ISCR Case 02-32290.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-32290.h1

grantedNov 16, 2004· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 59-year-old defense contractor, with a history of security violations, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons cited three specific incidents between 1985 and 1998. These included leaving a safe with classified materials unlocked, disclosing Secret classified information to an uncleared secretary by providing a Secret document for an unauthorized fax of an unclassified portion, and knowingly removing a file from a classified computer system without authorization.

The government alleged that these actions demonstrated questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, as well as noncompliance with information technology rules. Disqualifying conditions K.1, M.1, and E.4 were raised.

However, the decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The Applicant had not committed any security violations in the last six years, demonstrating a period of reform. The past violations were determined to be inadvertent and isolated incidents, and the Applicant showed a positive attitude towards his security responsibilities. Mitigating conditions K.1, K.2, K.4, M.1, M.2, M.3, and E.5 were applied, leading to the granting of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant has not committed any security violations in the last six years.
The violations were determined to be inadvertent and isolated incidents.
The Applicant demonstrated a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

K.1raisedSecurity ViolationsNoncompliance with security regulations raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness.
M.1raisedMisuse of Information Technology SystemsNoncompliance with rules regarding information technology systems raises security concerns.
E.4raisedPersonal ConductConduct involving questionable judgment could indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Mitigating

K.1appliedSecurity ViolationsThe violations were inadvertent.
K.2appliedSecurity ViolationsThe violations were isolated and infrequent.
K.4appliedSecurity ViolationsThe Applicant demonstrates a positive attitude towards security responsibilities.
M.1appliedMisuse of Information Technology SystemsThe misuse was not recent or significant.
M.2appliedMisuse of Information Technology SystemsThe conduct was unintentional or inadvertent.
M.3appliedMisuse of Information Technology SystemsThe misuse was an isolated event.
E.5appliedPersonal ConductThe individual has taken positive steps to reduce vulnerability to coercion.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2003
Answer filedJan 26, 2004
Hearing heldAug 4, 2004Applicant requested a continuance from June 15, 2004.
Decision dateNov 16, 2004

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Security Violations Under Guideline K
Mitigating Conditions for Misuse of Information Technology Systems Under Guideline M
Mitigating Conditions for Personal Conduct Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	(e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

(e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant left his safe that contained classified materials unlocked.	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt… (b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…	—
1.b	The Applicant disclosed Secret classified information to an uncleared personnel by providing a Secret document to a secretary to fax an unclassified portion of the document without authorization.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Disclosure	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt… (b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…	—
1.c	The Applicant knowingly removed a file from a classified computer system without authorization.	For Applicant	Removed Classified to Personal Space	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt… (b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…	—
1.d–3.a	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant left his safe that contained classified materials unlocked.

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

—

1.b

The Applicant disclosed Secret classified information to an uncleared personnel by providing a Secret document to a secretary to fax an unclassified portion of the document without authorization.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Disclosure

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

—

1.c

The Applicant knowingly removed a file from a classified computer system without authorization.

For Applicant

Removed Classified to Personal Space

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has elapsed, or it has happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt…

(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…

—

1.d–3.a

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant's noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about his trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to properly protect classified systems, networks, and information.	For Applicant	Unspecified IT Misuse	Denied	—	(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on … (b) the misuse was minor and done solely in the interest of organizational efficiency and effectiveness (c) the conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the situation and notification to appropriate …	—
not recovered from source–not recovered from source	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government alleges that the Applicant's noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about his trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to properly protect classified systems, networks, and information.

For Applicant

Unspecified IT Misuse

Denied

—

(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on …

(b) the misuse was minor and done solely in the interest of organizational efficiency and effectiveness

(c) the conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the situation and notification to appropriate …

—

not recovered from source–not recovered from source

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES