Summary
This security clearance decision involved a 22-year-old information systems security engineer whose clearance was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems). The applicant admitted to several hacking activities between 2005 and 2007, which formed the basis of the security concerns.
Specifically, the allegations included gaining unauthorized access to a neighbor's computer system and manipulating information or software on multiple occasions. The applicant also admitted to gaining unauthorized access to a local traffic signal's computer controls and altering an electronic traffic warning signal more than once. Additionally, the applicant made false statements to investigators on July 25, 2007, by failing to disclose these hacking activities.
The judge denied the security clearance, determining that the applicant's hacking activities were serious, violated privacy, and posed a risk to public safety. The actions were deemed premeditated, demonstrating a lack of judgment and reliability. Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by this past conduct.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant engaged in serious hacking activities that violated privacy and public safety.
- The applicant's actions were premeditated and demonstrated a lack of judgment and reliability.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his past conduct.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 40(a)appliedIllegal or Unauthorized Entry Into Information Technology Systems
- AG ¶ 40(b)appliedIllegal or Unauthorized Modification of Information Technology Systems
- AG ¶ 40(c)appliedUnauthorized Access to Another System
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Offense Is Minor or Occurred Under Unique CircumstancesThe applicant's hacking activities were serious and not minor.
- AG ¶ 17(e)rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to ExploitationThe applicant did not disclose his actions to the victim due to fear of legal consequences.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 3, 2009
- Answer filedJan 6, 2010
- Hearing heldJul 14, 2010
- Decision dateSep 30, 2010
Cite For
- Seriousness of Hacking Conduct Under Guideline E
- Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Application of Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline M