DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )           ISCR Case No. 06-25807
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 3 August 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines
J, H, and E.  Applicant answered the SOR 19 September 2007, and requested a1
decision without hearing. On 17 November 2007, she responded to DOHA’s 25 October
2007 File of Relevant Material (FORM). The record closed 18 December 2007, when
Department Counsel indicated no objection to the response. DOHA assigned the case
to me 15 January 2008.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. Accordingly, I incorporate her
admissions as findings of fact. She is a 31-year-old security officer employed by a
defense contractor since July 2005. She has not previously held a clearance.
When Applicant applied for an industrial clearance in September 2005 (Item 1),
she deliberately concealed her criminal record and drug use between October 1994 and
November 2002 by answering “no” to questions 23a. (ever charged with or convicted of
any felony), 23b (ever charged with or convicted of any drug offense), and 24 (illegal
drug use, last seven years). In fact, she used marijuana and cocaine recreationally from
2001 to May 2003. In addition, she had been charged with felony robbery in October
1994 and felony narcotics possession in November 2002. She pled guilty to both
charges.
On the robbery charge, she was convicted of felony accessory, and the
disposition of the case tends to confirm her claim that she was the unwitting driver when
two of her friends robbed a store they had stopped at. She served 49 days in jail, and
received three years probation. In February 1998 her probation was terminated, and the
charge reduced to misdemeanor accessory and dismissed. On the narcotics charge,
she received 18 months probation before judgment on condition, among others, that
she complete a one-year residential drug treatment program. She attended such a
program between May 2003 and October 2004. In January 2005, she failed to appear in
court as required to provide proof of her program completion, and a bench warrant was
issued for her arrest. The ensuing legal issues were eventually resolved, and the charge
against her was dismissed in June 2005. In June 2006, Applicant was interviewed
during the course of her background investigation, and denied to the investigator that
she had ever used illegal drugs.
Applicant has offered inconsistent and implausible explanations for her failure to
disclose her criminal and drug abuse records. Despite the clear language of the
questions she claims she failed to disclose her arrests because she thought they had
been expunged and would not be discovered. Incredibly, she asserts her successful
completion of the drug treatment program and continued abstinence from drugs as a
reason for failing to disclose her drug use. Nonsensically, she states that she lied to the
investigator about her drug use because she thought her criminal record had been
expunged.
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct,3
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted;
¶32.(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such4
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
¶32.(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer5
present in the person’s life;
3
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guidelines are Guideline
J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline J,  and3
Applicant only partially mitigated the security concerns. The October 1994 accessory
charge is mitigated by Applicant’s age (18 at the time), the passage of time (13 years),
and the circumstances of the offense (her unwitting involvement as driver).  I have also4
considered the fact that her unwitting involvement as driver meant that she was
essentially pressured into being a part of the criminal activity.  However, the same5
mitigating factors do not apply to the November 2002 narcotics offense. Although the
offense occurred over five years ago, Applicant successfully completed her probation
requirements only 2½ years ago, in June 2005, and that result was delayed nearly six
¶25.(a) any drug abuse. . .; (c) illegal drug possession. . . ;6
¶26.(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances7
that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
¶26.(b). a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as; . . . (3) an appropriate period8
of abstinence;
¶16.(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any9
personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, . . . [or] determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
¶16.(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer,10
investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative;
4
months because of Applicant’s bench warrant and subsequent legal issues.
Accordingly, I resolve Guideline J against Applicant.
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H,  but6
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant’s use of cocaine and marijuana was
confined to a fairly short period of time (2001 to May 2003), was fairly infrequent, and
ended over 4½ years ago.  That abstinence from drug use is adequate to demonstrate7
an intent to refrain from drug use in the future.  I conclude Applicant is unlikely to use8
illegal drugs in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H for Applicant.
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. She deliberately concealed her illegal
drug use and criminal record from the government on her clearance application.  She9
concealed the most recent of her crimes despite the fact that she had only satisfied the
requirements of her probation before judgment four months before she completed the
clearance application. Her varied explanations for her omissions are implausible, and
undercut by the fact that she later lied to the investigator about having even used
drugs.  Further, none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. The concealed10
information was relevant to a clearance decision. Her disclosure of illegal drug use and
criminal conduct was neither prompt nor forthright. Indeed, for practical purposes, it was
forced from her.
Applicant’s failure to disclose her criminal record and illegal drug use shows a
lack of candor required of cleared personnel. The government has an interest in
examining all relevant and material adverse information about an Applicant before
making a clearance decision. The government relies on applicants to truthfully disclose
that adverse information in a timely fashion, not when it is perceived to be prudent or
convenient. Further, an applicant’s willingness to report adverse information about
herself provides some indication of her willingness to report inadvertent security
violations or other security concerns in the future, something the government relies on
to perform damage assessments and limit the compromise of classified information.
5
Applicant’s conduct suggests she is willing to put her personal needs ahead of
legitimate government interests. I resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
Beyond the specific guidelines alleged by the government, the generally
applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions lead to the same result. Falsifications
are a core security concern, as are criminal behavior (RAG &2(a)(1). Her behavior was
deliberate and not due to circumstances beyond her control (RAG &2(a)(2); (RAG
&2(a)(5). Her misconduct was both recent and frequent (RAG &2(a)(3). Applicant was
26 when she was arrested on the drug charge, nearly 29 when she falsified her
clearance application, and over 29 when she lied to the investigator (RAG &2(a)(4).)
Applicant’s implausible explanations for her falsifications belie any claim to rehabilitation
or behavioral changes (RAG & 2(a)(6).) She clearly sought to mislead the government
about her criminal and drug record (RAG &2(a)(7). Applicant’s willingness to put her
personal needs ahead of legitimate government interests increases her potential
vulnerability and she has not demonstrated that the misconduct is unlikely to recur
(RAG & 2(a)(8); RAG & 2(a)(9). Overall, the record evidence leaves substantial doubt
about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Accordingly, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her criminal
conduct and falsifications.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: For Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
6
Conclusion
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 denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge