ISCR Case 08-02019.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-02019.h1

deniedNov 10, 2009· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old defense contractor with a master's degree was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from a pattern of security violations and questionable judgment during his previous employment, particularly concerning classified information and unauthorized system access post-termination.

Specific issues included misplacing a classified storage key in November 2003 and two separate incidents in June 2004 and March 2005 where the applicant photographed parts of a device he believed to be unclassified, despite documentation indicating they were classified. In both photography incidents, he was advised against taking pictures without authorization if there was any doubt about classification. The applicant also admitted to installing personal software on a company computer in 2005.

The judge determined that the applicant's conduct, including multiple security violations over several years, unauthorized access to company systems after his termination, and actions regarding classified hardware and report alterations, demonstrated unreliability and poor judgment. While some mitigating conditions were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the disqualifying conditions, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple security violations over several years, raising concerns about his reliability and judgment.
The applicant's actions after termination, including unauthorized access to company systems, demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness.
The applicant's conduct regarding classified hardware and subsequent report alterations indicated poor judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

K.34(g)raisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
K.34(h)raisedNegligence or Lax Security Habits That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
E.16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Areas
M.3.araisedMisuse of Information Technology

Mitigating

K.35(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to Recur
E.17(c)rejectedThe 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

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.”
— ISCR Case No. 00-0030 (Appeal Board, September 20, 2001)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 14, 2008
Answer filedNov 5, 2008
Hearing heldMar 27, 2009
Hearing heldOct 2, 2009
Decision dateNov 10, 2009

Cite For

Security Violations Under Guideline K
Poor Judgment and Unreliability Under Guideline E
Unauthorized Access to Information Technology Under Guideline M

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	The Applicant’s conduct, as set forth under Paragraph 1, above, will also be examined under Guideline E.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	The Applicant admits that he installed personally-owned software on his company supplied computer sometime in 2005.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c–2.f	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant’s conduct, as set forth under Paragraph 1, above, will also be examined under Guideline E.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

2.b

The Applicant admits that he installed personally-owned software on his company supplied computer sometime in 2005.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.c–2.f

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant’s first security violation occurred on November 3, 2003. This violation was for misplacing the key to a classified storage area and departing the area before resolution of the incident. The key was found in the Applicant’s office. The Applicant had to leave the area in order to pick up his six-year old son at a bus stop. (SOR ¶ 1.a)	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management	(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… (c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions	—
1.b	The Applicant’s second security violation occurred in June 2004. The Applicant had a camera pass, which allowed him to take photographs at a Company facility. Areas in this facility contained classified material. On this occasion, he took a photograph of a part of a device, which he believed to be unclassified. However, he also knew that documentation showed the part to be classified, even though it was not. The facility security officer stated that the Applicant was advised 'when in doubt do not take the picture.' The part the Applicant took the picture of was later determined to be unclassified. (SOR ¶ 1.b)	For Applicant	Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info	Admitted	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management	(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… (c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions	—
1.c	The Applicant’s third security violation occurred in March 2005. This violation also involved the Applicant taking a photograph of a different part of the same device. Once again the Applicant thought, but did not know, that the part was unclassified. As before, this part was also shown in documentation to be classified. The incident report submitted by the facility security officer states that the Applicant was told 'if he had any doubts an item was classified he was to have it authorized by a classifier before taking the picture.' The part was subsequently determined to be unclassified. (SOR ¶ 1.c)	For Applicant	Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info	Admitted	(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management	(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… (c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant’s first security violation occurred on November 3, 2003. This violation was for misplacing the key to a classified storage area and departing the area before resolution of the incident. The key was found in the Applicant’s office. The Applicant had to leave the area in order to pick up his six-year old son at a bus stop. (SOR ¶ 1.a)

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information

(h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management

(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…

(c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions

—

1.b

The Applicant’s second security violation occurred in June 2004. The Applicant had a camera pass, which allowed him to take photographs at a Company facility. Areas in this facility contained classified material. On this occasion, he took a photograph of a part of a device, which he believed to be unclassified. However, he also knew that documentation showed the part to be classified, even though it was not. The facility security officer stated that the Applicant was advised 'when in doubt do not take the picture.' The part the Applicant took the picture of was later determined to be unclassified. (SOR ¶ 1.b)

For Applicant

Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info

Admitted

(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information

(h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management

(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…

(c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions

—

1.c

The Applicant’s third security violation occurred in March 2005. This violation also involved the Applicant taking a photograph of a different part of the same device. Once again the Applicant thought, but did not know, that the part was unclassified. As before, this part was also shown in documentation to be classified. The incident report submitted by the facility security officer states that the Applicant was told 'if he had any doubts an item was classified he was to have it authorized by a classifier before taking the picture.' The part was subsequently determined to be unclassified. (SOR ¶ 1.c)

For Applicant

Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info

Admitted

(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information

(h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management

(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…

(c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
3.a	The Applicant’s conduct as set forth in subparagraphs 2.b., 2.d., and 2.f., above, will be examined under this Guideline as well.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

3.a

The Applicant’s conduct as set forth in subparagraphs 2.b., 2.d., and 2.f., above, will be examined under this Guideline as well.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Admitted

(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES