ISCR Case 08-09668.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09668.h1

deniedSep 28, 2010· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old systems engineer with a military background was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate installation of unauthorized software on an unclassified government computer.

Specifically, the applicant installed two unauthorized programs to bypass the command's firewall, enabling access to blocked email and other websites. The applicant later deleted one program due to discovery concerns, and a forensic examination of his computer revealed both unauthorized programs and evidence of reformatting, suggesting an attempt to remove other incriminating information. These actions violated company, industrial security, and military agency regulations concerning IT systems.

The judge determined that the applicant's premeditated actions, undertaken for personal convenience, demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability. The applicant was also found not to have been fully candid with security officials regarding his misconduct. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's trustworthiness for access to classified information was undermined, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant deliberately installed unauthorized software to bypass security protocols.
Applicant's actions were premeditated and for personal convenience, not due to extenuating circumstances.
Applicant was not fully candid with security officials regarding his misconduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

M.1.braisedIllegal or Unauthorized Modification, Destruction, Manipulation, or Denial of Access to Information, Software, Firmware, or Hardware in an Information Technology System
M.1.craisedUse of Any Information Technology System to Gain Unauthorized Access to Another System
K.1.graisedAny Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
E.2.braisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant Facts to a Security Official
E.2.craisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas That Is Not Sufficient for an Adverse Determination Under Any Other Single Guideline
E.2.draisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 28, 2009
Decision dateSep 28, 2010

Cite For

Disqualification Under Guideline M for Unauthorized IT System Modifications
Disqualification Under Guideline K for Failure to Comply with IT Security Rules
Disqualification Under Guideline E for Lack of Candor with Security Officials

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
3.a–3.e	5 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

3.a–3.e

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately violated company regulations, industrial security program regulations, and military agency regulations regarding information technology (IT) systems.	Against Applicant	Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info	Admitted	(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location (c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately violated company regulations, industrial security program regulations, and military agency regulations regarding information technology (IT) systems.

Against Applicant

Improperly Compiled or Used Protected Info

Admitted

(b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location

(c) loading/drafting/editing/modifying/storing/transmitting/handling protected information, incl. images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant installed two unauthorized software programs on his unclassified government computer to bypass the firewall the command had installed to protect the computer system.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media	Admitted	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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	—	—
1.b	Applicant used the unauthorized software to tunnel through the agency firewall and access email and other sites that would otherwise have been blocked by the firewall.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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	—	—
1.c	Applicant deleted one of the programs because he was concerned about its being discovered. Later forensic examination of his work computer showed the two unauthorized programs, but also showed evidence of reformatting that suggested Applicant had acted to remove other incriminating evidence from his computer.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Modification or Destruction	Admitted	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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 installed two unauthorized software programs on his unclassified government computer to bypass the firewall the command had installed to protect the computer system.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media

Admitted

(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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

—

1.b

Applicant used the unauthorized software to tunnel through the agency firewall and access email and other sites that would otherwise have been blocked by the firewall.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Admitted

(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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

—

1.c

Applicant deleted one of the programs because he was concerned about its being discovered. Later forensic examination of his work computer showed the two unauthorized programs, but also showed evidence of reformatting that suggested Applicant had acted to remove other incriminating evidence from his computer.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Modification or Destruction

Admitted

(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a 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 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

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES