KEYWORD: Guideline K
DIGEST: Applicant has committed four security violations between 2006 and 2012.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 13-00676.a1
DATE: 06/13/2014
DATE: June 13, 2014
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 13-00676
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 23, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On March 24, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant committed four security violations while working in a classified location for his
current employer, a Defense contractor.  In 2006, he left a classified backup tape on a bench in the
classified location.  In 2012, he committed three violations.  He failed to secure the lock on the door
to the classified location, he left six classified hard drives in a closed area overnight without properly
storing them, and subsequently installed unapproved software on a classified information system.
None of these infractions resulted in actual compromise of classified information.  The first three
instances resulted in disciplinary action and/or additional security training for Applicant.  After the
last one, Applicant’s employer submitted an “individual culpability report to the DoD.”  Decision
at 4.  Applicant posted a list of rules regarding acceptable use of information systems to ensure that
he complied with security requirements.  
A few months later, DoD suspended Applicant’s security clearance.  His employer
reassigned him to a program that does not require a clearance.  However, he testified that he was
“able to do classified work with somebody else on [his] program.”  Id. at 5.  By that he meant that
he was permitted to work in the classified location but only when accompanied by a cleared escort.
He did not actually have access to classified documents.   
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his security
violations, the Judge noted that at least two of them were similar and, therefore, of a recurring
nature.  She stated that Applicant did not appear to have responded favorably to remedial training,
given the number of violations found against him, and that the evidence was such that “concerns
persist that he lacks appropriate security awareness.”  Id. at 9.  The Judge noted Applicant’s
testimony that he is permitted to do classified work.  Although he subsequently clarified that to mean
that he merely had access to computer hardware that, though classified, was not visually classified,
“he should have recognized that describing his work as classified . . . was inappropriate and could
raise security flags.”  Id.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s violations could not be blamed on
poor security training.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that the commission of three security
violations in six months casts “serious doubt” on Applicant’s judgment and reliability.  Id. at 10.
The Judge noted that, were Applicant’s access to classified information to be restored, he may well
3
resume duties which have, in the past, been performed without direct oversight.  As it stands, the
evidence does not lead to a conclusion that Applicant has sufficient awareness to recognize potential
security issues and, therefore, seek appropriate guidance.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s comment about his working in a classified location despite
his own clearance having been suspended.  He stated that he did not actually have access to any
classified documents and argues that the Judge misinterpreted his comment.  We have examined the
Judge’s statements about this matter in light of her Decision as a whole.  Although she did find
Applicant’s claim to be sufficiently problematic so as to require further clarification from him, we
find no reason to believe that she ultimately misinterpreted the comment or attributed additional
security violations to him.  She merely stated that the way in which Applicant initially worded the
comment could lead to misunderstanding.  We find no reason to believe that the Judge exaggerated
the extent of Applicant’s security-significant conduct or that she weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-07881 at 2 (App. Bd.
Oct. 5, 2012).  The gravamen of the Judge’s decision was that, despite adequate training and
corrective action, Applicant had committed a series of security violations, impugning his judgment
and reliability.  This analysis was consistent with the record that was before the Judge.  Security
violations strike at the heart of the Industrial Security Program, and an applicant who has committed
such violations has a “very heavy burden” in attempting to demonstrate mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 11-09219 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 2014).  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
4
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board