Summary
A 38-year-old senior software engineer sought reinstatement of his security clearance, which was ultimately granted. The case primarily involved Guideline E (Personal Conduct), stemming from allegations that the applicant failed to secure a closed area on multiple occasions in May 2008, for which he received a company reprimand. He also faced allegations of denying failure to turn off his cell phone in a closed area and denying failure to timely report counseling received in May 2010.
Disqualifying conditions under Guideline E were raised, specifically concerning deliberate misrepresentation or falsification and a pattern of dishonesty or questionable judgment. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, noting that the conduct was not recent and that the applicant had voluntarily reported the information.
The judge determined that the applicant's actions, while not fully compliant with security protocols, demonstrated a serious commitment to security responsibilities rather than untrustworthiness. The applicant reported his security protocol violations to his employer, did not repeat the conduct, and consistently notified his facility security officer about any infractions. His single counseling session was not deemed reportable under the circumstances, and he disclosed it on his clearance applications. Based on the lack of substantial evidence for disqualification, the applicant's security clearance was granted.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant reported his security protocol violations to his employer and was reprimanded but did not repeat the conduct.
- He consistently notified his facility security officer about any infractions, demonstrating transparency and responsibility.
- The applicant's single counseling session was not deemed reportable under the circumstances, and he disclosed it on his clearance applications.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 16(c)rejectedCredible Adverse InformationThe adverse information did not support a whole person assessment of questionable judgment or untrustworthiness.
- AG ¶ 16(d)rejectedConduct That Raises Questions About JudgmentThe conduct alleged explicitly falls under Guideline K, not Guideline E.
- AG ¶ 17(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Isolated or Infrequent
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability
Key rule quoted
“The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJun 5, 2013
- Answer filed—Applicant requested a hearing.
- Hearing heldAug 22, 2013
- Decision dateSep 30, 2013
Cite for
- Evaluation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Consideration of Mitigating Factors in Security Clearance Cases
- Importance of Transparency in Reporting Security Violations