Summary
A 58-year-old defense contractor, with a long history of holding a security clearance, faced concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information). These concerns stemmed from nine self-reported security infractions that occurred between 2009 and 2013. The government alleged the applicant deliberately falsified answers on an April 2013 Security Clearance Application (SCA) and provided false or misleading information during a May 2013 investigative interview by failing to disclose these past infractions.
However, the judge found the applicant's explanations for the non-disclosure credible, determining they were not intentional omissions. All nine security infractions had been self-reported to his employer, demonstrating honesty and accountability. Furthermore, the applicant took effective corrective actions to prevent future incidents, with no further infractions occurring after February 2013.
Considering these mitigating factors, the judge concluded that the applicant had successfully addressed the security concerns. Consequently, eligibility for access to classified information was GRANTED.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant self-reported all security infractions to his employer, demonstrating honesty and accountability.
- He took corrective actions to prevent future infractions, which were effective as no further incidents occurred after February 2013.
- The applicant's explanations for non-disclosure of infractions were deemed credible and not intentional omissions.
Conditions Referenced
- K.1.graisedFailure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- K.1.hraisedNegligence or Lax Security Habits That Persist Despite Counseling by Management
- E.2.arejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- E.2.brejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- K.2.aappliedSo 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.2.bappliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training and Now Demonstrates a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security Responsibilities
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 8, 2015
- Answer filedFeb 24, 2015
- Hearing heldJun 30, 2015
- Decision dateOct 7, 2015
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Due to Self-reporting and Corrective Actions
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Non-disclosure of Infractions
- Application of Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions