Summary
This case concerns an applicant, a high school graduate and patent paralegal, whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), and D (Sexual Behavior). The Statement of Reasons alleged that her employment with a county prosecutor's office (CPO) was terminated due to abuse of the employer's email system and sensitive law enforcement databases.
However, the judge determined that the applicant's resignation from the CPO was not a result of misconduct, but rather a breakdown in her professional relationship with her supervisor. The applicant provided credible evidence and testimony that refuted the allegations of serious employee misconduct.
Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant had honestly answered questions on her federal employment forms. Her past minor misuse of work email and systems did not raise a current credentialing concern, and she successfully mitigated the initial concerns. As a result, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's resignation was due to a breakdown in her relationship with her boss, not misconduct.
- The applicant provided credible evidence and testimony refuting allegations of serious employee misconduct.
- The applicant's past minor misuse of work email and systems did not raise a current credentialing concern.
Conditions Referenced
- SAS ¶ 1.araisedEmployment Misconduct or Negligence
- SAS ¶ 3raisedDeliberate Falsification, Deception, or Fraud
- SAS ¶ 1.c(1)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Minor, or Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- SAS ¶ 1.c(2)appliedThe Individual Was Not Adequately Warned That the Conduct Was Unacceptable and Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Know That the Conduct Was Wrong
- SAS ¶ 1.c(4)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Training and Has Since Demonstrated a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Information-handling or Security Responsibilities
Key Rule Quoted
“A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable basis to believe the individual will use federally-controlled information systems unlawfully, make unauthorized modifications to such systems, corrupt or destroy such systems, or engage in inappropriate uses of such systems.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 21, 2016
- Answer filedMay 2, 2016
- Hearing heldNov 17, 2016mutually agreed date
- Decision dateJan 4, 2017Department Counsel requested a full decision
Cite For
- Mitigation of Employment Misconduct Under Guideline B
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony in the Face of Allegations
- Assessment of Minor Past Conduct in Relation to Current Eligibility Concerns