1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 06-17524
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: James R. Bodnar, Esquire
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) December 7, 2005. On April 2, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Use), and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR and responded by letter, notarized
on June 1, 2007, in which he denied allegations 1.a) and 1.b) under Guideline H. He
also requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge and identified his personal
representative. Accompanying that letter was another letter dated June 1, 2007, from
Applicant’s personal representative. The personal representative entered his
appearance and submitted three letters of recommendation on Applicant’s behalf.
 Tr. 89-102.1
 Tr. 101.2
2
DOHA received the case for assignment to an Administrative Judge on October
2, 2007, and I was assigned the case on October 17, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was
issued by DOHA on October 17, 2007, setting the hearing for November 2, 2007.
Applicant, with his personal representative, and Department Counsel timely appeared
and the hearing commenced. Department Counsel introduced thirty documents on
behalf of the government, which were admitted as Exhibits (Exs.) 1–30. Applicant
offered four exhibits, which were accepted into the record as Exs. A–D. The transcript
(Tr.) was received on November 13, 2007, and, as noted below, the record was closed
on December 7, 2007.
During the November 2, 2007, hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend
the SOR and the parties orally addressed the allegations raised. In order to perfect his
exact wording for the record,  Department Counsel was given until November 10, 2007,1
to provide a written draft of his proposed amendments to the tribunal and to Applicant.2
Department Counsel’s amended allegations contained an allegation that Applicant
falsified material facts in a sworn statement to an investigator on December 6, 2006,
when he denied using any type of drugs since 1978 and that he had not had
subsequent adverse law enforcement contact since 1996. In a timely response, dated
November 7, 2007, Applicant denied the two allegations, noting that the handwritten
investigative notes paraphrase discussion with Applicant and do not disclose violations
for use or under the influence of marijuana after 1978, and further noting that the
subsequent adverse law enforcement contact referenced were civil in nature. On
November 29, 2007, Department Counsel correctly stated: “The distinction between
criminal offenses and ordinance violations for drug possession and [sic] whether
Applicant was criminally charged with drug use on his FBI record are not relevant or
germane to the falsification. With each side afforded an opportunity to address the new
allegations in writing and with no further submissions offered, the record was closed on
December 7, 2007. After consideration of the proposed amendments, the applicable
standards and case law governing SOR amendment, Applicant’s opportunities to
address the issues raised, and the positions expressed by both sides in their post-
hearing submissions, I grant Department Counsel’s motion to amend the SOR. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been with
the same company for three-and-a-half years, serving as a telephone technician
supporting telephone operations and computer lines. His prior experience is in the
same capacity, as well as professional work as a low voltage expert. Applicant has a
high school education. Married in 1997, he has two children. 
When Applicant was 19 years of age, on August 27, 1977, he was arrested for
disorderly conduct after an incident at a local tavern. He was found guilty in municipal
court and fined $60. He was arrested 13 more times between August 1977 and January
 SOR ¶¶1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 1.k, and 1.l.3
 That third party, an acquaintance of Applicant, is also cited as having been the accused in SOR ¶¶ 1.g and4
1.k).
 Tr. 69, 73-75.5
 Tr.42. Note: Despite this wording, Applicant later “explained that his perception of what the word drug is, is6
that it had to do with cocaine, heroine. Hard – what we classify as hard drugs. He did not feel it applied to
marijuana.” Tr. 93; Tr. 71-72.
3
1989. Of those incidents, he denied seven of the related allegations in his May 16,
2007, answer to the SOR.  3
In Applicant’s April 13, 2007, answer to the SOR, which included explanations,
he denied seven of the incidents, including denials to two arrests (SOR ¶ 1.e and ¶
1.h.). Regarding the other denied allegations, Applicant noted that the charges arising
from four of the incidents were ultimately dismissed (SOR ¶ 1.b, 1.g, ¶1.l, and ¶1.n) and
noted he ultimately was found not guilty of one charge (¶ 1.j). Regarding two contempt
allegations, Applicant stated that the matter was resolved when he explained he was
unaware of the court date and the case refiled in one situation (¶ 1.k) while another was
dismissed when he again explained he had not received the warrant (¶ 1.l). He
admitted the remainder of the allegations, including arrests and/or convictions for
possession of marijuana, cocaine, and barbiturate (arrests and referral to a diversionary
program after found guilty of charges); obstruction and trespassing (arrest and
conviction); possession of marijuana (arrest and conviction); theft (arrest and
conviction); drunk driving (arrest and conviction); possession of marijuana and cocaine
(arrests and convictions).
Applicant further admits that, on February 20, 1990, he was charged and found
guilty of disorderly conduct. He was fined $130. (SOR ¶ 1.o). He also admits he was
arrested for sexual assault and family offense/welfare of child on or around June 19,
1990, but notes that the charges were dismissed. (SOR ¶ 1.q). He denies knowledge of
the allegation (SOR ¶ 1.p) that he was arrested on March 6, 1990, for contempt,
attributing the citation to one possibly made in error and properly belonging to a third
party.  4
On or about December 10, 1996, Applicant was charged with possession of
controlled substance, possession of marijuana/hash, possession of LSD, and
manufacture/distribute controlled substance, a felony. During the investigation,
Applicant was identified as a supplier of marijuana.  Applicant asserts that the LSD5
belonged to a friend that was staying with him. He conceded, however, that the
marijuana belonged to him for use by himself and his girlfriend: “I guess I was still doing
drugs back then you know, smoking pot. . . . “  He was found guilty and sentenced to6
five years in prison with credit for two days served, his driver’s license was suspended
for two years, and he was fined approximately $2,175; he served approximately 60 to
90 days in prison and released on 18 months probation in lieu of further incarceration.
Although Applicant still denies the allegations reflected in SOR ¶ 1.r, he admits he pled
 See Answer to SOR, dated April 13, 2007.7
 Tr. 61-62.8
 Ex. 29 (Office of the Prosecutor file, dated August 5, 2005) at 3; Ex. 30 (State Disposition Sheet).9
 Question 23 encompasses felony offenses, firearm and explosives offenses, pending criminal charges,10
Uniform Code of Military Justice offenses, and any offenses related to alcohol or drugs. No distinctions limit
disclosure to felonies or exclude applicable charges before a municipal court.
 See, e.g., Tr. 108.11
4
guilty to possession of LSD. As a result of this conviction, he attended Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) three times a week and submitted to drug testing three time a week
for 18 months.  He also notes that the event “turned [his] life around and [he] turned7
away from drugs permanently.” The following year he married and started a family.
In December 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with alcohol
consumption in public/disorderly persons. He was found guilty and fined $219. On July
23, 2005, Applicant attended a social gathering of friends and acquaintances at a public
event. The township police spotted people with and around Applicant smoking
marijuana. The police ordered those in the vicinity to stop. Applicant proceeded to leave
the scene.  The police caught up with him and he denied having used marijuana.8
Applicant, however, was arrested and charged under the criminal code with possession
of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana/hash under 50 grams, and resisting
arrest.  He was found guilty of the possession charges and fined $780 by the municipal9
court.
On December 7, 2005, Applicant completed an e-QIP. On that form, he indicated
he had not illegally used any controlled substances in the prior seven years (Question
24a) and indicated his most recent offense as having occurred in December 1996.  On10
December 6, 2006, Applicant was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) investigator. During that interview, Applicant swore: “My limited experimental use
of marijuana was the only drug I ever used and I have never used an type of drug since
1978.” He also signed a sworn statement indicating: “I have never had any other
adverse law enforcement contact since 1996.” Applicant has since stated that he
interprets the term “drug” to be limited to “hard drugs,” not to include marijuana.  At11
hearing, he indicated he no longer uses marijuana, which he often referred to as “pot.”
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).12
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).13
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.14
 Id.15
5
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The12
burden of proof is something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate13
burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision is on the applicant.  14
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access15
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
 Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.16
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.17
6
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily16
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the17
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative
guideline to be the most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline J – Criminal Conduct. The Concern: Criminal activity creates
doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it
calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations.  
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 judgment and because it raises questions
about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
“Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include drugs,
materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970, as amended, (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants,
narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens) and inhalants and other substances. “Drug
abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from
approved medical direction. 
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.
Conditions pertaining to this adjudicative guideline that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate
security concerns, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions below.
Analysis
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Security concerns relating to the guideline for criminal activity arise because
such conduct creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and
willingness or ability to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. With respect to
7
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Government has established its case. Applicant
was arrested for over fifteen incidents dating as far back as 1977 in a pattern that
continued up through July 2005. He was found not guilty in one instance and a couple
of charges were ultimately dismissed; many of the incidents were heard at the
municipal court level. He still denies the basis of several of the charges. Taken as a
whole, however, such facts give rise to significant security concerns and invoke
Criminal Conduct (CC) Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 1, ¶31(a) (a single serious crime
or multiple lesser offenses), and CC DC 3, ¶31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted,
or convicted). Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate such concerns.
In July 2005, Applicant was with some acquaintances at a public event.
Marijuana and paraphernalia related to its ingestion were in use in the presence of
Applicant as they gathered. Applicant did not attempt to distance himself from these
individuals until the police became involved. He was ultimately arrested and charged
under a criminal code for possession of marijuana/hash under 50 grams and
possession of drug paraphernalia in the summer of 2005. Under these facts, CC
Mitigating Condition (MC) 1, AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since the criminal
behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely
to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness or good
judgment) does not apply. 
There is no evidence in any of the instances involving criminal conduct that
Applicant was pressured, coerced, forced, or otherwise inveigled to committing the acts
for which he was arrested and charged, obviating application of CC MC 2, AG ¶ 32 (b)
(the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are
no longer present in the person’s life). Moreover, although Applicant has argued his
innocence as to the facts underlying some of the charges raised and pleas entered, no
evidence was proffered that he did not commit the offenses cited, except perhaps with
regard to an instance in which he was ultimately found to be not guilty. Similarly, while
he has stated that some of his arrests were in error, with him being incorrectly cited as
the accused, there is no evidentiary proffer supporting such claims. Therefore, CC MC
3, AG ¶ 32(c) (evidence that the person did not commit the offense) does not apply.
The facts show certain charges were dismissed in a few instances, and he was
found not guilty in another. He maintains his innocence with regard to some charges,
based on circumstances or confusion with another individual. Casting aside even those
acknowledged arrests, Applicant’s history of criminal conduct is lengthy. His proximity to
illegal conduct, illegal substances, and those who use them is pervasive. Applicant
states that his 1996 arrest turned his life around. This may be true and it may have
helped turn his energies toward his employment, community, and family. It has not,
however, extracted him from situations in which criminal or illegal behavior is being
manifested. Such continued behavior and interactions, especially following such an
extensive period of criminal conduct, creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness. I have considered the remaining CC MCs and find that none of them
apply. Consequently, security concerns remain.
 Guideline H cites to the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, as amended, in its reference to marijuana and18
cannabis as mood and behavior altering substances.
8
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Use of an illegal drug such as marijuana  can raise questions about an18
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability or willingness to comply with the law.
Marijuana is an illegal drug and is specifically referenced in Guideline H. Applicant
admittedly used marijuana from at least the early 1980s through at least 1996, when he
turned over the marijuana he shared with his girlfriend to the police. Since that time,
Applicant states he has been drug free, despite the fact he has been arrested in the
presence of drugs, in the presence of those using drugs, and in possession of both
drugs and drug paraphernalia. Regardless, Drug Involvement (DI) DC 1, AG ¶ 25(a)
(any drug abuse) and DI DC 3, AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia) apply. With disqualifying conditions thus established, the burden
shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant stated he has not used drugs in over a decade. In 2005, however, he
was found guilty of possession of marijuana/hash and drug paraphernalia. His recent
proximity to the drug, however, sustains the cloud of doubt as to the extent of his
current involvement with drugs, thereby raising concerns regarding his trustworthiness
and willingness to comply with the law. Consequently, DI MC 1, AG ¶ 26(a) (the
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
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. 
In December 2006, Applicant signed a sworn statement before an OPM
investigator indicating he had not used drugs since 1978. His testimony at the
November 2007 hearing showed he turned over marijuana that he and his girlfriend
used to the police a number of years after 1978, indicating he did not quit using drugs in
1978. Consequently, it is difficult to assess his veracity when, at the hearing, Applicant
stated he does not currently use drugs and referenced his intent not to use drugs in the
future. Indeed, the available mitigating conditions demand more than flat statements: DI
MC 2, AG ¶ 26(b) actually requires 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 are used; 3) an appropriate period of
abstinence; 4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation. Applicant has not shown he has disassociated himself with any of his
former drug-using friends or venues, nor has he shown that he has signed a statement
of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any future violation(s). Finally, he
was last involved in a drug-related criminal incident which could be indicative of drug
use in the summer of 2005. Consequently, DI MC 2, AG ¶ 26(b) does not apply, nor
does DI MC 3, AG ¶ 26(c) or DI MC 4, AG ¶ 26(d).  As a result, security concerns
remain unmitigated.
 In testifying with regard to his 1996 arrest, Applicant conceded he was “still doing drugs back then, you19
know, smoking pot.” In so stating, Applicant demonstrated that he does not necessarily distinguish between
illegal drugs and marijuana, despite his present argument that illegal drugs denote to him “hard drugs” and
exclude marijuana or “pot.” This distinction is particularly troubling given the frequency of his arrests for
infractions of the law related to marijuana, a substance commonly known to be illegal, and his interaction with
those possessing and using illegal drugs over the span of about 25 years. 
 This is especially true given the guideline’s statement – “[o]f special interest is any failure to provide truthful20
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.” 
9
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. Here,
Applicant certified a security clearance application and signed a sworn statement
before an OPM investigator indicating he had not used drugs since 1978. The facts
show that he was involved in some manner with drugs from 1978 through 2005 and,
with regard to the actual use of drugs,  he admitted that he turned over to police in19
1996 the marijuana he and his girlfriend then used. Moreover, Applicant swore before
the OPM investigator that he had no adverse law enforcement contact after 1996. Both
in 2004 and 2005, however, he was arrested; in the latter instance, he was arrested
while attempting to leave the scene of a drug related incident. Consequently, Personal
Conduct (PC) DC 1, AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of
relevant 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) and PC DC 2, AG ¶ 16(b) (deliberately providing false or
misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security
official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative) apply20
Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate the related security concerns.
The available PC MCs under Guideline E have been considered in light of the
facts. In December 2006, Applicant stated he had not used drugs since 1978 and had
not had adverse contact with law enforcement since 1996. The facts show that
Applicant did not cease using drugs – including marijuana or what is commonly referred
to as “pot” – in 1978. They also show that he had two instances of adverse contact with
law enforcement, specifically two arrests and resultant charges. The inaccuracy of
these statements subsequently came to light during the investigative process. Given
these factors, neither PC MC 1, AG ¶ 17 (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts
to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the
facts), PC MC 2, AG ¶ 17(b) (the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or
concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate
advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being aware of the
requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and
10
truthfully), nor PC MC 3, AG ¶ 17(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) apply. Based on the facts of record and
testimony offered, there is insufficient basis to find that PC MC 5, AG ¶ 17(e) (the
individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress) applies. Consequently, personal conduct security concerns
remain. 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the
Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(1) 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) extent to which
participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other
permanent 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.” Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility
for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the applicable guidelines and both the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.
Applicant is a mature professional. He has worked in his area of expertise for several
years. Starting as a teen through his late 40s, he was arrested and charged with
numerous crimes and infractions. These arrests were for incidents involving a variety of
charges ranging from trespass and drunk driving to drug and drug possession. The
resulting pattern raises genuine security concerns regarding his ability or willingness to
comply with laws, rules, and regulations. 
Applicant stated, however, that the drug-related arrest in 1996 turned his life
around and that he quit using drugs at that time. Yet in 2005, he was still associating
with people who possess and use marijuana in public places. His relative ease in such
circumstances and continued association with such individuals again raises questions
about his appreciation of the law and his own willingness to comply with the law, rules,
and regulations. This is particularly true given his continued attempts to distinguish
marijuana as somehow exempt from classification as an illegal drug, a term he defines
as being limited to “hard drugs.”
Applicant’s misleading sworn statement before an OPM investigator and his
extensive criminal and drug involvement record raise significant security concerns.
Combined, they show an established pattern of violations concerning both rules and the
law, and demonstrate questionable judgment. The recency of his last drug-related
 ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.21
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.22
 Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.23
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.24
11
arrest extends the cloud of doubt created by his past drug use and criminal behavior;
his lack of veracity with OPM investigators compounds this doubt with a recent display
of untruthfulness. 
The burden is squarely on Applicant to present evidence of refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation sufficient to overcome the prima facie case raised by the
existence of criminal conduct, drug involvement, and personal conduct disqualifying
conditions.  Additionally, he has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a21
favorable clearance decision.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant22
should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of
protecting such information.  This resolution is not necessarily a determination as to23
the loyalty of an applicant,  but is an indication that the applicant has not met the strict24
guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance. Inasmuch as Applicant has failed to meet his burden and mitigate security
concerns arising under the guidelines for criminal conduct, drug involvement, and
personal conduct, doubts linger as to his fitness to maintain classified information.
Consequently, I conclude it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant
Applicant a security clearance. 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 J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.t Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a - 2.b Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a - 3.c Against Applicant
12
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is denied.
                                              
__________________________
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge