DATE:  December 21, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-05012
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr. Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 27-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has a history of illegal drug
use as recent as December 2004. He used illegal drugs while holding a security clearance. He failed
to mitigate the security concerns raised under the drug involvement guideline. Applicant
intentionally falsified his security clearance application. He has not mitigated the security concern
under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
The Government submitted seven items in support of its contentions.2
 Item 2 (Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated September 7, 2007).3
Item 4 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated June 23, 2005).4
Id.5
Id.6
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 23, 2005, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted a Security
Clearance Application (SF 86). On July 20, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating that it was unable to find that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR,1
which is in essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline H (Drug
Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG)
issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September
1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On September 7, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR, and elected to
have his case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
Government’s written case on September 21, 2007.   Applicant received a complete file of relevant2
material (FORM) on September 25, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and
submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Applicant did not submit
any additional information. The case was assigned to me on December 13, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted to the allegations in subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e, 2.b, and 2.c of the
SOR  under Guideline H and Guideline E.  The admissions are incorporated as findings of fact.3
Applicant denied allegations 1.f, 2.a, and 2.d of the SOR in part because he disagreed with some
facts. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration, I make the
following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 27-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  After graduating from high4
school in 1997, he attended a technical career center until 1999. From 1999 until 2003, Applicant
served in the military , receiving an honorable discharge. He has worked for his current employer
since December 2003. Applicant is divorced with no children.  He completed his security clearance5
application (SF 86) on June 23, 2005.6
Item 2 supra at note 3.7
Item 6 (Clearance Adjudication Records, dated August 2004 and 2005).8
Item 4 (Security Clearance Application, dated June 22, 2005).9
3
While in high school (1997), Applicant started using marijuana, experimenting with the
illegal drug in social settings. He acknowledged that he continued using marijuana until sometime
in 2003. 
In 1998, Applicant was employed at a body shop. He decided to play a practical joke on a
fellow employee who was asleep during a break. Applicant poured laquer thinner under the sleeping
co-worker and lit it on fire. The co-worker awoke suddenly but he was not injured. Applicant
received a warning from his employer.7
In 1999-2000, while in the military and holding a sensitive compartmented information
clearance (SCI), Applicant used the illegal drug ecstacy several times. He obtained the drug from a
friend and used it alone in his family home. The drug was in a pill form. Applicant acknowledged
the drug made him hyper and talkative. He used the drug again for a period of time in 2003-2004.8
In April 2003, Applicant used percocet, a prescription drug, not prescribed to him. He
received the pill from a friend. Applicant used it after drinking alcohol to enhance the effect of the
alcohol. When Applicant completed his November 13, 2003 security clearance application, he did
not list his 2003 use of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and percocet in answer to Question 27. He was
switching jobs and needed a security clearance. He did not want to lose his opportunity to get a
security clearance. Applicant answered “no” to Question 28 concerning illegal drug use while having
a security clearance because he knew that admitting the use would not allow him to switch jobs and
retain a security clearance.
In 2004, Applicant used cocaine on two separate occasions. Also, he was involved in the
transport of the cocaine in October 2004. The cocaine was in a small baggy that someone gave him
to deliver to someone else. He denies that any money exchanged hands.9
In 2004, Applicant decided to train for health reasons at a gym on a regular basis. He went
to the gym and claimed he did not have time anymore for drugs. He also met a new girlfriend who
did not like drugs and he decided he would not use drugs in the future. He regrets using drugs and
believes it was a stupid thing to do. 
On the June 23, 2005 security clearance application, Applicant answered “yes” to Question
28 concerning use of illegal drugs while holding a sensitive position. However, he listed using
ecstacy one time in 2004. He did not  disclose the use of cocaine, marijuana or percocet. Applicant
held a security clearance in the military from 2000 until 2003. Applicant was denied a security
clearance in April 2005.
Item 5 (Interrogatory, dated June 6, 2007).10
Id.11
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  12
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.13
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 2 (a)(1)-(9).14
 Id.15
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.16
4
Applicant has never been charged or arrested for using illegal drugs. He has not received any
drug treatment or rehabilitation. He claims he has no intention of using drugs in the future.  He10
regrets using the drugs but believed he could hide the fact so he could maintain a clearance.  11
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding12
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the adjudicative
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
“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 administrative13
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)14
the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to
include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’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 or recurrence.   15
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.16
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.17
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 2002).18
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.19
AG ¶ 24.20
5
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent17
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether18
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.  19
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guidelines H and E of the revised
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG).
 
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) The Concern: Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription
drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgement and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply
with laws, rules, and regulations.20
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant used marijuana,
ecstasy and cocaine for a period of more than seven years. Applicant admitted his most recent use in
2004. Applicant used illegal drugs on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance.
Consequently, Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition (DI DC) AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug use), DI DC
AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale,
or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia), and DI DC AG ¶ 25(g) (any illegal drug use
after being granted a clearance) apply.
With the government’s case initially established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present
evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. I considered Drug Involvement Consideration
Mitigating Condition (DI MC) AG ¶ 26(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). However,  Applicant used cocaine
as recent as 2004. He used illegal drugs while serving in the military. Applicant held an SCI clearance
during the time he used illegal drugs. His use was not an isolated incident. This mitigating condition
does not apply.
Applicant provided insufficient evidence to support  DI MC AG ¶ 26(b) (a demonstrated intent
not to abuse drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period of
abstinence; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.
I find insufficient proof of a demonstrated intent. He has never sought counseling for drug use. He
See ISCR Case NO. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313321
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004).
6
conveniently voiced his desire not to use drugs in the future after the start of the current investigation.
The fact that he did not disclose all relevant information on his security clearance application in 2003
and 2005 leaves me with doubt as to any demonstrated intent. Applicant claims his last use of cocaine
was in December 2004. Even if that is the case, given his long history of abuse, that is not a sufficient
period of abstinence for mitigation. 
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) The Concern: 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. 
On November 13, 2003, and June 23, 2005, Applicant did not disclose all relevant information
concerning his drug use in response to Question 28. On November 13, 2003, Applicant, in response
to Question 27, noted some of the drugs he used while in a sensitive position, but not all. He denied
such use while in a sensitive position in his November 13, 2003 security clearance application. He
admitted that he was afraid that in switching jobs, if he disclosed the drug use, he would not get a
security clearance. He admitted that he did not want the Government to know of his illegal drug use
because he had an SCI clearance at one time and was aware of the drug policy. I do not find his answer
that he  forgot to list all the drugs as reasonable, given his other statement in the record. Under DC PC
16(a), (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire ......) the government established that Applicant omitted a material fact from  answers
referenced above in his 2003 and 2005 security clearance application. An administrative judge must
consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence
regarding an Applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred.   I find that21
Applicant deliberately falsified his answers on his 2003 and 2005 security clearance application.
I have considered the mitigating conditions under personal conduct, and none of them apply.
Applicant’s history of illegal drug use and his intentional falsification of answers concerning illegal
drug use do not persuade me that he just forgot to provide complete information on his security
clearance application. 
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
7
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination. Applicant’s long term and still quite recent lapse in judgment with drugs
leaves doubt as to his reliability. I have considered his desire to put this behind him, but I conclude it
is premature to find in favor of Applicant. Despite having an SCI clearance, Applicant continued to
use illegal drugs. He wanted to hide the issue from the Government so that he could maintain a
security clearance when switching jobs. He was honorably discharged from the military, but he has not
met the burden to overcome the security concerns. Applicant has demonstrated poor judgment,
dishonesty, and lack of candor. This lack of reliability has spanned a period of many years. It is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant a security clearance for Applicant.
Clearance is denied.
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 H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a-1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.-2.d             Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge