ISCR Case 08-06538.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06538.h1

grantedMar 30, 2009· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old technical support employee for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons detailed that from approximately 2001 to 2006, the applicant accessed pornographic websites on his company computer during work hours. When initially questioned by human resources in June 2006, he denied this activity. He was subsequently fired for this conduct. Additionally, around April 2006, the applicant faced an assault charge, which resulted in deferred adjudication and six months of probation.

The judge found that the applicant had successfully mitigated these security concerns. Key factors included a significant period of time without further incidents of accessing pornography websites at work since his termination. The applicant also provided credible evidence of positive performance and trust from both his current employer and a U.S. agency customer.

Ultimately, the applicant demonstrated that he had taken affirmative steps to eliminate vulnerabilities to exploitation and manipulation, leading to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a significant period of time without accessing pornography websites at work since his termination.
He provided credible evidence of positive performance and trust from his current employer and U.S. agency customer.
The applicant took affirmative steps to eliminate vulnerabilities to exploitation and manipulation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC ¶ 40(a)raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Entry Into Any Information Technology System or Component Thereof.
DC ¶ 16(a)raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty.
DC ¶ 30raisedCriminal Activity Creates Doubt About a Person’s Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.

Mitigating

MC ¶ 41(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Unusual Circumstances.
MC ¶ 41(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress.

Key Rule Quoted

“A decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2008
Answer filedNov 21, 2008
Hearing heldFeb 24, 2009
Decision dateMar 30, 2009

Cite For

Mitigating Factors for Accessing Pornography at Work Under Guideline M
Consideration of Elapsed Time Since Disqualifying Conduct
Impact of Positive Employment Evaluations 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	Applicant was fired by his employer for visiting pornographic web sites during work hours.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant denied any pornography on his computer when first questioned about it by his employer’s human resource staff in June 2006.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was fired by his employer for visiting pornographic web sites during work hours.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant denied any pornography on his computer when first questioned about it by his employer’s human resource staff in June 2006.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

Claimed

Acknowledgment and Remorse

2.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was charged with assault in about April 2006, for which he was assigned deferred adjudication and placed on six months probation.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Diversion or Deferred	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant was charged with assault in about April 2006, for which he was assigned deferred adjudication and placed on six months probation.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Diversion or Deferred

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant accessed pornographic links on his company’s computer from about 2001 to 2006.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system (c) use of any IT system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system (e) unauthorized use of any information technology system	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant accessed pornographic links on his company’s computer from about 2001 to 2006.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Admitted

(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system

(c) use of any IT system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system

(e) unauthorized use of any information technology system

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION