FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline K
DIGEST: Applicant committed numerous security violations over a nine year span.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-01305.a1
DATE: 10/17/2007
DATE: October 17, 2007
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-01305
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John Bayard Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Nicolas A. Gordon, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 26, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline K (Security Violations) of Department
An allegation reflecting this incident was added to the SOR through a Motion to Amend, dated January 291
2007.  The Judge granted the motion on the following day.  Decision at 2.  
See testimony of the Defense Security Service specialist: “As a result of them not being able to find it, we2
concluded that the item was in fact lost and that’s what we are reporting. . . our position was . . . unless you can produce
the hard drive and verify that there is in fact nothing on it, the fact that it was associated with a classified system means
that there is the potential that classified material was in fact on it . . .”  Tr. at 70-71. 
Directive ¶  E2.A11.1.3.1.3
Directive ¶  E2.A11.1.3.4.4
Directive ¶¶  E2.A11.1.3.2, E2.A11.1.3.3.5
2
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On May 7, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that
Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to the application of relevant mitigating
conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant, a senior systems administrator for a defense contractor,
committed numerous security violations from 1997 through 2006.  These include five instances of
failing to secure DoD-approved security containers designed for the storage of classified material;
two instances of failure to secure a classified computer hard disk drive, and one instance of failing
to secure a box containing material marked TOP SECRET.  This last incident occurred nearly a year
after the date of the SOR in Applicant’s case.   Additionally, one of the improperly secured hard disk1
drives was never recovered.2
In analyzing the case, the Judge noted that two mitigating conditions were possibly
applicable–that Applicant’s infractions were inadvertent  and that he showed a positive attitude3
toward his security responsibilities.   However, the Judge also took into consideration the fact that4
Applicant’s security violations span almost the whole of his employment with the federal contractor,
the first incident occurring only two months into his tenure.  She also noted that the latest violation
occurred  after nine years of job experience and that various corrective steps taken by Applicant’s
employer had been unsuccessful.  Balancing the mitigating factors with the security concerns, the
Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with
the interests of national security for him to have a clearance.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan,
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988); Directive ¶ E3.1.15. (“The applicant is responsible for presenting
witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant
or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security clearance.”) 
Applicant argues on appeal that the Judge erred in not applying two other mitigating
conditions–that the security incidents were isolated or infrequent and that they resulted from
improper or inadequate training.   The Board does not find this argument persuasive.  Given the5
Applicant testified that upon starting his employment he was briefed on security procedures.  Tr. at 136.6
Government Exhibit 3 consists of security training material prepared by Applicant’s employer, which covers potential
infractions such as those committed by Applicant.  Additionally, various Government exhibits address the specific
security violations in Applicant’s case and advise that remedial action included his being “re-indoctrinated” in security
procedures.  See, e.g., Government Exhibit 21 at 2.  
3
inherent seriousness of security violations, committing eight over a nine year period is a reasonable
basis for concluding that they are not infrequent.  See ISCR Case No. 03-26888 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct.
5, 2006) (“Security violations are one of the strongest possible reasons for denying or revoking
access to classified information, as they raise very serious questions about an applicant’s suitability
for access to classified information.”) (internal citations omitted); ISCR Case No. 01-24358 at 4
(App. Bd. Apr. 13, 2004) (Judge concluded that Applicant’s failure to safeguard six classified
documents over a ten year period was isolated or infrequent.  Board reversed the Judge, holding the
Judge’s conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious.)  Furthermore, the Board finds no basis to disturb
the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s security violations were not caused by improper or
inadequate training.   6
Examining the Judge’s decision in light of her findings and the record as a whole, the Board
concludes that she articulates “a satisfactory explanation for” the decision, “including a ‘rational
connection between the facts found and the choices made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the
United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck
Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  We hold that her adverse security clearance
decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.  
4
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                  
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board