Summary
A 37-year-old engineer and military veteran was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The allegations stemmed from the applicant's unauthorized installation and reconfiguration of a wireless router on a defense contractor's network in late 2003. This action was alleged to have exceeded authorized access and violated SSC-Network Policy, section 4.3.3, 'Wireless Devices,' and 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, 'Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers.'
Specifically, the government alleged that the applicant intentionally used a reconfigured wireless router in November or December 2003, and was subsequently investigated by the Office of the Inspector General in December 2003. The government further alleged that the conduct constituted a violation of Federal law, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, a felony.
However, the judge found that the applicant acted at the request of a government employee and lacked malicious intent. The applicant's credible testimony, positive character references, and history of maintaining a security clearance for many years without further incidents were key factors. The applicant was also found to be candid and forthcoming during the hearing, leading to the ultimate decision to grant the security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant acted under the request of a government employee and did not have malicious intent.
- The applicant was candid and forthcoming during the hearing, demonstrating credibility.
- The applicant has maintained a security clearance for many years without further incidents.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 40(a)raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Entry Into Any Information Technology System or Component Thereof
- AG ¶ 40(c)raisedUse of Any Information Technology System to Gain Unauthorized Access to Another System or to a Compartmented Area Within the Same System
- AG ¶ 40(e)raisedUnauthorized Use of a Government or Other Information Technology System
- AG ¶ 40(f)raisedIntroduction, Removal, or Duplication of Hardware, Firmware, Software, or Media to or From Any Information Technology System Without Authorization
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted
- AG ¶ 41(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior or Taken Other Positive Steps to Alleviate the Stressors, Circumstances, or Factors That Caused Untrustworthy, Unreliable or Other Inappropriate Behavior, and Such Behavior Is Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability, to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress
Key rule quoted
“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedNov 27, 2009
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldOct 18, 2010Transcript received on this date.
- Decision dateNov 19, 2010
Cite for
- Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline M for Unauthorized Access Due to Unusual Circumstances
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- The Importance of Intent in Determining Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J