Summary
A 30-year-old imagery analyst, formerly an Air Force enlisted member, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). The applicant was found to have removed classified material from a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and stored it at her home for one to four weeks, where it was unsecured. She subsequently destroyed this classified material to avoid detection of her violation.
Additionally, the applicant carried a cell phone or camera into a secure area on five separate occasions, despite having received training that prohibited such actions. She did not report any of these incidents to her command or security officer. The judge determined that the applicant deliberately failed to inform her command about storing and destroying classified material.
The denial was based on the applicant's knowing removal and destruction of classified materials, her failure to report these security violations, and her lack of candor and poor judgment in concealing her actions. Disqualifying conditions included deliberate concealment and a pattern of questionable judgment, while mitigating conditions such as the passage of time and the applicant's positive employment record were considered but ultimately insufficient.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant knowingly removed classified materials from a secure facility and stored them at home for weeks, violating security protocols.
- She destroyed the classified materials to conceal her actions, demonstrating a lack of candor and poor judgment.
- The applicant failed to report her security violations to her command or employer, raising doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 34(b)raisedCollecting or Storing Classified or Other Protected Information at Home or in Any Other Unauthorized Location
- AG ¶ 34(g)raisedAny Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- AG ¶ 34(h)appliedNegligent or Lax Security Habits That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
- AG ¶ 34(i)rejectedFailure to Comply with Rules or Regulations That Results in Damage to the National SecurityNo evidence of damage to national security was presented.
- AG ¶ 35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security ResponsibilitiesCharacter references indicate a conscientious attitude towards security responsibilities.
- AG ¶ 35(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior, or It Has Happened so Infrequently or Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe serious nature of the violation outweighs the lack of recency.
- AG ¶ 35(c)rejectedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate TrainingThe applicant's actions were not due to inadequate training.
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance decision is intended only 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 issuedJun 4, 2013
- Answer filedJun 12, 2013
- Hearing heldJul 30, 2013Notice of Hearing issued five days prior.
- Decision dateAug 26, 2013
Cite For
- Lack of Candor in Disclosing Security Violations Under Guideline E
- Seriousness of Security Violations Involving Classified Information Under Guideline K
- Impact of Concealment of Security Violations on Trustworthiness and Reliability Assessments