Summary
A 38-year-old IT professional with over a decade of experience was denied a security clearance under Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The denial stemmed from concerns regarding his unauthorized use of a government computer. Specifically, the applicant installed software without authorization and elevated his personal user account to administrator privileges, subsequently using this account to browse the internet.
These actions raised questions about the applicant's reliability and judgment, triggering disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 40(e) and AG ¶ 40(f). While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 41(a), AG ¶ 41(b), and AG ¶ 41(c) were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the security concerns.
The denial was based on the applicant's admitted unauthorized software installation and his use of an administrator-level account for web browsing, which exposed the network to risk. Furthermore, the applicant's inconsistent statements about his awareness of authorization requirements undermined his credibility, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to installing software on his government computer without authorization.
- The applicant elevated his user account to administrator privileges and surfed the web while logged in as an administrator, exposing the network to risk.
- The applicant's conflicting statements regarding his knowledge of the need for authorization undermined his credibility.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 40(e)raisedUnauthorized Use of a Government or Other Information Technology System
- AG ¶ 40(f)raisedIntroduction, Removal, or Duplication of Hardware, Firmware, Software, or Media to or From Any Information Technology System Without Authorization
- AG ¶ 41(b)appliedThe Misuse Was Minor and Done Only in the Interest of Organizational Efficiency and EffectivenessThe applicant downloaded Program 2 to research its potential for improving agency efficiency.
- AG ¶ 41(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe events occurred more than two years ago, but were not under unusual circumstances.
- AG ¶ 41(c)rejectedThe Conduct Was Unintentional or Inadvertent and Was Followed by a Prompt, Good-faith Effort to Correct the Situation and by Notification of SupervisorThe applicant's conflicting statements about his knowledge of the requirement to seek authorization indicated intentionality.
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve the question of 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 issuedMar 27, 2014
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldAug 19, 2014via video teleconference
- Decision dateOct 20, 2014
Cite For
- Unauthorized Use of Administrator Privileges Under Guideline M
- Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to IT System Use
- Conflicting Statements Affecting Credibility in Security Clearance Cases