attended by senior ranking officials from Applicant’s organization and the Department of the Army. During the function, Applicant became extremely intoxicated and became so disruptive that it was necessary to escort her out of the event. iii. On April 10, 2012, Applicant was found responsible for a security infraction because, on April 4, 2012, she released classified information to an individual who was not cleared for access to that information.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant’s conduct, as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.iii., above, constitutes a violation of Guideline K.	For Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Unknown	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt… (b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant’s conduct, as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.iii., above, constitutes a violation of Guideline K.

For Applicant

Unspecified Information Handling

Unknown

(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information

(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION