Summary
A 35-year-old systems administrator with a master's degree was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). These concerns stemmed from three security incidents in 2013.
Specifically, the applicant received a security infraction in January 2013 for placing a higher-classified file directory on a lower-level disk drive, violating closed area procedures. In March 2013, he was cited for a security violation for improperly downloading material during a work task in a lab environment. The same month, he incurred another security infraction for disclosing unclassified program information requiring enhanced protection by using an unsecured telephone, again failing to comply with closed area procedures.
The applicant admitted to these incidents, but the judge found them to be inadvertent and not indicative of untrustworthiness. He took corrective actions, sought guidance to prevent future errors, and his supervisor testified to his integrity and procedural improvements. No further security issues have occurred since 2013, leading to the decision to grant the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant admitted to the security incidents but demonstrated that they were inadvertent and not indicative of a lack of trustworthiness.
- He took corrective measures and sought guidance to prevent future occurrences of similar mistakes.
- The applicant's supervisor testified to his integrity and the improvements made in security procedures following the incidents.
Conditions Referenced
- K.34(a)raisedDeliberate or Negligent Disclosure of Classified or Other Protected Information to Unauthorized Persons
- K.34(c)raisedLoading, Drafting, Editing, Modifying, Storing, Transmitting, or Otherwise Handling Classified Reports, Data, or Other Information on Any Unapproved Equipment
- K.34(g)raisedAny Failure to Comply with Rules for the Protection of Classified or Other Sensitive Information
- E.16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- K.35(a)appliedSo 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.35(b)appliedThe Individual Responded Favorably to Counseling or Remedial Security Training
- K.35(c)appliedThe Security Violations Were Due to Improper or Inadequate Training
- M.41(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances, That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- E.17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- E.17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 16, 2015
- Answer filedApr 1, 2015
- Hearing heldOct 20, 2015
- Decision dateFeb 29, 2016
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guidelines E, K, and M Due to Corrective Actions Taken by the Applicant
- The Importance of Time Elapsed Since Incidents in Assessing Security Clearance Eligibility
- The Role of Supervisor Testimony in Supporting an Applicant's Trustworthiness and Reliability