Summary
A 49-year-old defense contractor with a Bachelor of Science degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The denial stemmed from a history of ten documented security violations over a 17-year period, from March 1991 to May 2006.
The violations primarily involved leaving classified containers unsecured and unattended, with some instances also including classified disks or documents left exposed. Specific incidents included leaving a classified container unsecured for over a day in March 1991, and another instance in January 1993 where a classified container was left open, a Secret disk on a desk, and a Secret diskpack in a computer, all unsecured for nearly three hours. The most recent violation, in May 2006, again involved leaving a classified container unsecured and unattended.
Despite arguments of improved understanding and changes in corporate security culture, the judge found that the applicant's repeated negligence in safeguarding classified information raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability. The applicant's claims of misunderstanding security requirements were deemed insufficient to mitigate the pattern of violations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had ten documented security violations from 1991 to 2006, demonstrating a pattern of negligence in handling classified information.
- The applicant's claims of misunderstanding security requirements were not sufficient to mitigate the repeated violations.
- The applicant's history of security violations raised serious doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Habits That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
- AG ¶ 35(b)rejectedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security ResponsibilitiesThe applicant's claims of reform were not sufficiently convincing given the history of violations.
- AG ¶ 35(c)rejectedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate TrainingThe applicant's long history of violations indicated a lack of compliance rather than inadequate training.
Key Rule Quoted
“A person who has committed security violations has a very heavy burden of demonstrating that they should be entrusted with classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 8, 2007
- Answer filedApr 12, 2007
- Hearing heldOctober 2, 2007 and November 7, 2007
- Decision dateMar 26, 2008
Cite For
- Pattern of Negligence in Handling Classified Information Under Guideline K
- Impact of Multiple Security Violations on Trustworthiness Under Guideline E
- Burden of Proof on Applicants with a History of Security Violations