* * * * *
*SECURITY VIOLATIONS, MISUSE OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS, MENTAL HEALTH, and SEXUAL CONDUCT*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “K” (June 7, 2017)
In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor accused of negligent security habits; specifically – taking a phone into a SCIF on four (4) separate occasions pre-2015. Our attorneys reviewed the government’s case and assessed several weaknesses. We then crafted a highly effective defense strategy focusing on the extensive security training our client had taken in the last two years, his lack of any subsequent violations, and his prompt self-reporting of each incident. The lack of any classified information spillage in this case, combined with an extensive portfolio of favorable character evidence, rounded out our discovery efforts pre-hearing. Although a hearing date was actually assigned, we ultimately succeeded in convincing the government to withdraw the case just weeks before trial. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “D”, “J”, and “I” (April 17, 2017)
Our client in this matter was a DoD civilian employee accused of presenting a security risk due to a variety of sexual misconduct perpetrated a decade prior as a juvenile. While we conceded that the client’s conduct was unsavory, our attorneys discovered – with the help of an psychologist specializing in sexual offenses – that the client’s actions were actually juvenile efforts to process his own childhood sexual abuse. Upon receiving psychological treatment, the client had learned healthy coping mechanisms and had ceased acting out. Four (4) independent government-retained psychologists agreed with that assessment, each of whom concurred that the client posed no present security risk. Nonetheless, DoD CAF’s Navy Division persisted in claiming that the client’s sexual misconduct could never be rehabilitated – essentially, divorcing the ‘what’ from the ‘why’. After a three year odyssey, multiple supplemental Statements of Reasons, and a DOHA hearing, our client finally received a favorable decision from the Navy PSAB that recognized his reformation. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; GUIDELINE “I” (February 6, 2017)
Our client in this matter was a U.S. Department of Energy employee charged under Guideline “I” with mental and/or emotional stability that purportedly rendered her incapable of safeguarding classified nuclear information. With the assistance of a renowned psychologist, our attorneys quickly determined that the government’s case was baseless and, in fact, appeared to be retaliatory. We presented our concerns to opposing counsel during a pre-trial conference and obtained several key concessions that further weakened the government’s case. Ultimately, it became clear that no security issue was present. The government opted to withdraw the case against our client without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “E”, “K”, and “M” (January 11, 2017)
In this matter we represented a high-ranking DoD civilian employee accused of a litany of unusual integrity and security violations spanning 15 years. A truly bizarre case, the Statement of Reasons tested the ability of our attorneys to isolate key issues and effectively challenge them. Nonetheless, Bigley Ranish LLP attorney Aileen Xenakis worked extensively with the client to gather key evidence that would refute the charges. Combined with strong legal arguments under the Guidelines, as well as our signature “whole person” assessment, our defense eviscerated the allegations against the client and resulted in the government withdrawing the case without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “I” (December 8, 2016)
We were privileged to represent a DoD civilian employee accused of having a mental condition that could impair her ability to safeguard classified information. We responded aggressively to the allegations with the assistance of an expert witness psychologist and favorable testimony from our client’s chain of command. As a result of our efforts, we were successful in proving that our client’s condition is well-managed, that she is compliant with her treatment program, and that she poses absolutely no threat to national security. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “I” (October 12, 2016)
We were privileged to represent a disabled Marine Corps veteran whose security clearance was called into question under the rarely used Guideline I (Mental Health). We represented this client previously over a year ago and were successful in getting his security clearance reinstated. Unfortunately, the client’s supervisor – who had reported the original baseless allegations against our client – refused to accept the government’s favorable determination. Instead, he once again called into question our client’s mental health on dubious grounds, this time in apparent retaliation for an EEO case our client filed against him. Within five (5) business days of the client retaining us, our Attorneys were able to get the client’s security clearance reinstated, get the client returned to full duty, and get the client’s supervisor removed from the client’s chain of command. Security clearance retained.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY; GUIDELINES “K” and “M” (October 2, 2016)
Our client in this matter was a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor accused of admitting to numerous security violations during a polygraph interview. At first blush the case appeared to be challenging; however, we quickly determined that there was more here than met the eye. Specifically, we discovered that the client had been previously diagnosed with severe anxiety and that the polygraph examiner had been inappropriately aggressive (as many NSA and CIA polygraph examiners are).
We mounted a multi-pronged response to the charges that included an evaluation by an expert witness psychologist with experience evaluating intelligence community personnel. The psychologist determined that our client’s anxiety had manifested itself during the polygraph to such an extent that it literally resulted in a false confession. We were then able to back-up that assessment with factual evidence confirming that the client could not possibly have committed the security violations alleged. Although we had to fight this case all the way to the NSA’s Access Appeals Board (AAB), we ultimately prevailed for our client. Security clearance retained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “K” and “M” (July 13, 2016)
Our client in this matter was a decorated U.S. Navy SEAL accused of mishandling classified information — a serious security violation that nearly caused his separation from the service. We prepared a strong case for mitigation that we presented in a formal hearing before a DoD Administrative Judge. Ultimately, the Navy’s Personnel Security Appeals Board agreed with our contention that this isolated mistake was outweighed by the client’s broader track record of good judgment and selfless service. The client was allowed to retain his security clearance and his commission.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CRITERION “F”, “H”, and “L” (May 17, 2016)
Our client in this case was a DOE employee accused of criminal conduct, intentional falsification of documents, and mental health defects that purportedly made him unfit for continued access to classified and/or nuclear material. Agency security officials made clear that they were on a uniquely personal mission to destroy our client’s career. This was truly a case of unprofessional conduct and retaliation by agency security officials like nothing we have ever seen.
We aggressively attacked the government’s Statement of Reasons (the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case), forcing the government to withdraw literally seven (7) counts in the SOR before trial due to lack of evidence. We then highlighted grossly inappropriate conduct on the part of agency security officials – including a potentially criminal violation of the Privacy Act – and obtained numerous items of evidence that blatantly contradicted the charges against our client. At trial, we compelled our client’s primary accuser to testify under subpoena. Based on our cross examination of the accuser, the judge concluded that her testimony “was not credible.” The government’s expert witness psychiatrist was similarly cross-examined, resulting in him literally reversing his diagnosis on the witness stand. Ultimately, the judge issued an 18 page opinion that completely vindicates our client. You can read it here.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “I” (October 30, 2015)
We represented a U.S. Navy employee charged under the rarely used Guideline “I” (Emotional, Mental Health, and Personality Disorders) with exhibiting signs of mental instability that made him unfit to possess a security clearance. We aggressively attacked the government’s case by highlighting the unfounded nature of the evidence and the obvious smear campaign being waged against our client by his superiors. After eight (8) months of litigation, the government finally conceded that the case could not stand. All charges were withdrawn and the client was returned to full duty.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “G” and “I” (August 24, 2015)
Our client in this case — a Facility Security Officer (FSO) for a defense contractor — was accused of alcoholism and severe mental health disorders. With the assistance of two expert witnesses, we: rebutted the opinion of the government’s own psychiatrist, proved that the Client’s alcoholism is in full, sustained remission; and proved that the mental health problems were a byproduct of the alcohol abuse – not independent issues. Clearance retained.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY; GUIDELINES “D”, “J”, and “E” (August 10, 2015)
In this matter, we represented an NSA clearance holder in fighting major sexual misconduct allegations. Purported admissions were falsely imputed to our client by the outrageous misconduct of an Agency polygraph examiner. To make our case, we were required to address head-on the faux “science” of the polygraph, which we did by using our deep technical expertise and the assistance of an expert witness. The result was an overturning of the denial decision at the first level.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; GUIDELINES “K” and “M” (August 4, 2015)
We were pleased to represent a DHS applicant accused of multiple serious security violations in a prior position. Despite what appeared to be a challenging case, we successfully proved that the conduct was an anomaly – not a pattern – and was blown out of proportion by the employer. Clearance granted just one (1) day after submission of our SOR response.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “D,” “K,” and “M” (May 29, 2015)
We represented a DOD employee accused of having a sex addiction that caused him to repeatedly view inappropriate content on his government computer. This was a challenging case, however we prevailed with thoughtful legal strategy and the assistance of an expert witness. Our client was thrilled to have his clearance restored in just weeks.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “K” and “M” (May 13, 2015)
Our client, a Facility Security Officer (FSO), was accused by the Defense Manpower Data Center (the operator of the “JPAS” system) of multiple security violations. These included accessing user profiles without authorization, misuse of the system, and failing to follow DSS policy. The client’s JPAS access was summarily suspended, effectively barring him from working while the wheels of bureaucracy slowly turned. That’s when we got involved. After multiple failures by DMDC to expedite the case, we were forced to threaten litigation. We presented irrefutable evidence that the agency’s information was grossly inaccurate, resulting in all charges against our client being withdrawn. The JPAS program manual was later changed as an apparent direct result of our case.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; GUIDELINES UNKNOWN (April 10, 2015)
We were privileged to represent a dedicated federal employee who had wrongfully been denied a promotion on purported security grounds. When the employee questioned the situation, the agency refused to provide her the reasons for the denial or afford her the requisite due process to fight them. That’s when we intervened. Just one week and one inquiry letter later, the agency suddenly reversed course and granted our client her promotion. The name of the agency is withheld due to the sensitivity of this case.
*Each case is unique. Representations of past success are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of future results. Cases involving multiple guidelines are reported under each guideline.