Summary
A 49-year-old security specialist, employed by a defense contractor, was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The Statement of Reasons specifically cited that the applicant provided unauthorized access to classified areas for at least eight individuals before they signed a nondisclosure agreement. This raised disqualifying conditions K.34(a), K.34(g), E.16(b), and E.16(c).
However, the judge applied mitigating conditions K.35(a), K.35(b), and K.35(c). The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors. It was determined that the applicant's actions stemmed from improper training rather than intentional misconduct.
Furthermore, the applicant has maintained a clean security record since the incident in 2008, demonstrating consistent reliability and trustworthiness over time. She also presented substantial evidence of her outstanding performance and professional recognition in her role, ultimately leading to the granting of her security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's actions were attributed to improper training rather than deliberate misconduct.
- She has not had any security issues since the incident in 2008, demonstrating reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant provided substantial evidence of her outstanding performance and recognition in her role.
Conditions Referenced
- K.34(a)raisedDeliberate or Negligent Disclosure of Classified or Other Protected Information to Unauthorized Persons
- K.34(g)raisedAny Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- E.16(b)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant Facts to an EmployerThe Government did not establish a deliberate falsification or misleading statement.
- E.16(c)rejectedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue AreasThe applicant's record supports a whole-person assessment of good judgment and trustworthiness.
- K.35(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- K.35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training
- K.35(c)appliedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate Training
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 16, 2011
- Answer filedJul 22, 2011
- Hearing heldNov 16, 2011
- Decision dateJan 20, 2012
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guideline K Due to Improper Training
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- Rejection of Disqualifying Conditions Based on Lack of Evidence of Deliberate Misconduct