KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant used marijuana from 1971 to at least April 1994. In May 1975, he was convicted
of distribution of a controlled substance. Applicant sold marijuana for profit to another defense
contractor employee for about nine months from about July 1993 until April 1994, when he was
arrested and convicted of selling illegal drugs. He did not accurately disclose his criminal drug
involvement when he completed his security clearance application in 2002. His evidence in
mitigation falls short of overcoming the very serious Criminal Conduct and Personal Conduct
concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 03-06241.h1
DATE: 06/29/2007
DATE:  June 29, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 03-06241
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Jeremiah Donovan, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant used marijuana from 1971 to at least April 1994. In May 1975, he was convicted
of distribution of a controlled substance. Applicant sold marijuana for profit to another defense
contractor employee  for about nine months from about July 1993 until April 1994, when he was
arrested and convicted of selling illegal drugs. He did not accurately disclose his criminal drug
involvement when he completed his security clearance application in 2002. His evidence in
mitigation falls short of overcoming the very serious Criminal Conduct and Personal Conduct
concerns. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, ¶ E3.1.2
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on August 5, 2005,
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). With the assistance of an attorney, Applicant answered the
SOR on August 22, 2005, and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was
assigned to me on December 28, 2005.
On January 9, 2006, I scheduled a hearing for February 10, 2006. An amended notice was
issued on January 13, 2006, rescheduling the matter for March 1, 2006, at Applicant’s request due
to his unavailability. On March 1, 2006, Applicant appeared pro se, as he had discharged his attorney
the previous day, and he requested a continuance to obtain new legal counsel more familiar with the
laws of the jurisdiction of his arrest in 1974. I granted a continuance over the Government’s
objection.  On April 24, 2006, I rescheduled the hearing for May 18, 2006.
On May 17, 2006, the hearing was cancelled verbally because Applicant had been separated
from his employment with the defense contractor on April 28, 2006. Applicant was rehired by the
same defense contractor in late September or early October 2006, and his case was reopened. On
March 13, 2007, the case was assigned to DOHA Administrative Judge Charles Ablard to conduct
a hearing on the original SOR  The case was transferred to me on March 26, 2007, due to workload
considerations. On April 4, 2007, I scheduled a hearing for April 27, 2007.
At the hearing on April 27, 2007, counsel for Applicant entered his appearance. The
Government submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1-9). Applicant testified on his behalf and submitted two
exhibits (Ex. A-B). A transcript (Tr.) of the proceedings was received on May 11, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
DOHA alleged under Guideline J that Applicant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute
illegal drugs in about 1974 (SOR ¶ 1.a); felony sale of a controlled dangerous substance in 1994 (¶
1.b); and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by failing to disclose his 1974 offense on his security
clearance application (SF 86) (¶ 1.c). Under Guideline E, Applicant allegedly sold marijuana for
DOHA alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a that Applicant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs, apparently1
based on Applicant’s admission to a Defense Security Service agent on December 2, 2003, that he had been charged with
a “variety of charges (specifics not recalled) related to drugs with the primary charge being conspiracy to distribute illegal
drugs.” (Ex. 5).According to Superior Court records, Applicant was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance
(E), in violation of Chapter 94, Section 32. In May 2006, an associate justice of the court certified the offense was a
misdemeanor. (Ex. A).
Applicant testified on direct examination that his decision to plead guilty was influenced, in part, by the judge2
telling him that the offense would be expunged or sealed. (Tr. 43-44) There is no proof that the offense was expunged,
and as shown by Exhibit A, his conviction is still on record of the Superior Court. Applicant testified that he understood
the state to have unsealed records “in order to find out if people were trying to get guns.” (Tr. 44) Applicant never
received an order of expungement. (Tr. 67)
3
profit to a coworker for nine months in about 1994 while employed by a defense contractor and
holding a CONFIDENTIAL clearance (¶ 2.a) and deliberately falsified his July 2002 SF 86 by not
reporting his 1974 drug offense. In his Answer, Applicant admitted the criminal drug offenses and
sales to a coworker (¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 2.a).  He denied intentional falsification of his SF 86 (¶ 2.b),
asserting he believed the record of his 1974 offense had been expunged. 
After consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, and hearing transcript, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 51-year-old designer who began working for his current employer, a defense
contractor, in March 1980. He was laid off in late April 2006, but returned to the company in about
late September or early October. He requires a SECRET security clearance for his duties.
Applicant began smoking marijuana as a teenager in 1971. Over the next 23 years, his
involvement with the drug varied from times of no or little use to use three to four times per week.
On occasion, he sold marijuana to friends at cost. While still in high school, he tried hallucinogenic
mushrooms once. He also experimented with cocaine years ago.
On his graduation from high school in 1974, Applicant got a job for about six months as a
mason tender with a contractor that his sister had hired to construct her new home. He stayed in the
area thereafter, working in restaurants, and at odd jobs whenever he could. After work hours, he
drank beer and played pool with other tradesmen at a local lounge. One night, Applicant was asked
whether he had any amphetamines by someone who had several times expressed interest in his sister.
Applicant claims he told this person he did not use amphetamines and to ask someone else. He
denies he named anyone specifically (“I told him go to talk to someone else. I made no reference to
anyone specifically.” Tr. 38), but he was subsequently arrested on charges relating to aiding and
abetting a drug sale that he denies knowing took place. Applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of
distribution of a controlled substance in May 1975,  and he was sentenced to one year probation and1
$250 court costs.  Applicant was discharged from probation in May 1976.  He contends that he only2
pleaded guilty because of the prohibitive costs of contesting the charge at trial.
Following his arrest, Applicant moved to his current state of residence where, over the next
few years, he worked as a waiter, longshoreman, and night watchman. Seeking a position with his
present employer, Applicant was told by an interviewer that experience in the steel trade would
increase his chances of being hired. Applicant worked for about nine months at a sheet metal shop
Applicant admitted ¶ 2.a, that he sold marijuana for profit to a coworker for nine months while he held a3
CONFIDENTIAL clearance issued on October 12, 1989. Yet, Applicant testified that he never held other than the “green
badge” which meant a company-granted CONFIDENTIAL clearance until after September 11, 2001. It now means an
interim SECRET clearance. (Tr. 58). The government presented no documentation showing the grant of a DoD
CONFIDENTIAL clearance.
Asked on cross examination to confirm that he sold the marijuana to make money, Applicant responded, “A4
small amount. And I also had you know it was basically somebody asking me and I would get it for them you know.”
(Tr. 80). He had at least $8,000 in drug proceeds in his apartment when it was searched in April 1994, which cannot
reasonably be characterized as a small amount.
4
but was laid off. In March 1980, he started with his present employer (defense contractor X) as a
sheet metal mechanic. He was given a company-granted CONFIDENTIAL security clearance.3
Applicant continued to smoke marijuana during off-duty hours, knowing that it was illegal and that
he was violating his employer’s policy against drug use.
In about  July 1993, Applicant worked part-time as a bartender in addition to his work for
defense contractor X. After an acquaintance from this part-time job told him that he could obtain
marijuana, Applicant decided he could make about $100 by procuring marijuana for a coworker at
company X. On at least 10 to 15 occasions over the next nine months, Applicant acted as a
middleman, buying marijuana and then selling it to this coworker, in quantity of one pound,
sometimes more. He purchased the marijuana in one pound increments for $1,400 to $1,600 and sold
it to this coworker for $2,000 to $2,400 per pound. On at least one occasion, he sold this coworker
two pounds of the drug. Applicant sold the marijuana knowing that it was illegal to do so, as he
could make a significant amount of profit on the transactions.  He assumed this coworker was selling4
the marijuana to others, although he made no effort to confirm it. Applicant claims he gave no
thought to his involvement in the drug transactions being inconsistent with him holding a clearance.
This coworker subsequently ran into legal trouble, and Applicant believes he cooperated with
police to apprehend Applicant for his drug sales. On or about April 4, 1994, this coworker asked
Applicant for some marijuana. Applicant stopped at a local delicatessen on his way to work when
he saw the coworker’s vehicle, and he was arrested for having one pound of marijuana in his
possession. While he was under arrest, the police executed two search and seizure warrants for the
residence of Applicant and his then girlfriend. The police found marijuana, packaging material, a
scale, and approximately $13,000 in cash (about $8,000 from drug sales), in Applicant’s apartment.
Applicant was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of more than four
ounces of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and sale of a controlled substance within
1500 feet of a school. Applicant did not provide the police with the identity of his supplier. He felt
“put upon” and told them he would not “tattletale on [his] fellow union members.” (Tr. 96) In
January 1995, Applicant was convicted of sale of a controlled substance, a felony. The court
sentenced him to serve six years confinement, suspended, and three years probation with conditions;
to perform 200 hours of community service; to pay $3,000 to a drug awareness education program;
and to undergo a drug evaluation and complete a drug counseling program, if required. 
To avoid a possible layoff, in 1996 or 1997 Applicant  transferred to the design department,
which provided him access to more detailed information than just the finished drawing or plan that
he had worked with previously. The position required a SECRET security clearance. Applicant
Three iterations of the security clearance application were admitted: an  EPSQ Version 2.2 dated June 28, 2002,5
and signed July 25, 2002 (Ex. 1); an SF 86 dated September 3, 2002, bearing no signature but indicating Applicant
signed the form on July 25, 2002 (Ex. 2); and an SF 86 dated July 26, 2002, also with no handwritten signature but again
noting that Applicant signed the form on July 25, 2002 (Ex. 3). All contain the same responses to questions 21, 24, and
28.
5
executed a security clearance application (SF 86) on July 25, 2002.  He responded “YES” to question5
21:
Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense? (Include those
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.) For this item, report information
regardless of whether the record in your case has been “sealed” or otherwise stricken
from the record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions
under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an
expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607.
 He indicated that he had been fined, ordered to perform community service, and placed on two years
probation for an April 1994 possession of marijuana offense. Applicant provided the same
information in answer to question 24:
Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or
drugs? For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case
has been ‘sealed’ or otherwise stricken from the record. The single exception to this
requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act
for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C.
844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. 
He did not disclose his 1974 distribution of a controlled substance offense in response to question
24. He claims it was because he had been told by the judge that it was going to be expunged and he
thought it fell within the enumerated exception, even though he never received a formal notice of
expungement. 
Applicant answered “NO” to question 28, “Have you EVER illegally used a controlled
substance while employed as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; while
possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting public
safety?” Applicant explained he did not  list his past involvement with marijuana because he feared
it would negatively affect his clearance.
On December 2, 2003, Applicant was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS)
special agent. Applicant admitted to the agent that he had used marijuana from “about age 16 (1971)
and continuing through 1994 (age 37),” at times three to four times weekly, with other periods of
“little or no use whatsoever.” Applicant described experimental use of cocaine once “years ago” and
hallucinogenic mushrooms in high school. He indicated that he had been arrested at age 18 on drug
charges, including conspiracy to distribute an illegal drug, and convicted of one or two charges (not
specified), but denied any culpability (“I did absolutely nothing wrong . . . The undercover individual
asked me to sell him drugs. I told him to go see someone else in the bar without identifying who he
should see.” Ex. 3). Applicant averred that he had the case expunged after two years of probation so
Applicant did not specify the document from which he omitted the information. It is presumed to be his SF 866
in light of all the evidence of record.
6
he did not list it.  As for his arrest in 1994, Applicant indicated he had “acted as a middleman,”6
selling quantities of one to two pounds of marijuana to a coworker for about nine months. Applicant
averred that at the time of his arrest, he had $13,000 in his apartment, but that only about $8,000
were drug proceeds. He denied any other sales for profit, but admitted he had sold to friends in the
past at cost.
Applicant was reinterviewed on December 10, 2003, concerning his failure to disclose on his
security clearance application all of the drug charges that had been filed against him or his use of
illegal drugs. As for his sales of marijuana, Applicant averred he sold the coworker about a pound
per week, sometimes two pounds, purchased at between $1,400 and $1,600 per pound, and sold at
between $2,000 and $2,400 per pound. Applicant indicated he had not listed the conspiracy charge
because it had been expunged, and he listed only the 1994 felony possession of marijuana as the
court found him guilty of only that charge. He admitted he had not disclosed his use of marijuana
because he was “concerned that the information would reflect bad [sic] on [him] and have negative
consequences.”
  When asked at his hearing about his marijuana use, Applicant testified, “It would have been
marijuana. It was quite a while ago even before the arrest. Just recreationally, on the weekends,
perhaps in the evenings, maybe one marijuana cigarette.” (Tr. 51) Applicant denied any use of
marijuana since his arrest in 1994, and any intent to use an illegal drug in the future, and the
government presented no evidence to rebut that.
Applicant’s supervisor for several years, up to and including 2006, found Applicant to be “a
good employee, always dependable, responsive and willing to pitch with a helping hand.” He is
respected by his group members.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has “the authority to . . . control access to
information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently
trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at 527.
The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for
access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb.
20, 1960). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App.
Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an
applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3
of the Directive. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a
18 U.S.C. § 1001 provides in part:7
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully: (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
7
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication
the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have
established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts, including
the adjudicative guidelines, I conclude the following with respect to Guidelines J and  E:
The security concern under Guideline J is that a history or pattern of criminal activity creates
doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Directive ¶ E2.A10.1.1. Applicant
admitted to a long history of drug offenses. He acknowledged that he possessed and used marijuana
for many years, and distributed marijuana–each instance is a criminal offense and potentially
disqualifying under this guideline, even if it did not result in a conviction. He also admitted that for
about nine months ending in April 1994, he sold large quantities of marijuana to a coworker for large
profits, resulting in a felony conviction. With regard to the May 1975 misdemeanor conviction for
distribution of a controlled substance, Applicant denies engaging in criminal conduct and maintains
he pled guilty only to avoid the expense and risk of litigation and receive the benefits of a plea
bargain. However, considering all the circumstances, including Applicant’s guilty plea, his history
of drug involvement, his willingness to engage in drug sales, and his general lack of credibility
(discussed infra), I find the evidence of this conviction sufficient to raise security concerns. His drug
crimes fall within Guideline J disqualifying conditions (DC) ¶ E2.A10.1.2.1, Allegations or
admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, and ¶
E2.A10.1.2.2, A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.
The Government submits Applicant deliberately omitted his conviction for distribution of
a controlled substance in about 1974 from his SF 86, and thereby violated § 18 U.S.C. § 1001.7
Applicant does not deny he omitted the offense, but claims he believed it was exempt from
disclosure under the enumerated exemption for drug crimes that had been expunged. As specified
in the language of question 24, the lone exception to mandatory disclosure is for those convictions
under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under
the authority of 21 U.S.C. § 844 or 18 U.S.C. § 3607. Expungement by a state court pursuant to a
state law would not fall within the exception, although a good faith mistaken reliance on such an
expungement order could negate the willful intent required for a 18 U.S.C. § 1001 violation.
The file contains no expungement order or evidence proving  the record had ever been sealed.
While the 1974 charge was not reported by the FBI (Ex. 6), the court record noting his conviction
(Ex. A) does not substantiate expungement. An associate justice of the superior court annotated the
8
record in May 2006 to indicate that the offense was a misdemeanor. Telling in its absence is any
notation by the judge that the record had been expunged or previously sealed. Moreover, Applicant’s
testimony about the expungement does not make sense. When asked on direct examination whether
his decision to plead guilty was influenced by anything that the judge said, Applicant responded:
The judge mentioned to me that I seemed like a nice kid, I’d completed everything
properly. He was going to do me a favor and expunge this from my record. I never
ever had to put this on any job applications after that. (Tr. 43)
The court records show Applicant was sentenced to probation after he changed his plea to guilty. His
decision to change his plea could not have been influenced by a promise to expunge the offense
based on his compliance with a sentence that had not yet been imposed. Moreover, had Applicant
been acting in good faith when he completed his SF 86, he would not have responded falsely to
question 28 concerning any use of drugs while possessing a security clearance, or inaccurately
reported the charges filed against him in 1994 and the sentence imposed for his drug sales. Even
though Applicant put the government on notice that he had been culpable of possession of marijuana
in 1994, the government would have had no basis to know from his security clearance application
that he continued to smoke marijuana after a drug arrest in 1974 until he was arrested in April 1994,
at times up to three or four times weekly, or that he sold large quantities of the drug for profit to a
coworker at company X, which led to his arrest, not only on possession charges but also for sale of
narcotic within 1500 feet of a school, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana
with intent to sell. The order of probation indicates he was convicted of “sale (vice possession) of
controlled substance” and sentenced to six years in prison, albeit fully suspended, in addition to
probation.
Applicant’s false response to question 28 has not been alleged, so it cannot provide the basis
for denial of his clearance under Appeal Board precedent (See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 94-1159, App.
Bd. Dec. 4, 1995). Yet, it is still relevant to assessing his intent when he completed his SF 86 and
his credibility generally. It is not disputed that Applicant recalled the 1975 conviction when he
completed his SF 86. He was no longer a 18-year-old first offender deserving of a “second chance”
but a convicted drug felon who had violated the drug laws for some 20 years. When faced with the
drug arrest inquiry, he made no effort to check with the court to determine whether he was legally
justified in not reporting his first drug conviction, even though he had never received an
expungement order, and the single exception from reporting is where the court issued an
expungement order under the authority of two specific federal statutes, 21 U.S.C. § 844 or 18 U.S.C.
§ 3607.  He has failed to persuade me that his omission of the 1975 conviction was due to good faith
misunderstanding. His knowing false statement falls within Guideline J, DC ¶ E2.A10.1.2.2, and
also raises Guideline E concerns (see Personal Conduct, supra).
In mitigation of the Criminal Conduct concerns, the two drug convictions are very dated (see
mitigating condition ¶ E2.A10.1.3.1, The criminal behavior was not recent). While they cannot be
viewed in isolation from his SF 86 misrepresentation, it has been almost five years since Applicant’s
SF 86 omission. Yet, I am unable to conclude that there is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation
(see MC ¶E2.A10.1.3.6) because Applicant continues to deny any culpability with respect to the
Applicant continued to deny at his hearing that he had referred the undercover officer to an specific individual8
at the lounge. When asked whether he explained the circumstances to the judge, he denied the opportunity as his lawyer
who “did most of the talking.”  According to Applicant, he explained it to his lawyer, who “was more interested in
making a deal than finding out the truth.” (Tr. 63)
When asked whether he sold the drugs to a coworker to make money, Applicant testified , “A small amount.9
And I also had you know it was basically somebody asking me and I would get it for them you know.” (Tr. 80) He had
previously told the DSS agent that he began selling for profit because he had the opportunity to purchase large amounts
at a price that put him in a position where he could make “a significant profit on the transactions.” (Ex. 4)
9
1975 conviction for distribution of a controlled substance,  to minimize the seriousness of his drug8
sales to a coworker while employed by a defense contractor,  and to deny any intentional falsification9
of his SF 86.
Guideline E—Personal Conduct
Under the guideline for Personal Conduct, the security concern is that 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.  Directive ¶E2.A5.1.1.  
Guideline E 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 because of his deliberate omission of his 1975 drug conviction from his SF
86.
Serious personal judgment concerns are also raised by his multiple sales of marijuana from
about July 1993 to April 1994, in quantities of one pound, and at least once double that, to a
coworker at a significant profit. Even though the transactions took place off company property,
Applicant knew his conduct was against the law,  and because of its illegality, would not have been
condoned by his employer. Applicant’s demonstrated unwillingness to conform his behavior to what
is expected of an employee with a CONFIDENTIAL clearance (whether granted by his employer
with delegated authority or by the DOD), engenders significant doubts about whether he can be
counted on to properly safeguard classified information. DC ¶ E2.A5.1.2.5, A pattern of dishonesty
or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the
individual and the agency, applies as he knowingly violated the laws and his employer’s rules or
policies against illegal drug involvement. His conduct as a middleman in these drug transactions also
implicates ¶ E2.A5.1.2.6, Association with persons involved in criminal activity.
To his credit, Applicant disclosed his drug conviction at age 18 and his nine months of drug
sales in 1994 when he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) special agent on
December 2, 2003. The Guideline E concerns raised by his knowing falsification of his SF 86 may
be mitigated by a prompt good faith effort at rectification (see ¶ E2.A5.1.3.3, The individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being
confronted with the facts). It is not clear whether the investigator knew of the 1975 drug distribution
conviction before Applicant told him. Even assuming Applicant volunteered his conviction, his
10
disclosure more than one year after his SF 86 is not prompt. At his hearing, Applicant raised for the
first time that he might have acted on reliance of advice from the person at company X who
processed the forms (“I think I might have asked a woman who actually processes the forms. And
I explained to them and they said don’t put it down.” Tr. 67). While he named a person, he indicated
she no longer worked for the company. His uncorroborated claim is not enough to satisfy MC ¶
E2.A5.1.3.4, Omission of material facts was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or
inadequate advice of authorized personnel, and the previously omitted information was promptly
and fully provided. As for his illegal drug sales, there is no evidence to show that he continues to
associate with any known drug users or suppliers (see ¶ E2.A5.1.3.7, Association with persons
involved in criminal activities has ceased).
Whole Person Analysis
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Directive ¶ E2.2.1.
Applicant has demonstrated little respect for the law for more than 30 years (see ¶ E2.2.1.1, The
nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct). He possessed, used and distributed illegal drugs to
friends for many years, even after he had been convicted of a drug offense. In 1993, he seized an
opportunity to make a significant personal profit by selling marijuana in substantial quantity of one
pound or more. For the next nine months, he sold marijuana to a coworker without concern for his
fiduciary obligations to his employer. He benefitted from having his six-year prison term suspended,
but when presented the opportunity to demonstrate that he had fully reformed, he elected to conceal
relevant and material facts about his past illegal drug involvement (see ¶ E2.2.1.6, The presence or
absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes).  The passage of time since his
drug sales and SF 86 falsification are not enough to overcome the very substantial doubts that persist
for his judgment and reliability. He continues to minimize the seriousness of his illegal drug sales
and shows little remorse.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1. Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
DECISION
11
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge