Summary
A 51-year-old senior illustration designer, with 30 years of service at a federal contractor, was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), K (Handling Protected Information), and M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant admitted to misusing classified company equipment for personal purposes, specifically making copies of music CDs and viewing and editing personal photographs on a classified computer. Additionally, the applicant introduced digitized personal photographs onto the classified computer for viewing and editing for both himself and coworkers.
Disqualifying conditions were cited, including those related to personal conduct and the handling of protected information. However, several mitigating conditions were applied. The applicant's long and unblemished career, with no prior disciplinary issues, was a significant factor.
Furthermore, the misuse of equipment was noted as a common practice among coworkers, with tacit approval from supervisors, indicating a lax enforcement of security training at the workplace. Crucially, there was no evidence that classified information was actually compromised. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant had a long career with no prior disciplinary issues.
- The misuse of equipment was common practice among coworkers, including tacit approval from supervisors.
- There was no evidence of actual compromise of classified information.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A11.1.2.2raisedViolations That Are Deliberate or Multiple or Due to Negligence
- E2.A13.1.2.3raisedRemoval (or Use) of Hardware, Software or Media From Any Information Technology System Without Authorization
- E2.A13.1.2.4raisedIntroduction of Hardware, Software, or Media Into Any Information Technology System Without Authorization
- E2.A5.1.2.1raisedReliable, Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates, Employers, Coworkers, Neighbors, and Other Acquaintances
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
- E2.A11.1.3.1appliedWere Inadvertent
- E2.A11.1.3.2appliedWere Isolated and Infrequent
- E2.A11.1.3.3appliedWere Due to Improper or Inadequate Training
- E2.A11.1.3.4appliedDemonstrate a Positive Attitude Toward the Discharge of Security Responsibilities
- E2.A13.1.3.2appliedThe Conduct Was Unintentional or Inadvertent
- E2.A13.1.3.5appliedThe Misuse Was Followed by a Prompt, Good Faith Effort to Correct the Situation
- E2.A5.1.3.5appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
Key rule quoted
“The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJul 5, 2005
- Answer filedJul 19, 2005
- Hearing heldNov 1, 2006
- Decision dateDec 11, 2006
Cite for
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Under Guidelines E, K, and M
- Common Practice Defense in Security Clearance Cases
- Impact of Inadequate Security Training on Applicant's Actions