Mishandling Classified Information and Reporting Foreign Relationships – News in Review

The editorial team walks through everything from defining close and continuing foreign relationships to correctly handling classified information to key leadership qualities.

Week in Review – ClearedCast Style

This past week was all about looking at classified information and close and continuing relationships with foreign nationals. Christopher Burgess wrote about the DoD engineer – James Robert Schweitzer. Essentially, Scweitzer used medicinal marijuana. He told his FSO, but he was mistakenly told it was no big deal. Then, he lost his security clearance during his periodic review. It went to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and they said if he stopped using it going forward, he’d be fine. In all of this, his contractor did not fire him, but instead, they gave him a position that didn’t require a security clearance. Eventually, he quit the company and then he proceeded to throw a multi year temper tantrum and tossed around classified information over email to former colleagues or the media. The FBI arrested him earlier this month. This case is chock full of lessons learned – for clearance holders and companies. There are key takeaways about marijuana and the importance of safeguarding classified information. We think we’re doing enough, but we can never be too careful. And then there have been a few cases lately highlighting the responsibility that clearance holders have with reporting foreign contacts. This is an issue that also impacts politicians as well.

Burgess also wrote about the Navy Chief who allegedly shared classified information with his Russian girlfriend. Despite witholding information on various forms, it still came to the surface. This is a case for FSOs to look over to see what red flags to keep an out for going forward.

Security Clearance World

Continuing on the foreign influence thread, our weekly video helps to clarify who you do or don’t need to report. If you live in a diverse area like I do, it might be confusing for a clearance holder to know what constitutes close and continuing. So, we highlight three that you can probably skip on reporting – as long as it’s clear that they don’t cross the line into more of a relationship. The issue is that if you are over reporting, it can lead to a lot of paperwork for you and for others. That’s not to say that paperwork should ever stop you from doing the right thing – whether that’s developing a relationship with another human being or that’s reporting an actual close and continuing relationship. However, the three contacts that have some gray area but you can lean towards not reporting are: former classmate, former coworker, or neighbor. The distinguishing factors here are things like: maybe you don’t remember their last name, you don’t chat with them except about business or school, you don’t hang out – everything is passive. If you’re hanging out around your fire pit and roasting marshmallows together, you need to report your neighbor. But if you just wave to each other and only had an initial intro but that’s it? You’re okay.

Lindy Kyzer’s weekly DOHA Dose looked at foreign influence from another angle. This clearance applicant submitted the argument that his mom died so she could no longer be considered a foreign influence. However, the applicant self represented, so no new information could be added, and the country of origin and their terms with the U.S. was also factored in. Just because one family member died, it doesn’t mean that a decision should automatically be overturned. This case highlighted the help that an attorney can provide for cases like this.

Lindy says, ” Country of origin, length of time in the U.S., and a variety of factors contribute to foreign influence security clearance denials. Don’t assume you can just inform the government a relative is dead, and your foreign allegiance won’t be questioned. Coercion is a key security concern for applicants with foreign ties, but it’s not the only one.”

Career Advice

Steve Leonard wrote about Colin Powell’s leadership rules. The rules are simple and direct, but they pack a punch. Many leaders set up a guiding path of rules that guide them going forward. They look back on their experiences – for people like Powell or Steve, it’s a matter of collecting experiences from time in the uniform and then applying it in the future. It’s a great practice to do – to figure out what your personal values are and how you want to operate. It’s actually hard to pick just a few of Powell’s rules because so many of them have rung true over the years. I’ve either watched myself pulled into the success of a project or a decision, so as I see the work sinking, it’s a battle to not fight for something because my own ego sinks with it. Or I’ve watched other leaders who don’t have good instincts but really were just worried about looking good to the client. And then, I’ve watched other great leaders stand for what’s right and lose their job in the process. It’s really helpful to think through all of these rules and ways to apply them going forward.

Lastly, Jason Howk and his co-authors, Mike Karlson and Michael Mailloux, shared about the power of risk-taking. But they highlight the fact that we need innovators, risk takers, and mavericks. It’s interesting to see how in war, those leaders rise to the top. They stop thinking about their career progress, and instead, they think about ways to innovate and win the war. Jason highlights the need for that mentality in the military, but also in organizations. People with big ideas and different approaches shouldn’t be benched. We need people who follow the rules, but we also need those people who see to the heart of the need and are willing to go the extra mile to get it done.