ISCR Case 16-00467.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00467.h1

grantedAug 31, 2017· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old security administrator with a criminal justice background was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons alleged two instances of misconduct from previous employment. Specifically, it was claimed that in 2014, while at Company A, she misused company computers by allowing external queries through the company email system and actively engaged in work for other companies using Company A’s business systems. Additionally, an amended allegation stated that in 2010, while at Company B, she was terminated for emailing personally identifiable information (PII) in open email and not following proper procedures for processing security clearances and utilizing the JPAS system.

The judge found that the applicant's actions were either permitted or unintentional. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 40(e) and AG ¶ 40(g) were raised, but mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 41(a) and AG ¶ 41(d) were applied.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors. The applicant credibly demonstrated that her consulting work was approved by her employer and that she was unaware of any policy violations. Her testimony was supported by multiple character references attesting to her reliability and trustworthiness. The judge ultimately found that the applicant's alleged misconduct did not violate company policy and concluded that she was likely laid off from Company A rather than terminated.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant credibly demonstrated that her consulting work was approved by her employer and that she was unaware of any policy violations.
The applicant's testimony was supported by multiple character references attesting to her reliability and trustworthiness.
The judge found that the applicant's alleged misconduct did not violate company policy and that she was likely laid off rather than terminated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 40(e)raisedUnauthorized Use of Any Information Technology System
AG ¶ 40(g)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Practices

Mitigating

AG ¶ 41(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Behavior
AG ¶ 41(d)appliedMisuse Due to Improper or Inadequate Training

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 27, 2016
Answer filedJun 27, 2016
Hearing heldJan 10, 2017
Decision dateAug 31, 2017

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Employment Conduct
Mitigating Factors Related to Unintentional Misconduct
Impact of Character References on Security Clearance Decisions

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	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, discussed in 1.a., above, raises concern under Guideline E. Applicant denied this allegation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
2.b	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, discussed in 1.b., above, raises concern under Guideline E. Applicant denied this allegation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, discussed in 1.a., above, raises concern under Guideline E. Applicant denied this allegation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

2.b

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, discussed in 1.b., above, raises concern under Guideline E. Applicant denied this allegation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was terminated from her place of employment (Company A) in 2014 for violation of company policy due to her misuse of the company computer by allowing representatives of the Defense Security Service to query her for other business through Company A’s email system, and for actively engaging in work for other companies using Company A’s business systems to support her work for other companies.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Denied	—	(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on … (d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions	Claimed Other
1.b	It is alleged in the amended SOR that Applicant was terminated from Company B in 2010 for emailing personally identifiable information (PII) in open email and not following proper procedure in relation to processing security clearances and utilizing the JPAS system.	For Applicant	Negligent IT Security Practice	Denied	—	(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on … (d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was terminated from her place of employment (Company A) in 2014 for violation of company policy due to her misuse of the company computer by allowing representatives of the Defense Security Service to query her for other business through Company A’s email system, and for actively engaging in work for other companies using Company A’s business systems to support her work for other companies.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Denied

—

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

(d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions

Claimed

Other

1.b

It is alleged in the amended SOR that Applicant was terminated from Company B in 2010 for emailing personally identifiable information (PII) in open email and not following proper procedure in relation to processing security clearances and utilizing the JPAS system.

For Applicant

Negligent IT Security Practice

Denied

—

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

(d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions

Claimed

Other

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

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES