Summary
A 46-year-old veteran with a history of security clearances was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The allegations stemmed from two instances in February 2008, when the applicant, then an Information Assurance Officer for a defense contractor at a major military installation, intentionally deleted a co-worker's network account. The government also cited this misuse of technology as disqualifying personal conduct under Guideline E.
Disqualifying conditions considered included AG ¶ 40(b) and AG ¶ 16(f). However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 41(a) and AG ¶ 17(c). The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors: the applicant's exemplary military service and civilian job performance, which demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness; the fact that no sensitive information was compromised and the incidents were isolated and unlikely to recur; and the applicant's acknowledgment of wrongdoing and the significant personal and professional consequences he faced.
Ultimately, the judge determined that while the applicant's actions were inappropriate, they did not compromise national security. The applicant's long-standing record of service and subsequent employment history further supported the decision to grant the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's military service and civilian job performance were exemplary, demonstrating reliability and trustworthiness.
- No sensitive information was compromised as a result of the applicant's actions, and the incidents were isolated and unlikely to recur.
- The applicant acknowledged his wrongdoing and faced significant personal and professional consequences for his actions.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 40(b)raisedIllegal or Unauthorized Modification, Destruction, Manipulation or Denial of Access to Information, Software, Firmware, or Hardware in an Information Technology System
- AG ¶ 16(f)raisedViolation of a Written or Recorded Commitment Made by the Individual to the Employer as a Condition of Employment
- 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 or 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
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 issuedOct 9, 2009
- Answer filed—Timely response to SOR.
- Hearing heldFeb 25, 2010Parties appeared as scheduled.
- Decision dateMay 28, 2010
Cite For
- Mitigating Factors Under Guideline M for Isolated Incidents of Misuse of Information Technology Systems
- Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations
- Impact of Military Service on Security Clearance Evaluations