ISCR Case 04-06327.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-06327.h1

deniedMar 20, 2006· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old computer specialist, employed by a federal contractor since 1987, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant admitted to engaging in extramarital affairs with foreign nationals he met through an Asian internet website, including a Chinese national in 1999 and a Taiwanese national in 2002, as well as another woman in November 2003. He also communicated with these women via company telephones and email from 1998 until March 2004.

Additionally, the applicant committed multiple security violations involving company technology. In September 2003, he failed to properly secure two secret computer hard drives, leaving them outside an employee's office instead of in a classified safe. He later attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate these classified boot drives at a scrap dealer. He also used his work computer without authorization to access the Asian internet website to meet women and downloaded and installed unauthorized software on his work computer.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his conduct. The denial was based on his extramarital relationships with foreign nationals, which raised foreign influence concerns, his multi-year misuse of company technology for personal purposes, and his negligent security violations involving sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant engaged in extramarital relationships with foreign nationals, raising concerns of foreign influence.
Applicant misused company technology for personal purposes over several years, demonstrating a lack of judgment.
Applicant's security violations included failing to secure sensitive information, which was deemed negligent and unmitigated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

KraisedSecurity Violations
MraisedMisuse of Information Technology Systems
BraisedForeign Influence
DraisedSexual Behavior
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

KappliedSecurity ViolationsThe applicant's security violation was isolated and infrequent.
MrejectedMisuse of Information Technology SystemsThe applicant's misuse was recent, intentional, and repeated.
BrejectedForeign InfluenceThe applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate concerns about foreign influence.
DrejectedSexual BehaviorThe applicant's sexual behavior demonstrated a lack of judgment and potential vulnerability to coercion.
ErejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's conduct indicated a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information must be resolved in favor of protecting classified information.”
— Directive ¶ E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 7, 2005
Answer filedMay 4, 2005Applicant elected to decide on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 20, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Foreign Influence From Extramarital Relationships
Security Violations and Misuse of Information Technology as Disqualifying Factors
Lack of Sufficient Mitigation for Personal Conduct Issues

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant admitted that he met foreign nationals over an Asian internet and engaged in extramarital affairs with some of them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Asian	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant admitted that he met foreign nationals over an Asian internet and engaged in extramarital affairs with some of them.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Asian

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
4.a	From 1998 until March 2004, Applicant admitted he telephoned and emailed some of the women he became acquainted with through the Asian website, as alleged in SOR ¶ 4.a.	Against Applicant	Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk	Admitted	(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
4.b	He also engaged in extramarital relationships with a Chinese foreign national in 1999 (SOR ¶ 4.b.)	Against Applicant	Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk	Admitted	(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
4.c	He also engaged in extramarital relationships with a Taiwanese foreign national during 2002 (SOR ¶ 4.c.), another woman in November 2003 (SOR ¶ 4.c.)	Against Applicant	Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk	Admitted	(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment	—	—
4.d–4.e	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

4.a

From 1998 until March 2004, Applicant admitted he telephoned and emailed some of the women he became acquainted with through the Asian website, as alleged in SOR ¶ 4.a.

Against Applicant

Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk

Admitted

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

4.b

He also engaged in extramarital relationships with a Chinese foreign national in 1999 (SOR ¶ 4.b.)

Against Applicant

Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk

Admitted

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

4.c

He also engaged in extramarital relationships with a Taiwanese foreign national during 2002 (SOR ¶ 4.c.), another woman in November 2003 (SOR ¶ 4.c.)

Against Applicant

Extramarital Relationship with Coercion Risk

Admitted

(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress

(d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment

—

4.d–4.e

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
5.a–5.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

5.a–5.b

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶34)	Mitigating applied (¶35)	Mitigation
1.a	In September 2003, he failed to properly secure two secret computer hard drives after he removed them from an employee's computer. Instead of placing them in a classified safe, he left them outside of the employee's office. He subsequently attempted to locate the classified boot drives at a scrap dealer, but was unable to do so. (SOR ¶ 1.a)	For Applicant	Failure to Safeguard or Secure	Admitted	(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…	(b) responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibili…	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶34)

Mitigating applied (¶35)

Mitigation

1.a

In September 2003, he failed to properly secure two secret computer hard drives after he removed them from an employee's computer. Instead of placing them in a classified safe, he left them outside of the employee's office. He subsequently attempted to locate the classified boot drives at a scrap dealer, but was unable to do so. (SOR ¶ 1.a)

For Applicant

Failure to Safeguard or Secure

Admitted

(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (personal/business contacts, media, persons at seminars/meetings/c…

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

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used the company's computer without authorization to access Asian internet website to meet women, in violation of the company's rules and procedures.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Use of System	Admitted	(d) downloading/storing/transmitting classified/sensitive/proprietary/protected information on or to any unauthorized IT system	—	—
2.b	Applicant downloaded and installed a software program on his work computer without authorization from his supervisor.	Against Applicant	Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media	Admitted	(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant used the company's computer without authorization to access Asian internet website to meet women, in violation of the company's rules and procedures.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Use of System

Admitted

(d) downloading/storing/transmitting classified/sensitive/proprietary/protected information on or to any unauthorized IT system

—

2.b

Applicant downloaded and installed a software program on his work computer without authorization from his supervisor.

Against Applicant

Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media

Admitted

(a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES