It is critical for security clearance holders to handle and protect classified and other sensitive information properly. Improper handling of protected information can (and often does) cost security clearance holders their security clearance. Adjudicative Guideline K of the Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD 4) governs the safeguarding and management of classified, sensitive, and proprietary information for security clearance holders. Among other things, Guideline K addresses behaviors such as unauthorized disclosure, negligent handling, or failure to comply with security protocols, all of which can undermine trust in an individual’s reliability and judgment.
Government Security Concerns Under Guideline K
Failing to properly follow established procedures for handling classified, sensitive, or proprietary information, whether through carelessness or intentional disregard, can signal potential issues with an individual’s reliability, judgment, or willingness to protect critical information. Such behavior is treated as a significant concern in determining eligibility for access to protected materials.
Protected Information Security Concerns Under Guideline K
- Deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons (example: discussing classified information at a party with friends);
- Storing protected information in an unauthorized location (example: storing classified information on an unauthorized thumb drive);
- Transmitting protected information in an unauthorized manner (example: sending classified information from your classified email address to your own private email address);
- Modifying protected information in an unauthorized manner designed to conceal or remove classification markings (example: whiting out SECRET marking on documents and taking them home);
- Viewing information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual’s need-to-know (example: accessing a classified database that you have not been approved to access); or
- Any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information (example: failing to properly secure a SCIF or bringing in your cellphone to a secure location).
Mitigating Factors When Violations Occur
The following factors are considered when evaluating whether concerns regarding classified information have been sufficiently mitigated.
1. Time and Unusual Circumstances
The behavior occurred long ago, was rare, or happened under unique conditions, making it unlikely to happen again or reflect poorly on the person’s reliability and judgment (example: the failure to secure a SCIF you are responsible for was a one-time occurrence and you have no prior security incidents);
2. Positive Response to Counseling/Training
The individual has completed counseling or security training and now shows a responsible attitude toward security duties (example: you take remedial training covering security violations);
3. Training or Instruction Issues
The violation happened because of poor or unclear guidance, not deliberate misconduct (example: you didn’t properly lock a SCIF but were never trained how to properly do so); or
4. Accidental
The breach was unintentional, promptly reported, did not result in a compromise, and isn’t part of a recurring pattern (you accidentally started to charge your cellular phone in a secure area and realized your mistake immediately and reported it).
Favorable Clearance Determinations Under Guideline K
Example A: Applicant had seven security violations under Guideline K between 2007 and 2018, including unauthorized hardware installation, improper handling of classified material, and repeated unauthorized entry of a personal cell phone into a SCIF. He accepted full responsibility and implemented corrective measures to ensure compliance with security protocols. Over the past three years, he had no further incidents. His performance record was exemplary, and both his supervisor and the company’s security manager support his continued access to classified information. Clearance was granted. Copy is located here.
Example B: Applicant, a federal contractor, routinely took unclassified materials home to use for work or scrap paper to write notes on while working for a government agency. On one occasion, he inadvertently brought home a classified cover sheet mixed with unclassified documents. In a panic, he tore it up and ate it to avoid detection, failing to report the incident. He later disclosed it during a failed 2018 or 2019 polygraph to a different government agency and expressed regret. In 2020, he found a 2007 timeframe email marked “Confidential” among personal papers and voluntarily turned it in at a SCIF, though he did not file a formal report, mistakenly believing it was optional. He since acknowledged mishandling both incidents and expressed remorse. While both events raised concerns, they appeared to be minor, and no compromise of classified information was likely. Clearance was granted. Copy is located here.
Unfavorable Clearance Determinations Under Guideline K
Example A: Applicant entered a SCIF with a cellphone on five occasions between September 2015 and January 2017. Although each incident was inadvertent and quickly discovered, three were not promptly reported. She later disclosed an additional violation involving her company cellphone. Separately, she mishandled classified material twice by leaving a classified PowerPoint and document unsecured on her desk overnight. Despite a strong performance record, the pattern of security violations reflected a repeated disregard for procedures, raising concerns about future compliance. Clearance was denied. Copy is located here.
Example B: Applicant was highly regarded professionally and personally but admitted to sharing unclassified proprietary information with a friend against policy, inadvertently bringing a cellphone into a SCIF multiple times, and removing a classified monitor without proper clearance. The intentional disclosure and removal of classified labeling were considered serious breaches. Despite the fact that these incidents occurred over ten years ago and the applicant’s subsequent positive work performance and promotions, the severity of the mishandling outweighed the mitigating factors. Clearance was denied. Copy is located here.
Final Thoughts
As a security clearance holder, protecting classified information is critical. Security clearance decisions under Guideline K rely heavily on what happened and what steps have been taken to remedy the incident and what steps have been taken to ensure the issue recur. If you are facing issues involving the mishandling of classified or sensitive material, you should seek experienced legal security clearance counsel familiar with these types of issues.
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, regulations and government policies are always 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.
