ISCR Case 04-09251.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-09251.h1

deniedJul 17, 2006· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old computer systems engineer with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The applicant's wife became a U.S. citizen in September 2002, but her mother and two of her three brothers are citizens and residents of Poland. The mother-in-law, a widow and housekeeper, has visited the U.S. four times, but neither the applicant nor his wife provides financial support to her or the brothers, and none of the family members in Poland have government ties.

The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand in June 2002 for misusing a sensitive but unclassified computer network, bringing hacking software to the workplace, and misusing his email account, which resulted in the indefinite suspension of his network access. During his initial security interview, the applicant deliberately failed to disclose this reprimand and the February 2002 notification of the investigation's results.

While concerns under Guidelines M and B were mitigated, the judge found that the applicant's deliberate omission regarding the reprimand during the security interview, a matter under Guideline E, raised significant trustworthiness issues. This lack of candor suggested a potential prioritization of personal concerns over security obligations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately failed to disclose a reprimand for misconduct during his initial security interview, raising concerns about his trustworthiness.
The applicant's lack of candor suggested he may prioritize personal concerns over obligations to safeguard classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.1raisedDeliberate Omission of Information From a Security Interview
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedFailure to Disclose Relevant Information
E2.A5.1.2.4raisedDishonesty or Lack of Candor
E2.A13.1.2.2raisedMisuse of Information Technology Systems
E2.A13.1.2.4raisedUnauthorized Modifications to Information Systems

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.5appliedPositive Steps Taken to Demonstrate Reliability
E2.A13.1.3.1appliedConduct Was Not Recent or Significant
E2.A13.1.3.2appliedIsolated Incident

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2005
Answer filedOct 19, 2005
Hearing heldMar 30, 2006
Decision dateJul 17, 2006

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Information During a Security Interview Under Guideline E
Trustworthiness Concerns Arising From Lack of Candor
Mitigation of Disqualifying Conduct Under Guidelines M and B

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's wife is a citizen of Poland and a resident of Italy. Applicant's wife became a U.S. citizen in September 2002. Applicant's wife's mother and two of her three brothers are citizens and residents of Poland.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Poland LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant's mother-in-law, a widow, works as a housekeeper and is a citizen and resident of Poland. She has visited Applicant and his family in the U.S. on four occasions.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Poland LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant's wife's family members in Poland have no ties to the government of Poland. Applicant and his wife provide no support to the mother-in-law or to the brothers in Poland.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Poland LOW RISK / ALLY	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant's wife is a citizen of Poland and a resident of Italy. Applicant's wife became a U.S. citizen in September 2002. Applicant's wife's mother and two of her three brothers are citizens and residents of Poland.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Poland

LOW RISK / ALLY

Denied

—

3.b

Applicant's mother-in-law, a widow, works as a housekeeper and is a citizen and resident of Poland. She has visited Applicant and his family in the U.S. on four occasions.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Poland

LOW RISK / ALLY

Denied

—

3.c

Applicant's wife's family members in Poland have no ties to the government of Poland. Applicant and his wife provide no support to the mother-in-law or to the brothers in Poland.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Poland

LOW RISK / ALLY

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	During your initial security interview with an authorized investigator of the Department of Defense, you deliberately failed to disclose the results of an investigation concerning your conduct related to bringing a zip drive containing hacking tools to your workplace.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	You did not inform the OPM investigator that you had been notified of the results of the investigation in February 2002.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

During your initial security interview with an authorized investigator of the Department of Defense, you deliberately failed to disclose the results of an investigation concerning your conduct related to bringing a zip drive containing hacking tools to your workplace.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

You did not inform the OPM investigator that you had been notified of the results of the investigation in February 2002.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a	In June 2002, you received a Letter of Reprimand for misuse of a sensitive but unclassified computer network, for bringing hacking software into the workplace, and for misuse of your e-mail account, conduct that caused your access to the sensitive but unclassified computer network to be suspended indefinitely.	For Applicant	Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media	Admitted	(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a system (d) downloading/storing/transmitting classified/sensitive/proprietary/protected information on or to any unauthorized IT system	(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 …	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶40)

Mitigating applied (¶41)

Mitigation

1.a

In June 2002, you received a Letter of Reprimand for misuse of a sensitive but unclassified computer network, for bringing hacking software into the workplace, and for misuse of your e-mail account, conduct that caused your access to the sensitive but unclassified computer network to be suspended indefinitely.

For Applicant

Unauthorized Hardware Software or Media

Admitted

(b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an IT system or any data in such a system

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

(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 …

Claimed

Other

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES