Summary
A 47-year-old staff analyst for a federal contractor 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 history of security infractions and misleading statements made during the investigation.
Specifically, the applicant's access to classified areas was suspended in March-April 2007 for noncompliance with security procedures. He also acted without authorization by transferring a computer, leading to counseling and retraining. Further, he violated security policies by bringing a thumb drive containing work product and pornography onto his workplace, subsequently losing it without reporting the loss. The thumb drive was later found in an unsecure location. These violations resulted in a reprimand, a recommendation for termination, and his escort from the premises, partly due to deliberately providing misleading information to managers and security personnel.
The administrative judge determined that the applicant's conduct, including multiple security violations and providing misleading information about computer movement and thumb drive use, raised significant doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had a history of multiple security violations, including unauthorized movement of classified computers and failure to follow security protocols.
- The applicant provided misleading information to investigators regarding the movement of computers and the use of a thumb drive.
- The applicant's conduct raised significant doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
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(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 and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual's Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe applicant's conduct was deemed recent due to ongoing investigations and lack of sufficient time in a new position to demonstrate reform.
- 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 underwent remedial training but had not worked long enough in a classified environment to show a positive attitude.
- AG ¶ 35(c)notedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate Training
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 27, 2009
- Answer filedFeb 18, 2009
- Hearing heldMay 19, 2009
- Decision date—
Cite For
- Security Concerns Related to Handling Protected Information Under Guideline K
- Negligence in Following Security Protocols Under Guideline M
- Personal Conduct Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E