Here at ClearanceJobs, we often highlight cases of interest from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Sometimes amusing, often informative, these cases provide a window into personnel security trends and emerging issues. They can also help soothe reader anxiety over the ever-present question, Can I get/keep a clearance with that issue in my background?
Garnering considerably less attention is DOHA’s sister office – “OHA” – at the U.S. Department of Energy, the only other federal agency to publish its security clearance decisions for public consumption. And yet, it was a recent OHA case that provided a fascinating look into how technology is increasingly becoming intertwined with security clearances.
The Case of Catfishing and Security Clearances
The case, PSH-24-0111, involved a married applicant who had been “catfished.” If you’re not familiar with the term, courtesy of the long-running reality television show of the same name (or the highly publicized case of NFL linebacker Manti Te’o), the term describes a scenario in which someone is duped into an online “relationship” with a fraudster posing as someone else.
Sometimes the motivation of the fraudster is personal – like revenge or infatuation. But more often, it seems that the motivation is money – as in the fraudster duping the victim into sending gifts and cash in furtherance of the supposed relationship. Meanwhile, the victim deludes themselves into believing this is a legitimate relationship despite the other party’s never-ending excuses for why they are unable to engage in a video chat or meet in person.
Human Behavior and Security Risks
It might sound rather incredible to an outside observer, but a lot of lonely and/or naïve people have fallen for catfishing schemes; indeed, the phenomenon has now produced nine seasons of content for MTV. It was only a matter of time before catfishing ensnared a security clearance-holder like the hapless applicant in this case.
The reported chain of events makes for a fascinating case study in human behavior. According to the Department of Energy:
“[t]he individual was contacted on social media by a person claiming to be a famous actress. The profile picture was a picture of the actress and the person was familiar with the actress’s movies so he assumed he was talking to the actual actress. He began an online romantic relationship with her. At the online person’s request, the individual sent her over $3,800 in money and gift cards using money from the bank account of a non-profit organization on whose board he served.”
A Domino Effect of Poor Decisions
The case gets weirder from there. I won’t recount the full story – readers can review the actual judge’s decision here – other than to highlight that the circumstances led to a marital dispute and the individual’s arrest for simple assault on one of his children. That triggered a self-reporting obligation to DOE Security in which the individual was allegedly evasive “because he was afraid that reporting his arrest could result in DOE learning about his embezzlement.”
Equally problematic was the individual’s ongoing state of denial over the obvious. He “testified that he still was not sure who he had been talking to online but when asked did not rule out that it could have been the actress.”
Lessons Learned
All of this proved too much for the government, which revoked the individual’s security clearance. That’s likely because the applicant took a potentially mitigatable security issue – infidelity that was unacted upon physically – and turned it into a major problem by embezzling money, assaulting a relative, and acting evasively in his self-reporting.
The lesson, as it is so frequently in these cases, is that the cover-up is often worse than the initial transgression.
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.
