ISCR Case 15-05533.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05533.h1

grantedMay 23, 2017· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old executive with a master's degree in mechanical engineering was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons detailed several inadvertent security lapses in 2014 involving unauthorized electronic devices in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

Specifically, in February 2014, the applicant inadvertently brought a company-issued wireless card and her smartphone into her SCIF office. In June 2014, she mistakenly introduced an unapproved loaner laptop into the SCIF. Early the following July, she brought a computer bag containing a company-issued wireless card, not connected to any device, into her office. The applicant self-reported these incidents to her security office, which determined they were infractions but unlikely to have compromised classified information.

The clearance was granted because the applicant self-reported the incidents and took corrective actions. The lapses were considered minor and inadvertent, not indicating a pattern of negligence. Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a long and consistent history of properly safeguarding classified information both before and after these specific incidents.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant self-reported the security incidents and took corrective action to prevent recurrence.
The incidents were deemed minor and inadvertent, not indicative of a pattern of negligence.
The applicant established a solid track record of handling classified information before and after the incidents.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 35(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since the BehaviorThe incidents occurred three years ago and were infrequent.
AG ¶ 35(b)appliedResponse to Counseling or Remedial TrainingThe applicant demonstrated a positive attitude toward security responsibilities and took corrective actions.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 21, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 11, 2017mutually agreed date
Decision dateMay 5, 2017Record closed

Cite For

Mitigation of Security Concerns Due to Self-reporting and Corrective Actions
Evaluation of Inadvertent Security Lapses Under Guideline K
Consideration of Time Elapsed Since Incidents 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
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	In February 2014, Applicant inadvertently introduced a company-issued wireless card and her smartphone into her office (SCIF).	For Applicant	Cross Domain Violation	Admitted	(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…	Claimed Other
1.b	In June 2014, Applicant mistakenly brought a loaner laptop, not approved for use in the SCIF, into her office.	For Applicant	Cross Domain Violation	Admitted	(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…	Claimed Other
1.c	In early July 2014, Applicant brought a computer bag into her office containing a company-issued wireless card that was not connected to any device.	For Applicant	Cross Domain Violation	Admitted	(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…	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant self-reported the security incidents to her security office, which were deemed infractions but not likely to have compromised classified information.	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(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…	Claimed Other
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Information Handling	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

In February 2014, Applicant inadvertently introduced a company-issued wireless card and her smartphone into her office (SCIF).

For Applicant

Cross Domain Violation

Admitted

(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…

Claimed

Other

1.b

In June 2014, Applicant mistakenly brought a loaner laptop, not approved for use in the SCIF, into her office.

For Applicant

Cross Domain Violation

Admitted

(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…

Claimed

Other

1.c

In early July 2014, Applicant brought a computer bag into her office containing a company-issued wireless card that was not connected to any device.

For Applicant

Cross Domain Violation

Admitted

(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…

Claimed

Other

1.d

Applicant self-reported the security incidents to her security office, which were deemed infractions but not likely to have compromised classified information.

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(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…

Claimed

Other

1.e

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Information Handling

Unknown

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES