1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
________________ )       ISCR Case No. 06-26372
SSN: ___________ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Questionnaire, Standard Form SF-
86/EPSQ Version (SF-86), dated May 18, 2005. On April 18, 2007, the Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug
Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) regarding Applicant. 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 on May 3, 2007. He answered the
SOR allegations in writing with brief narrative comments through a letter dated May 3,
2007. In that letter, he admitted all allegations contained in the SOR and requested a
determination based on the written record. 
 Item 7 (Report, § g, dated October 14, 2005).1
2
In response to Applicant’s answer, Department Counsel prepared a File of
Relevant Material (FORM), dated September 7, 2007. That FORM advised Applicant of
his opportunity to respond to its contents within 30 days after receipt of the FORM.
Applicant received the FORM on November 29, 2007. No response was submitted by
Applicant within the time provided. 
The case was forwarded to DOHA for assignment to an Administrative Judge for
a determination on the record on and assigned to an Administrative Judge on January
8, 2008. The case was reassigned to me on February 5, 2008. Based upon a review of
the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to sensitive
information is denied and the security clearance at issue is revoked.
Findings of Fact
Applicant provided few additional facts and no supplementary evidence in
response to the SOR and he declined to respond to the FORM. Consequently, the facts
of record are scant. Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He
has been a senior technician for the same company since 1997. From 1986 through
1988, he served in the U.S. Army as a Specialist 4/Corporal [E-4], then served in the
Army National Guard from 1988 through May 1991. In the interim, in 1989, Applicant
received a diploma from a two-year program at a technological institute. 
Beginning at the age of 16 or 17, Applicant started drinking alcohol socially. By
his early 20's, he was consuming about six to ten beers on a weekend night. He did so
to feel a “slight buzz of drunkenness.”  1
In 1991 or 1992, at approximately 23 or 24 years of age, Applicant worked for a
computer-related business. He stole a computer valued at approximately $600. He
never returned the computer to his employer. 
On April 1, 1992, at the age of 24, he joined some friends for drinks after work on
a work night. He had five or six vodka martinis within two to three hours. He was later
arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Applicant considered the
incident to be atypical of his usual drinking habits and tastes. He continued drinking
beer on weekends at parties and at bars.
In 1992 through about 1993, Applicant worked in a restaurant. He had a
romance with the district manager. She introduced him to marijuana. He used
marijuana about four or five times during that time period, but never purchased it. 
Applicant acquired his current work position in 1997. He eventually applied for a
security clearance. In approximately October 1998, he was granted a security
clearance.
 Id.2
 The FORM only includes a copy of Applicant’s May 2005 and November 2004 SF-86 forms. Both reflect3
negative answers to Questions 27 and 28. The FORM does not include a copy of the referenced October 14,
2005, SF-86. Since the Applicant admitted to SOR allegations 3(a) and 3(b) concerning negative answers to
those questions on the October 2005 SF-86 without objection,  I will consider his admission as evidence of
the fact asserted in the applicable allegations.
 See Id. at § h.4
 Item 4 (Applicant’s Answer to the SOR).5
3
On a few occasions in 1999 and 2000, Applicant again used marijuana. In the
interim, on December 1, 1999, Applicant was arrested and charged with a second DWI.
He became concerned about his alcohol use. He ceased drinking alcohol from
December 1999 through about August 2000 and attended a counseling center’s out-
patient alcohol treatment program. Abstinence was not difficult for Applicant and he had
no withdrawal symptoms. He was comfortable serving as a designated driver at parties.
He reintroduced alcohol into his lifestyle in the summer of 2000. Applicant has not had
a problem with alcohol since the December 1999 incident. He considers his present
drinking patterns to consist of socially consuming beer with friends on weekends. He
does not drink with the express purpose of getting intoxicated, and opines that he only
gets to the point of intoxication about three to four times per year.  2
On November 30, 2004, Applicant completed an SF-86. On that form, he
answered “No” to Question 27: You Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity – Illegal
Use of Drugs – Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, which ever is shorter, have
you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack
cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.) , hallucinogenics
(LSD, PCP, etc.) or prescription drugs? He also answered “No” to Question 28: Your
Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity – Use in Sensitive Positions – Have you
ever 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 or immediately affecting public safety. Applicant again answered “No” to
these two questions on SF-86 forms completed and signed on May 18, 2005, and
October 14, 2005.  3
On May 29 or May 30, 2005, over Memorial Day weekend,  Applicant was at a4
social gathering and had more than his limit to drink. He succumbed to using marijuana
with an acquaintance. He has since refrained from the use of illegal drugs. Despite this
usage, Applicant again answered “No” to Questions 27 and 28 regarding illegal drugs
and drug activity on an SF-86 form completed on October 14, 2005.
With regard to Applicant’s drug use, it has been sporadic, infrequent, and he has
expressed his intent to not again use illegal drugs in the future.  He denied past drug5
use on his SF-86s on the advice of co-workers. He has since regretted not being
truthful about these past incidents, but was not sure how to reconcile the facts without
 See Item 7 (Review Documents, October 14, 2005, Report).6
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).7
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).8
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).9
4
risk to his well-being. He voluntarily came forward with facts about his past drug use
when he applied for a higher clearance, thinking this would be an opportune time to
come clean. He disclosed these facts in an October 14, 2005, interview.  He is relieved6
that he has since done so. With regard to alcohol consumption, he has not had any
other alcohol-related incidents since his 1999 DWI. Applicant stresses that these issues
do not reflect the more mature man he is today.
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.
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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a7
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable8
clearance decision is on the applicant.  9
 
 Id.10
 Id.11
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.12
5
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 access10
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily11
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the12
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
guidelines to be the most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline G – Alcohol Consumption. The Concern: Excessive
alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the
failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability and trustworthiness.
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. 
6
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 these adjudicative guidelines 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 G, Alcohol Consumption
Issues regarding one’s reliability and trustworthiness can arise from unbridled
alcohol consumption because it can lead to uncontrolled impulses and questionable
judgment. Applicant was arrested and charged with DWI in 1991 and in 1999 during his
personal time off work. Therefore, Alcohol Consumption (AC) Disqualifying Condition
(DC) 1, AG ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while
under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other
incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent) applies. With a disqualifying condition thus established,
the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant started consuming alcohol as a teen. He is now nearly 40-years-old.
He has experienced two alcohol-related incidents in the intervening years. His first DWI
occurred when he was in his early 20s, nearly 16 years ago. His second DWI occurred
nearly a decade ago. He completed a lengthy out-patient treatment program. There is
no evidence any professional ever determined that he was alcohol dependent. Although
he still continues to consume alcohol, there is no evidence of a subsequent alcohol-
related incident in the past decade. Consequently, AC Mitigating Condition (MC) 1, AG
¶ 23(a) (so much time has passed, or the behavior was 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) applies. 
After the 1999 DWI, Applicant became concerned about his alcohol use. He
underwent approximately eight months of out-patient treatment without difficulty. There
is no indication in the record he was determined to be alcohol dependent, although
facts indicate he abused alcohol then drove an automobile in 1991 and 1999. He quit
drinking alcohol for nine months without difficulty. He resumed moderate use of alcohol
in September 2000. He now comports his behavior appropriately when imbibing, and
has not had another alcohol-related incident. Although additional testimony would help
clarify what other, if any, precautions Applicant has taken to preclude future alcohol-
related incidents from again happening, AC MC 2, AG ¶ 23(b) (the individual
acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a patter of abstinence (if
7
alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser) applies. None of the other
AC MCs apply.
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Use of an illegal drug such as marijuana can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. Marijuana may impair judgment and its use
raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with the law. Here,
Applicant used marijuana on a few occasions in 1992–1993. In October 1998, he was
granted a security clearance, but again used marijuana on a few occasions in 1999-
2000, and on one isolated occasion in late May 2005. Consequently, both Drug
Involvement (DI) DC 1, AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse) and DI DC 7, AG ¶ 25(g) (any
illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance) apply. With disqualifying
conditions thus established, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security
concerns.
Applicant’s use of illegal drugs was limited to the occasional use of marijuana, an
illegal substance. From 1992 through 1993, Applicant, then in his early 20's, partook of
the narcotic on a few occasions because his girlfriend used the drug. He then abstained
until he again used it on a few occasions in 1999 through 2000. He used it one more
time in May 2005. Applicant candidly divulged his past drug use in order to set his
record straight and has since affirmatively stated his intent to never again use drugs.
Given the sporadic and infrequent nature of his past use, this should not be a difficult
resolution to keep. Although his singular use of marijuana in 2005 brings his drug use
into the new millennium, the fact that the majority of his use occurred a number of years
ago and the fact that he has resolved not to use marijuana again, give rise to 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) applies. None of the other DI MCs,
however, apply.
Applicant’s past drug use is a matter of fact. He candidly and voluntarily came
forward about his previously concealed past on his own initiative. He has corrected the
record, and taken responsibility for his past actions. Moreover, Applicant has expressed
his resolve to never again use illegal drugs. Given his sporadic and nominal past use,
the majority of which was in the distant past, there is no reason to believe he will
relapse or that such incidents will recur. 
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 failed to disclose his past use of marijuana in his 2004 and 2005 SF-86s. He
similarly sought to conceal his past use of marijuana while possessing a security
clearance. Consequently, Personal Conduct (PC) DC 1, AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
 This is especially true given the guideline’s statement – “[o]f special interest is any failure to provide truthful13
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.” 
8
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.  With PC DC 1 thus raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to13
mitigate the related security concerns.
Although Applicant ultimately disclosed the truth regarding the theft of office
equipment from a former employer and drug use that dates back to the early 1990s, he
did not do so until sometime between May 2005 and October 14, 2005, the date of his
last SF-86. Although the October 14, 2005, SF-86 is not part of the official FORM,
Applicant admitted he answered “No” to the illegal drug use questions on that SF-86.
On that same day, however, he voluntarily disclosed his past drug use to an
investigator.  While he made prompt efforts to correct matters with regard to the
October 2005 questionnaire, such promptness does not extend to those prior SF-86
questionnaires completed between 1998 and May 2005, when he denied past illegal
drug use while maintaining a security clearance. Therefore, 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) cannot apply.
Applicant partly attributes his concealment of facts on his SF-86 questionnaires
to the advice of colleagues. Without more information, the exact role and rank of these
workplace peers cannot be discerned. Consequently, 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 truthfully) cannot apply. Furthermore,
drug involvement is a significant consideration in the granting of a security clearance
inasmuch as drug use affects sound judgment and demonstrates questionable concern
regarding the law. Although Applicant last used marijuana almost three years ago, in
May 2005, he did so almost immediately after certifying he had not used drugs in the
past seven years and had not used drugs while maintaining a security clearance.
Consequently, doubt lingers as to his good judgment and trustworthiness. Under these
facts, the sum of the considerations under 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) does not apply.
Finally, it cannot be ignored that Applicant took it upon himself to come clean
and disclose the truth of his past illegal drug use. Therefore, PC MC 5, AG ¶ 17(e) (the
individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress) applies. 
9
Although Applicant is to be applauded for voluntarily disclosing the truth about
his drug use from the early 1990s through May 2005, it cannot be ignored that he
continued to use drugs after he was granted a security clearance in 1998. Nor can it be
ignored that he repeatedly denied drug use on SF-86 questionnaires multiple times in
the year preceding his 2005 disclosure. Although nearly three years have passed since
he last used drugs and although nearly two and a half years have passed since he took
corrective action, Applicant failed to provide any additional facts which might tend to
further mitigate security concerns. Without such information, it can only be concluded
that insufficient time has passed to reestablish the level of trust he once enjoyed with
the government for access to protected information. Consequently, Applicant has failed
to mitigate personal conduct security concerns. 
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 public trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors noted above. Here, little is known about the Applicant because he has declined
to significantly expand the record beyond the documents contained in the FORM. What
is known is that he is a mature man, just shy of age 40. His use of alcohol in his teens
and 20s can be dismissed as youthful indiscretions, and he has demonstrated through
nearly a decade of incident-free conduct that alcohol does not presently detract from his
abilities, cause questionable judgment, or lead to impulsive behavior. 
Applicant has used marijuana, an illegal substance. He did so in his early 20s
and into his 30s, but his use was sporadic and minimal. While his use included a
singular and isolated  incident that occurred as recently as May 2005, his declaration to
never again helps to allay concerns that drug use might impair his judgment. 
Applicant’s denials concerning drug use, however, lead to serious questions
regarding his personal conduct vis-a-vis his willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations, and his exercise of sound judgment. He has helped rehabilitate the quality
of his judgment by voluntarily disclosing his past drug use. In doing so on the heels of
completing an SF-86 in which he denied drug use, and following that denial weeks later
 AG ¶ 2(b).14
10
with another instance of drug use, however, leaves issues remaining about the
constancy of that judgment. With little more than his contrition and the passage of less
than three years since his disclosure to speak for his judgment in light of the scant
available facts, personal conduct security concerns remain unmitigated. Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information must be
resolved in favor of the national security.  Clearance is revoked. 14
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 G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.e: Against Applicant
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