One of the nuances of working in government is the alphabet soup of acronyms, abbreviations, and jargon. Known collectively as “government-speak,” it may prove indecipherable to those outside the federal workplace.
I’ve found, however, that sometimes even those inside the federal workplace – including security officials and supervisors who should know better – either don’t understand the legal implications of terminology or play fast-and-loose with language. When that happens, it can be to the detriment of employees, especially when the language at issue pertains to security clearance issues that can destroy careers.
Security Violations vs. Security Infractions
One of the ways I encountered this in my law practice was with security officials who use the terms “security violation” and “security infraction” interchangeably. That may fly at some federal agencies, which is part of the problem; not every agency uses the same terminology the same way. But at other agencies, the terms denote entirely distinct offenses, with entirely different ramifications. Case-in-point: the Department of Defense.
DoD defines an infraction as “a security incident involving failure to comply with requirements…which cannot reasonably be expected to, and does not, result in the loss, suspected compromise, or compromise of classified information. An infraction may be unintentional or inadvertent. While it does not constitute a security violation, if left uncorrected, can lead to security violations or compromises. It requires an inquiry to facilitate immediate corrective action but does not require an in-depth investigation.”[1]
Conversely, violations are defined as “security incidents that indicate knowing, willful, and negligent [disregard] for security regulations, and result in, or could be expected to result in, the loss or compromise of classified information. Security violations require an inquiry and/or investigation.”[2]
Why the Distinction Matters
The distinction may seem like legal semantics, but it isn’t for two reasons. First, it emphasizes the examination of intent and knowledge as a requirement before meting out punishment. Second, it demonstrates a sliding scale for mistakes; not all mistakes are equal in severity, and not all warrant equally harsh punishment. In other words, the policy requires a proportionate punishment relative to the act, not a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach.
Protecting Your Career in Security Incidents
So, if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of disciplinary action for a security incident, understand that language matters more than you may initially realize. Where that language is working to your benefit, take the win. But where it is working against you, protect your interests by respectfully insisting on a review of policy, a re-examination of the situation, and a correction of the record. Better yet, retain experienced legal counsel to do that on your behalf. Your career may depend on it.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
[1] DoD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, Enclosure 6, Section 1(a)(2)
[2] Id. at Section 1(a)(3)
