KEYWORD: Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a junior analysis for a defense contractor.  In completing his security clearance
application and in responding to interrogatories asked during the clearance process, Applicant
deliberately did not provide correct information concerning his use of illegal drugs and a driving
while intoxicated arrest and detention.  Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-24528.h1
DATE: 08/31/2007
DATE:  August 31, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24528
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
THOMAS M. CREAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a junior analysis for a defense contractor.  In completing his security clearance
application and in responding to interrogatories asked during the clearance process, Applicant
Item 5, at 1-5.1
Item 10, at 6.2
2
deliberately did not provide correct information concerning his use of illegal drugs and a driving
while intoxicated arrest and detention.  Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 7, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision to deny a security clearance for
Applicant.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1990), as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive), using the new Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December
29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  Applicant was
provided copies of the new guidelines.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on December
14, 2006.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 2, 2007.  He admitted three and denied
two of the allegations with explanation.  He elected to have the matter decided on the written record
in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on May 31, 2007.  Applicant
received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on June 5, 2007, and was provided the
opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying
conditions.  His response was due July 5, 2007.  As of August 13, 2007, he had not responded.  The
case was assigned to me on August 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 31 years old and has been a junior analyst for a defense contractor since
December 2003.  He received a college degree in August 2003, and is married with three children.
He submitted a security clearance application in 2004.1
Applicant admitted that in July 1996, as a 20-year-old dependant of a military member, he
was apprehended by military police for driving under the influence of alcohol following an
automobile accident.  Applicant was taken to the military police station, refused to take a
Breathalyzer test, and released to his father’s custody.  His driving privilege for military installations
was revoked for a year.   Applicant admitted the incident happened but that he was not arrested or2
detained.  He was not required to appear in court.  The revocation of his driving privileges was
Item 4, at 2.3
Id. at 1.4
Item 4 at 8.5
Item 4, and Item 12.6
Item 4 at 2-3.7
Items 6 and 7.8
It is noted that the initial security clearance application submitted by Applicant in 1997 listed his place of birth9
as the same location noted in Item 9.
Item 9.10
Item 7 at 3.11
3
processed by administrative action.   3
Applicant admits that in 2002, while on active duty, he was apprehended for driving under
the influence.  He was sentenced by civilian authorities to jail, serving three days, and was fined. 
His licensed was revoked, he attended alcohol awareness classes, and he was placed on probation
for three years.4
Applicant completed a security clearance application on April 13, 2004.  He listed only his
2002 conviction for driving while intoxicated in response to question 24 asking if he had ever been
charged with or convicted of an offense(s) related to alcohol and drugs.   In response to5
interrogatories from DOHA, Applicant admitted he failed to list the offense on the application, but
denied that he tried to hid the incident.  He stated that he freely admitted to the offense in the past
and had listed it on a previous security clearance application submitted in November 1997 while in
the Army.   He explained that it was not included on the 2004 security clearance application because6
he simply forgot about the offense.7
In response to interrogatories from DOHA, Applicant stated he never used illegal drugs.8
However, the Government presented a statement concerning Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
automated records showing that an individual with Applicant’s name,  social security number, date
of birth, but a different place of birth, submitted an on-line application on December 16, 2003, for
a special agent position with the FBI.   On the application, the individual applying for the special9
agent position answered “YES” to questions asking if he used any illegal drug(s) or combination of
illegal drugs, other than marijuana , more than five times during his lifetime or in the last ten years.10
Applicant stated he does not recall ever applying to be a special agent for the FBI.  He submitted
applications to numerous agencies during this time.  He does not know the steps to apply for
employment with the FBI and never spoke with an FBI recruiter.  He does not remember receiving
any mail from them.11
Applicant stated that his answers to the interrogatories that he never used drugs were correct.
Item 6 at 6.12
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).13
Directive ¶ E2.2.1.14
Directive ¶ 2(a)6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6.15
AG ¶ 2(a).16
Id.17
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.18
4
Applicant had always received negative results from randomly drug tested during his six years in the
Army.  He attended alcohol and drug prevention classes because of his driving while intoxicated
offense, was tested, and was never positive for drug use.  He had friends offer him drugs in the past,
but he always declined the offers.  12
POLICIES
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.”   Eligibility for a security clearance is13
predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive.14
The Directive sets out the adjudicative guidelines for determining eligibility for access to
classified information, and lists the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions for each
guideline.  Each clearance decision must be fair, impartial, and a commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors listed in the
Directive.15
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.  An administrative
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider: (1) the nature, extent, and16
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the applicant’s age and maturity at the
time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation
and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation of recurrence.17
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the
government.  The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to classified information.  The decision to deny an individual a
security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.   It is merely18
an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
Directive ¶ E3.1.14.19
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.20
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 21
ISCR Case No. 99-0597 (App. Bd. Dec 13, 2000).22
ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct. 7,23
1993))
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Directive ¶ E2.2.2.24
AG ¶ 15.25
5
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the Applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.19
Thereafter, Applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate
facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the20
national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”   The government is under no duty to21
present evidence to disprove any Adjudicative Guideline mitigating condition, and an administrative
judge cannot assume or infer that any particular mitigating condition is applicable merely because the
government does not present evidence to disprove that particular mitigating condition.   “[T]he22
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.”   “Any doubt as to whether access to23
classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” 24
Based upon a consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guideline most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.  Of special interest
is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.25
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which
would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guideline are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions section below.
CONCLUSIONS
I carefully considered all of the factors in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Applicant’s detention in 1996 for driving under the influence, and his arrest and conviction for
driving under the influence in 2002 were raised as Personal Conduct allegations under Guideline E.
10 U.S. C. § 1001.26
6
These offenses are not of the nature considered as Personal Conduct security concerns under Guideline
E.  The offenses are properly security concerns  under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).  The
offense of driving while intoxicated is an example in the disqualifying conditions under Guideline G
of alcohol-related incidents away from work.  However, the mitigating conditions under both
Guideline E and Guideline G are similar.  Under Guideline E, Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition
(PC MC) ¶ 17(c) (the offenses is no minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) is the same as Guideline G
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) ¶ 23(a) (So much time has passed, or the
behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment).
As such, Applicant has presented sufficient information to mitigate any security concerns for the
offenses under both Guidelines E and G.  The offenses are 11 and 5 years ago.  There were only two
offenses in a 11 year period.  There has not been any other alcohol-related offense and five years have
passed since the last offense.  Alcohol-related incidents away from work under the circumstances are
not likely to recur.  In addition, the offenses do not cast doubt on Applicant’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment because of the infrequency of the offenses and the amount of time
that has passed since the last offense.  Applicant has mitigated security concerns for the two driving
while intoxicated offenses, listed as SOR allegations 1. a, and 1.b.
Applicant’s false response to questions concerning drug use on interrogatories and on a security
clearance application, and his failure to list his 1996 driving while intoxicated offense on both his 2004
security clearance application and in response to interrogatories, raises Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition (PC DC) ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and
material facts from the personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used
to conduct investigations . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness).  Personal
conduct is always a security concern because it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct
justify confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified information.  The security
clearance system depends on an individual providing correct and accurate information.  If a person
conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process cannot function properly to
ensure that granting access to classified information is in the best interest of the United States
Government.  A deliberate omission or false statement on a security clearance application is a criminal
offense under federal law.   26
The information concerning Applicant’s drug use was contained in an on-line application to
be a FBI special agent.  The application was for an individual with the same name, social security
number, and date and place of birth as Applicant.  It was submitted on December 16, 2003, shortly
after applicant had either received a college degree or left college.  It was submitted during the time
Applicant was seeking employment.  He started employment with his present company in December
2003.  I find that the FBI on-line application was submitted by Applicant.  He answered “yes” to the
questions concerning illegal drug use.  An applicant for a position with the FBI would not list his use
of illegal drug unless it were true.  Applicant’s admission that he used illegal drugs on the FBI
application is sufficient to establish he used illegal drugs.  At the time he completed the security
clearance application and answered the interrogatories, Applicant knew he had used illegal drugs and
his answers that he did not use illegal drugs were deliberately false and misleading.  Similarly,
7
Applicant knew he had been charged with an alcohol-related offense in 1996.  He may not have been
convicted of the offense because the only consequence to the offense was the revocation of his on-post
driving privileges, but he was apprehended and taken to the military police station.  This was similar
to an arrest.  Applicant listed this offense on an earlier security clearance application, indicating he
knew it was a security concern.  Applicant deliberately failed to provide accurate and truthful answers
to the alcohol and drug questions involved in determining security worthiness. 
I have considered all of the Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions.  Applicant has never
acknowledged his illegal drug use so PC MC ¶ 17(a) (The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts
to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) does not
apply.  Applicant deliberately did not provide correct information on a security clearance application
completed in 2004, and interrogatories signed in August 2005 and January 2006, so PC MC ¶ 179(c)
(The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened
under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not apply.  The deliberately false answers were
provided during the most recent security clearance process, the false answers were provided on two
separate documents, and there is no information indicating that it would not recur.  Applicant has not
presented sufficient information to rebut the allegation of deliberately providing false information on
his security clearance application or in response to interrogatories.
I have considered Applicant’s conduct under the “whole person” concept.  Applicant
deliberately did not provide requested information in response to questions asked during the security
clearance process.  If he cannot be trusted to provide accurate information, he cannot be trusted to
safeguard classified information.  I find he is not eligible for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are;
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant
Thomas M. Crean
Administrative Judge