KEYWORD: Drugs; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant used marijuana at varying frequency from 1994 to early January 2005.
Before ending his marijuana use in 2005, he began his unprescribed use of hydro-codeine in
January 2004, and use hydro-codeine until June 2005. His unsubstantiated evidence in mitigation
does not overcome his history of drug use under the drug involvement guideline. Though his
handgun charge was cancelled in August 2005, his failure to adequately explain why he had the
gun in his automobile precludes him from mitigating the pattern of criminal behavior under the
criminal conduct guideline. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-19569.h1
DATE: 04/20/2007
DATE:  April 20, 2007
In Re:
----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19569
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PAUL J. MASON
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant used marijuana at varying frequency from approximately 1994 until early January
2005. Before ending his marijuana use in 2005, he began his unprescribed use of hydro-codeine in
January 2004, and used hydro-codeine until June 2005. His unsubstantiated evidence in mitigation
does not overcome his history of drug use under the drug involvement guideline. Though his
handgun charge was cancelled in August 2005, his failure to adequately explain why he had a gun
in his automobile precludes him from mitigating the pattern of criminal behavior under the criminal
conduct guideline. Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF CASE 
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. On September 26, 2006, under Executive Order 10865 and
Department of Defense Directive 5200.6, including revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006,
DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the reasons for its security concerns raised
under the drug involvement guideline (Guideline H), and the criminal conduct guideline (Guideline
J) of the Directive. In his answer dated October 3, 2006, Applicant requested a decision be made on
the record in lieu of a hearing. 
A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s evidence
in support of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on January 12, 2007. Applicant received the FORM
on January 24, 2007. Applicant’s response to the FORM was due by February 23, 2007. No response
was submitted. The case was assigned to me for decision on March 22, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR alleges drug involvement and criminal conduct. Applicant admitted the factual
allegations. His objective for seeking a security clearance is to provide more opportunities for his
son that were not available for Applicant. He has done work on several military installations around
the country and appreciates the meaning of national security. He believes he deserves forgiveness.
Applicant is 33 years old and employed as a project engineer with a defense contractor. He seeks a
secret security clearance. 
Concerning the first drug allegation (1.a.), Applicant indicated the bulk of his marijuana use
was in college. According to his security clearance application (SCA), he attended college in about
1993, during the time he was an intern at the Department of Energy in 1993 (Item 4). Applicant used
the drug to: (1) increase his chances of getting accepted by his peers; (2) contend with a bad
relationship with his father; and, (3) medicate serious back pain caused by a football injury and
several car accidents. Applicant used the drug twice during New Year’s Eve and New Year’s day
2005 “for old time’s sake.” He has used no marijuana since then. (Item 3). Applicant used hydro-
codeine (1.b.) between January 2004 and June 2005 to reduce lower back pain. He was offered the
drug as a gift. When the intensity of his back pain reduced, Applicant replaced his hydro-codeine use
with over-the-counter medications. 
In October 1994, Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana (1.c.). He pled guilty,
performed community service and was fined. Twelve months later, Applicant was cited for the same
offense. This time he paid a $500.00 fine, and his driving privileges in the state were revoked for one
year.
In May 1998 (1.e.), Applicant’s friend needed  a ride to the airport, and “being the Good
Samaritan,”Applicant agreed he would drive the friend. They were arrested and charged with (1)
conspiracy to sell/deliver controlled substance marijuana, a felony, (2) possession with intent to
sell/distribute marijuana, felony, (3) possession of marijuana, felony, and (4) maintaining a
vehicle/dwelling of controlled substance, a felony. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor of maintaining
a vehicle/dwelling of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to 45 months incarceration, placed
on 24 months probation, and fined $200.00. Though Applicant maintains that he was only providing
4
a ride for his friend to the airport, Applicant pled guilty to the plea bargain due to insufficient funds
and a lack of confidence his friend would tell the truth at trial. Applicant no longer associates with
drug users and is more conscious of the individuals he associates with.
The drug offenses in 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e. constitute criminal behavior (2.a. of the SOR) that
Applicant acknowledges. His answer to 2.b. is that the charge (handgun in a vehicle) was cancelled
as the gun is legally owned. 
Applicant noted he traveled to foreign countries and accomplished “various lifetime
achievements,” but none as important as being told that his wife was expecting a child. Applicant
provided no evidence about those achievements. He provided no additional evidence about his
reputation on or off the job. 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth guidelines containing disqualifying conditions (DC)
and mitigating conditions (MC) that should be given binding consideration in making security
clearance determinations. These conditions must be considered in every case along with the general
factors of the whole person concept. However, the conditions are not automatically determinative
of the decision in any case nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own
common sense. 
Burden of Proof
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualifies, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 531 (1988) “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven conduct under any of the Criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.” ISCR
Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct.
7, 1993)). 
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. “[S]ecurity clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Egan, 481 U.S. at 531; see
Directive E2.2.2.
Drug Involvement (Guideline H)
Improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises questions regarding an individual’s
w1illingness or ability to protect classified information. Drug abuse may impair social or
occupational functioning.
Criminal Conduct (Guideline J)
Violating the law shows poor judgment and unreliability.
5
CONCLUSIONS
Drug abuse raises questions about a person’s willingness to comply with drug laws and other
laws, as well as security rules and regulations. If a person demonstrates a propensity to violate the
law by using illegal or unprescribed drugs to satisfy his personal desires, then there is good
likelihood he may adopt the same posture toward security regulations he disagrees with. Applicant
used marijuana at varying frequencies from 1994 (during college) until January 2005. Drug
Involvement (DI) disqualifying condition (DC) 25. (a) (any drug abuse) applies to Applicant’s
marijuana use, while DI DC 25. (a) and DI DC 24. (b) (drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use
of a legal drug in a manner that deviates form approved medical direction) apply to Applicant’s
hydro-codeine use from January 2004 to June 2005. It is reasonable to infer that marijuana use
quickly became an integral part of his lifestyle as evidenced by his convictions for possession of
marijuana in 1994 and 1995. The convictions exemplify poor judgment in that he was willing to
possess and/or use the drug while driving his automobile. Applicant’s conviction in 1998 for
maintaining a vehicle/dwelling where a controlled substance is located raises even more concerns
about the level of his involvement with marijuana. These concerns are substantiated by the severity
of the sentence that included probation for two years. DI DC 25. ©) (illegal drug possession,
including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution . . . ) applies.
There are four mitigating conditions that may apply to the evidence of drug abuse. DI
mitigating condition (MC) 26. (a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
happened under circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not apply as his drug use did not end
until June 2005, less than 18 months before the date of the SOR. DI MC 26. (b) (a demonstrated
intent not to abuse any drugs in the future) has not been established due to the lack of independent
evidence to conclude Applicant’s drug use is clearly in the past. The reason for Applicant’s decision
to use marijuana at the beginning of 2005, “for old time’s sake,” does not inspire sufficient
confidence to conclude he will not use the same reason to use the drug in the future. The DI
guideline is found against Applicant. 
A pattern of criminal conduct (CC) raises doubt about a persons’s judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness. Applicant’s criminal behavior from 1994 to August 2005 represents a pattern of
adverse conduct that activates CC DC 31. (a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses)
applies. Applicant’s two convictions in 1994 and 1995 for marijuana possession, and the 1998
conviction for maintaining a dwelling where a controlled substance is located fall within the scope
of CC DC 31. (a). Even though Applicant considers himself innocent of any of the offenses he was
charged with in 1998,  he has provided insufficient extenuation or explanation to warrant the
application of CC MC 32. ©) (evidence that the person did not commit the offense), due to his
criminal record for the same type of offense before 1998. The fact that the handgun offense in
August 2005 was canceled because he had a license for the gun, does not eliminate the poor
judgment associated with carrying a handgun in a automobile. There is no evidence Applicant is a
law enforcement officer; there is no evidence he is a correctional officer or a deputy; there is no
evidence Applicant had a specific reason for possessing the handgun in an automobile. The fact the
gun was licensed to him does not adequately explain why he had the weapon in his vehicle. The CC
guideline is found against Applicant.
6
Applicant’s failure to satisfy the mitigating conditions under the specific guidelines is not
necessarily dispositive, as the general factors of the whole person model may support an overall
finding in Applicant’s favor. While Applicant’s drug use in 1994 and 1995 is extenuated by his
youthful age during the period, Applicant continued to use marijuana, and then hydro-codeine until
he was 31 years old. The three drug convictions demonstrate the degree to which drugs were a part
of Applicant’s lifestyle. While he claims that his life has changed now that he knows he will be a
father, and he no longer associates with drug users, he has failed to produce the necessary evidence
under 2. (a)(6) (the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes)
to support his drug-free claim in the future. Without ample evidence of permanent behavioral
changes, there are inadequate bases for me to find for Applicant under the DI and CC guidelines. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 (Drug Involvement, Guideline H): AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph a. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph b. Against the Applicant. 
Subparagraph c. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph d. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph e. Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Criminal Conduct, Guideline J): AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
Subparagraph a. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph b. Against the 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.
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge