Summary
A 40-year-old veteran and CFO of a defense contracting company was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The denial stemmed from a security violation in November 2008, where the applicant submitted a false Visit Authorization Letter (VAL) for an employee who lacked the required security clearance for access to a Navy facility. This action involved knowingly providing false information to shipyard security officials regarding the employee's clearance status and falsely representing to the Navy that the employee was cleared.
The judge determined that the applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of judgment and trustworthiness. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 34(g) and 16(b) were raised. While several mitigating conditions were applied, including AG ¶ 35(a), (b), (c) and AG ¶ 17(a), (b), (c), (d), they were ultimately insufficient.
The applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his personal conduct and handling of protected information. The knowing submission of a false VAL raised serious doubts about his trustworthiness and judgment. Furthermore, the applicant's continued insistence on inadequate training as a defense undermined his credibility and did not demonstrate a positive attitude toward security responsibilities, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding his handling of protected information and personal conduct.
- The applicant knowingly submitted a false VAL, which raised serious doubts about his trustworthiness and judgment.
- The applicant's continued insistence on inadequate training undermined his credibility and did not demonstrate a positive attitude toward security responsibilities.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(g)appliedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since the BehaviorThe circumstances surrounding the conduct were not unusual or unpredictable.
- AG ¶ 35(b)rejectedResponse to Counseling or Remedial TrainingThe applicant's insistence on his lack of training undermined a conclusion of a positive attitude toward security.
- AG ¶ 35(c)rejectedImproper or Inadequate TrainingThe applicant had used JPAS for three years and should have known how to verify clearance status.
- AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not admit to falsifying the VAL.
- AG ¶ 17(b)rejectedFailure to Cooperate Caused by Inadequate AdviceThe applicant's claim of inadequate training was unsupported.
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's actions were deliberate and raised doubts about his reliability.
- AG ¶ 17(d)rejectedAcknowledgment of Behavior and CounselingThe applicant did not accept responsibility for his actions.
Key Rule Quoted
“"A demonstrated willingness to disregard those procedures is sufficient for disqualification."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 20, 2011
- Answer filedOct 12, 2011
- Hearing heldDec 22, 2011
- Decision dateApr 12, 2012
Cite For
- Security Violation Due to Submission of False Information Under Guideline K
- Lack of Candor and Dishonesty Under Guideline E
- Impact of Inadequate Training Claims on Credibility in Security Clearance Cases