KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant’s history of drug use and arrests, in tandem with his falsification of a 2004
security clearance application, generates a security concern which he failed to mitigate. Clearance
is denied. 
CASENO: 05-10293.h1
DATE: 04/24/2007
DATE:  April 24, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-10293
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s history of drug use and arrests, in tandem with his falsification of a 2004 security
clearance application, generates a security concern which he failed to mitigate. Clearance is denied.
I denied Department Counsel’s motion to admit Exhibit 5.1
Exhibit 3, FBI Identification Record, dated May 24, 2004, at 2; Tr. 57.2
Id; Tr. 58.3
Tr. 53.4
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 7, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated
January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). Applicant answered the SOR on January 4, 2006, and
requested a hearing.
The case was originally assigned to another administrative judge, and scheduled for
November 16, 2006. Applicant failed to appear at the hearing, and later requested a continuance,
which was granted on December 16, 2006. Two days later, the case was assigned to me. I issued a
notice of hearing on March 2, 2007, scheduling it for March 22, 2007. The hearing was held as
scheduled. During the hearing, I received four government exhibits,  and the testimony of one1
government witness, and one Applicant witness. DOHA received the transcript on March 30, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 47-year-old married man with one adult child and two adult stepchildren. He
is a trucker who has hauled munitions for the armed forces over the years.
In 1979, Applicant was arrested and charged with grand larceny.  He was convicted and2
sentenced to serve one to ten years confinement. After serving ten months, he was paroled. In March
1981, Applicant was arrested and charged with burglary.  The charge was later dismissed. In3
February 2003, he was arrested and charged with domestic battery and possession of a controlled
substance. As part of a plea bargain, the prosecution dropped the domestic battery charge, and
Applicant pleaded guilty to the drug charge, and was fined $100.00.4
Tr. 30 - Testimony of Defense Security Services (DSS) Investigator.5
Tr. 39 - Testimony of DSS Agent.6
Id.7
Tr. 47.8
Tr. 54.9
Tr. 53.10
3
Over the years, Applicant has abused several drugs including “uppers,” “downers,” and
marijuana. He began abusing them as a teenager in the mid-1970s. Although he stopped using uppers
and downers in the late 1970s, he continued using marijuana until 2003.  5
In February 2004, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF 86). He failed
to disclose relevant, material information, as required, about his past drug use, arrests, and personal
finances. The following month, he met with a DSS agent. Under oath, he admitted falsifying the SF
86, explaining that he did not want to lose his job.  Also, he told her that he abused marijuana in6
tremendous quantities, smoking up to ten joints per day, and that he had spent approximately
$100,000 on marijuana during his lifetime.  7
At the hearing, Applicant denied intentionally falsifying the SF 86. He testified that his wife
completed it incorrectly, and that he signed it without reviewing it.  He also stated he did not recall8
telling the agent that he had spent $100,000 on marijuana over the years,  and contended that the9
estimation of his marijuana use provided to the agent was inaccurate because“at the time I gave [the
agent] my statement, I really didn’t care whether I got a clearance or not.”10
After Department Counsel completed cross-examination of Applicant, Applicant rested his
case, and walked out of the hearing before its completion.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline,
the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny
or revoke an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions)
and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access
to classified information (mitigating conditions).
An administrative judge need not view the adjudicative guidelines as inflexible rules of law.
Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines, when applied in
conjunction with the factors set forth in the Adjudicative Process provision in Section E2.2.,
Enclosure 2, of the Directive, are intended to assist the administrative judge in reaching impartial,
common sense decisions.
See Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.11
4
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the
nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency
of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to
which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the
consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the
circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.
The following adjudicative guidelines are raised:
Guideline H - Drug Involvement: Improper or illegal involvement
with drugs, raises questions regarding an individual’s willingness or
ability to protect classified information. Drug abuse or dependence
may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of
an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty,
or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate
that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: A history or pattern of criminal
activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness.
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”  the government is responsible for presenting evidence to11
establish facts in the SOR that have been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the
government, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Drug Involvement
Applicant’s extensive history of drug abuse triggers the applicability of Drug Involvement
Disqualifying Condition (DI DC) E2.A8.1.2.1 (Any drug abuse), and DI DC E2.A8.1.2.2 (Illegal
drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution).
In the last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production,12
transfer, shipping, receiving, or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, or cannabis for your own
intended profit or that of another?
5
I have considered all of the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. Although his use of
“uppers” and “downers” no longer poses a security concern because of the length of time since the
last time he abused them, he just stopped using marijuana less than three years ago. Given the
tremendous volume of marijuana he used, and the length of time he smoked it, it is too soon to
conclude that he has mitigated the security clearance concern.
Personal Conduct
Applicant’s omission of information regarding his drug use, arrests, and finances from his
2004 SF 86 raises the issue of whether Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC)
E2.A5.1.2.2 (The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts
from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to
conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine
security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities) applies. No
evidence was presented that Applicant ever purchased or sold marijuana for his profit or as part of
a wider criminal enterprise. PC DC 2 is inapplicable to Question 29.12
With respect to Questions 21, 24, 27, 36, 38, and 39 of the security clearance application, PC
DC 2 applies without mitigation. During the hearing, Applicant provided testimony that either
minimized his earlier statement to the investigator, shifted the blame for the omissions to his wife,
or contradicted his earlier statement entirely. These omissions constitute a deliberate falsification.
Criminal Conduct
Applicant’s lifetime of criminal conduct triggers the application of Criminal Conduct
Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) E2.A10.1.2.1 (Allegations or admission of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged), and CC DC E2.A10.1.2.2 (A single serious
crime or multiple lesser offenses). His criminal conduct has continued nearly uninterrupted from
1976 when he first used marijuana, to 2004, when he falsified the SF 86. In light of the extensive
nature of his criminality, I conclude that none of the mitigating conditions apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Given the extent of Applicant’s marijuana abuse, his SF 86 falsifications, his lack of
credibility displayed at the hearing, and the disrespect for the security clearance process that he
demonstrated by walking out of the hearing, significant concerns remain with respect to his security
clearance worthiness. Clearance is denied
FORMAL FINDINGS
6
Paragraph 1–Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c. through 1.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2–Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. through 2.d.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3–Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a. through 3.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 3.e. through 3.g.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge