1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )     ISCR Case No. 07-05136
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his use of marijuana
from late 1993 to December 2007 and by his repeated lack of candor about his illegal
drug involvement. After a review of the evidence, eligibility for access is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted an initial security clearance application (SF 86) on December
5, 2003. On November 19, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns
under Guideline H and Guideline E. The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), 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 (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29,
2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September
1, 2006. 
2
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 17, 2007, and requested a
hearing. On February 11, 2008, Department Counsel indicated the government was
prepared to proceed, but also moved to amend the SOR to include new allegations
under Guideline H and Guideline E, and to modify existing SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.d. The
case was assigned to me on February 14, 2008.
On February 21, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for March 25, 2008. In a separate
Order, I gave Applicant until March 17, 2008, to file any objections and to respond to the
proposed allegations. Applicant filed no response by the due date.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Before the introduction of any evidence, I
granted the government’s motion to amend the SOR. The government’s case consisted
of 13 exhibits (Ex. 1-13). Applicant testified on his behalf and submitted three exhibits
(Ex. A-C) that were entered without objections. A transcript (Tr.) of the hearing was
received on April 3, 2008.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Motion to Amend SOR
On February 11, 2008, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR by adding
¶ 1.g under Guideline H, alleging that Applicant was arrested in August 1996 for driving
under the influence (DUI). Under Guideline E, the government proposed clarifications to
SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.d  to allege that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose on his
December 2003 and August 2004 security clearance applications that he had been
charged with possession of marijuana and/or possession of drug paraphernalia in 1996
and 2001. The government also proposed new allegations under Guideline E: SOR ¶
2.g concerning falsification of a September 1, 2004, written statement by not revealing
that he had been arrested for possession of marijuana in 1996; SOR ¶ 2.h concerning
false statements in a July 7, 2006, interview, by indicating that he used marijuana four
to five times between 1995 and 2002 when he had used marijuana daily from 1996 to
2002; and SOR ¶ 2.i also alleging falsification of his July 7 interview by denying any
marijuana use between 2002 and about July 2006.
 On February 21, 2008, I gave Applicant until  March 17, 2008, to file any
objections and to respond to the proposed allegations. I informed the parties that in the
absence of a response or of no objections, the SOR would be amended as requested.
Applicant filed no response by the due date. After confirming with Applicant at the
hearing that he had received the proposed SOR amendments and did not object, I
amended the SOR as requested.
3
Findings of Fact
In the SOR as amended, DOHA alleged under Guideline H, drug involvement,
that Applicant used marijuana on numerous occasions from about 1996 through at least
March 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.a), including after he completed security applications in
December 2003 and August 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.b); that he was arrested in August 1996 for
possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia (SOR ¶ 1.c) and DUI
(SOR ¶ 1.g) and found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia and DUI; that he was
arrested for DUI and possession of drug paraphernalia in February 2001 and convicted
of DUI (SOR ¶ 1.d); that he pleaded nolo contendere to a November 2005 possession
of marijuana charge (SOR ¶ 1.e); and that he was arrested while attempting to enter a
U.S. military base in March 2007 for possession of marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.f). Applicant was
alleged under Guideline E to have deliberately falsified a December 2003 SF 86 by not
disclosing that he had been charged with marijuana offenses in 1996 and 2001 (SOR ¶
2.a), he had used marijuana (SOR ¶ 2.b), or he had purchased marijuana in college and
after 2002 (SOR ¶ 2.c). He was also alleged to have falsified an August 2004 SF 86 by
not disclosing his marijuana charges (SOR ¶ 2.d), his marijuana use (SOR ¶ 2.e), and
his marijuana purchases (SOR ¶ 2.f). Further, he was alleged to have falsified a
September 2004 written statement by not disclosing that he had been charged with
possession of marijuana in 1996 (SOR ¶ 2.g), and to have falsified material facts during
a July 2006 interview by stating that he had used marijuana about four to five times
between 1995 and 2002 when he had used marijuana daily (SOR ¶ 2.h), and by
denying that he had used marijuana from 2002 through July 2006 (SOR ¶ 2.i). 
In his Answer filed before the SOR was amended, Applicant admitted the
Guideline H allegations and denied the Guideline E allegations. He attributed his
omission of the illegal drug charges from his SF 86 to his failure to understand that
expunged charges had to be listed. As for his failure to disclose his use and purchase of
marijuana on both SF 86 forms, Applicant averred he was at the time “still very much in
denial” about his issues with marijuana. Before the introduction of evidence at his
hearing, Applicant admitted all the allegations in the SOR as amended. After
considering the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 31-year-old systems engineer who has worked for his current
employer, a defense contractor, since late September 2003 (Ex. 1). He has held a
secret level security clearance since 2004, initially on an interim basis, for his duties
involving software integration (Tr. 50-51).
Applicant first tried marijuana on December 31, 1993, while at a New Year’s Eve
party at his home. A friend brought the marijuana. During his last term in high school,
Applicant continued to smoke marijuana once every couple of months (Tr. 52-53).
After graduating from high school, Applicant attended college for a year out of
state. He did not use marijuana during that time (Tr. 56). He moved back home by
September 1994, and began working as a cook/dishwasher at a local restaurant (Ex. 1,
Ex. 2). In late August 1995, he matriculated to the state university (Ex. 1, Ex. 2). He
Applicant told a government investigator in March 2007 that he had used marijuana from 1996 to 2002 on1
a daily basis in college (Ex. 5). At his hearing, he testified that his use in college was at times daily, although
it varied and he went months at time without marijuana (Tr. 54-55). It is reasonable to infer that he used
marijuana with some regularity in college.
4
began smoking marijuana with new friends, and continued his marijuana use throughout
college with varying frequency, up to on a daily basis.  Applicant abstained at times,1
after waking up coughing from smoking the night before and questioning why he was
punishing his body and brain in that way. Applicant purchased marijuana from a friend
every couple of weeks (Tr. 54-55). Applicant had his own marijuana pipe (Tr. 56).
Applicant was arrested twice while he was a college undergraduate. In August
1996, after drinking seven or eight beers with friends from college, he decided to drive
home. At around 0100 hours, he was stopped by the police for speeding. The officer
saw signs of alcohol use (bloodshot and watery eyes, an odor of alcohol on breath) and
administered field sobriety tests. After failing the tests, Applicant was arrested for driving
under the influence (DUI). During a search of Applicant’s vehicle incident to his arrest,
the police found a smoking pipe with suspected marijuana (Ex. 3, Ex. 8, Tr. 65-68).
Applicant had smoked marijuana that night (“I shared a bowl with one of the guys that I
was partying with during the day.” Tr. 67). While at the station, Applicant gave the police
a small marijuana pipe that he had in his pocket (Ex. 8). Applicant was charged with
DUI, possession of less than four ounces of marijuana, possession of drug
paraphernalia, and speeding (Ex. 7). In late September 1996, he pleaded guilty to
possession of drug paraphernalia and was fined $100 (Ex. 9, Ex. 10). The possession
of marijuana charge was nolle prossed (Ex. 10, Tr. 69). He pleaded guilty to DUI and
was sentenced to a $500 fine and alcohol education classes (Ex. 3, Tr. 69, 86).
In early February 2001, Applicant smoked some marijuana and then consumed
four mixed drinks at a bar. He was stopped at a traffic light and arrested for
misdemeanor DUI  (Ex. 3, Ex. 6). He had a pipe on him containing marijuana residue,
and a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia was added (Ex. 3, Tr. 70-73). In late
March 2001, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the DUI to six months in jail, two
days to serve, one year probation, and fines and fees totaling $563 (Ex. 10). The drug
charge was dismissed (Ex. 3). Applicant claims he abstained from any marijuana use
while on probation, as he was required to submit to court-mandated drug tests and
attend an alcohol and drug program at a local treatment facility (Tr. 64, 74-75).
Applicant resided at home with his mother while he was on probation.
In December 2002, he was awarded his bachelor’s degree in computer science
and engineering. Six months before, having finished his studies, he moved to the area
where he had attended his first year of college and began working as a waiter (Ex. 1,
Ex. 2). Applicant did not use any marijuana there but smoked the drug on trips back
home (Tr. 57). In about August 2003, Applicant returned home to stay (Ex. 1, Ex. 2).
Applicant resumed smoking marijuana on weekends with a friend from his first job as a
cook/dishwasher (Tr. 56-58).
5
In late September 2003, Applicant began working for his present employer. He
was informed of his employer’s policy against the use of illegal drugs (Tr. 59). Within a
couple of weeks, he was told that he would need a security clearance. He understood
that “marijuana was not a proper thing to do” and that it would affect his chances of
obtaining a clearance, but continued to use marijuana on a weekly basis on weekends
(Tr. 60).
On about December 4, 2003, Applicant completed a security clearance
application (SF 86) for a secret-level clearance. He responded “YES” to question 24,
“Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or
drugs?”, and indicated that he had been fined for a May [sic] 1996 DWI. He also
answered “YES” to question 26, “In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for,
charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, or
25?”, and reported a January [sic] 2001 DWI. Applicant responded “NO” to the illegal
drug inquiries, including question 27 “Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years,
whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example,
marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine,
heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers,
etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?”, and question 29, “In the
last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking,
production, transfer, shipping, receiving, or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant,
hallucinogen, or cannabis for your own intended profit or that of another?” (Ex. 2).
Applicant was granted his secret-level clearance (Tr. 51).
On August 2, 2004, Applicant submitted a SF 86, EPSQ version, for a top-secret
clearance. He responded as he had on his December 2003 SF 86, listing the DWI
offenses only in answer to questions 24 and 27, and denying any involvement with
illegal drugs in answer to questions 27 and 29. He also denied in response to question
28 that he had used a controlled substance while possessing a security clearance, even
though he had continued to smoke marijuana after being granted his secret clearance
(Ex.1).
On September 1, 2004, Applicant was interviewed by a Defense Security Service
(DSS) special agent. In a sworn statement, he discussed his listed DUI offenses in 1996
and 2001, and related that on both occasions, he had also been charged with
possession of drug paraphernalia since he had on him a pipe containing marijuana
residue. He indicated the 1996 charge had been nolle prossed and the 2001 charge had
been dismissed. Applicant described his use of marijuana as “typically about once a
week” in college. He indicated he had bought it “on maybe three occasions.” He claimed
a last use of marijuana in 2001, before his college graduation, and denied any intent to
use marijuana or other illegal drug in the future. As for his failure to disclose his drug
charges or drug use on his December 2003 SF 86, Applicant explained that he was
embarrassed and thought that if he listed them, his clearance would be in jeopardy (Ex.
3).
6
Applicant was reinterviewed on September 20, 2004, about his failure to disclose
his drug use on his August 2004 SF 86 application for a top secret clearance. Applicant
stated:
I left out information relating to drug charges I was brought up on for my
DWI arrests. I also left out that I had used drugs in the last seven years,
specifically in concert with the DWI. I left this information out since I had
done so on an earlier application for a secret clearance and as trying to
stay consistent on all my applications (Ex. 4). 
After his interviews, Applicant continued to use marijuana on the weekends (Tr.
61). In November 2005, Applicant smoked marijuana at his home with an old friend from
college and an acquaintance of his friend’s. Applicant “figured oh, what could it hurt”
since he had not seen the friend in a long time (Tr. 47). The police, responding to a
complaint of noise, smelled marijuana and observed a marijuana bowl (his friend’s bowl,
Tr. 78) in plain view in Applicant’s apartment. Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor
possession of marijuana, first offense. In January 2006, he pleaded nolo contendere,
and was sentenced to a $200 fee, court costs, and 25 hours of community service (Ex.
5, Ex. 11, Ex. 12, Tr. 76-79). Applicant told his employer about his arrest “the next day”
(Tr. 79).
On July 7, 2006, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about
his November 2005 arrest for marijuana possession. Applicant indicated he had paid
the fine and planned to complete the community service by October. He related that the
police could smell marijuana in his apartment and saw a pot pipe (bowl) in plain view.
He admitted to past drug use, marijuana only, between 1995 and 2002 about four to five
times on the weekend. He denied any current use of drugs or any future plans of drug
use (Ex. 5).
Applicant continued to smoke marijuana weekly (Tr. 61). On March 14, 2007,
Applicant was entering a local military base to test an integration system when his
vehicle was selected for a random inspection. An authorized security contractor
discovered a small clear plastic bag containing marijuana and a glass smoking pipe in
the center console. Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana
and possession of drug paraphernalia on a federal installation (Ex. 13, Tr. 80). He was
planning to use marijuana after work (Tr. 80-81).
On March 21, 2007, Applicant was contacted by the investigator for further
information. He indicated he had smoked marijuana in college from 1996 to 2002 on a
daily basis and periodically thereafter to March 2007. He admitted he had marijuana in
his apartment before his arrest in November 2005. He smoked it at that time because
he enjoyed it and to fall asleep. Applicant maintained he had stopped using marijuana in
March 2007, and had contacted the employee assistance program (EAP) at work to
help him abstain (Ex. 5). There is no indication that Applicant told the investigator of his
recent drug-related arrest on the military installation.  
7
On March 29, 2007, Applicant began counseling with a licensed marital and
family therapist (LMFT) to establish sustained recovery from marijuana abuse. He
continued in his counseling through his employer’s EAP initially once a week and then
once every two weeks (Ex. 6, Ex. A, Tr. 65). In response to interrogatories from DOHA,
Applicant affirmed in July 2007 that he had not used any marijuana since March 2007.
He indicated he was still seeing his EAP-provided drug counselor to assist him in
remaining free of illegal drugs. He expressed a willingness and plan to take drug tests to
prove his abstinence (Ex. 5). In response to separate interrogatories, Applicant averred
that he last used marijuana on March 14, 2007 when he smoked the drug in a bowl.
Applicant disclosed his detention in March 2007 on drug charges, but indicated he was
receiving counseling every two weeks. Asked again to explain why he had not listed his
drug use on his December 2003 and August 2004 security clearance applications,
Applicant chose instead to reiterate that he had ceased using marijuana:
My use of marijuana has been sporadic. At time in my past I had smoked
it, and at some time I did not. I can obviously see now that I cannot use
marijuana and live my life the way I should. I swear that I have grown up
and I no longer have marijuana as any part of my life. I will have drug
testing done to show that I have stopped (Ex. 6).
On August 13, 2007, Applicant was notified that he was prohibited for one year,
retroactive from his detention date, from entering the military installation where he had
been caught with marijuana (Ex. 13, Tr. 81). In September 2007, Applicant went to court
for the March 2007 drug charges. He was informed that he was going to be put into a
six month to year-long program and then the charges would be expunged on its
completion (Tr. 82-84). As of March 2008, Applicant had heard nothing further (Tr. 83).
Applicant smoked marijuana at least once in December 2007. He was at a party
with friends (“I really didn’t see how I was going to keep my clearance, after all the stuff
that I’ve been through, and I was weak for a night.” Tr. 62). In March 2008, Applicant
was told by his employer that if he managed to keep his clearance, steps would be
taken to ensure his abstinence from illegal drugs, such as drug testing (Tr. 63).
Applicant remains friendly with those with whom he used marijuana since 2005,
although he is willing to stop hanging out with these friends if necessary to keep his job
(Tr. 84, 98). In about late January 2008, Applicant told a close friend with whom he used
marijuana in December 2007 that he was having a hearing on his clearance and that he
“should probably be smart and just not smoke anymore, smoke pot anymore.” (Tr. 98).
Applicant’s counselor has told him that he could be addicted to marijuana (Tr. 85), and
that he should abstain completely (Tr. 99). On a couple of occasions since December
2007, the last time in late February 2008, Applicant has been present when others
brought out marijuana (“It was just like my [sic], like after a few drinks at the bar, we’ll go
back to my buddy’s place and just hang out, just a little bit after, and then I usually walk
home from there.” ) (Tr. 100). Knowing his self control is “very low,” Applicant left almost
immediately (Tr. 101).
8
In March 2008, Applicant moved in with his girlfriend to change his environment.
They have been together for eight months (Tr. 46). In the past, Applicant did not feel
that his marijuana use was causing enough of a problem for him to stop. He now
understands that his marijuana use has repercussions for his job and future (Tr. 45-47).
His therapist indicates he has been compliant with his treatment and he is acquiring the
necessary skills to maintain long term abstinence (Ex. A). 
Applicant has been eager to take on assignments at work and has responded to
the challenge of increasing responsibilities. He is considered a key member of his
software development team (Ex. C). The company’s facility security officer has found
him to be conscientious in handling classified information. She is aware Applicant has
been attending counseling on a regular basis and believes he has learned a valuable
lesson form his past actions (Ex. B).
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.
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. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
9
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).  
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
The security concern related to the guideline for drug involvement is set out in
AG ¶ 24: “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.”  After trying marijuana at a New Year’s Eve
party in 1993, Applicant smoked marijuana with friends every couple of months. He
refrained from drug use during his freshman year of college out of state, but after
transferring to his home state’s university, he abused marijuana with regularity, at times
daily. He also purchased the drug for his own consumption every couple of weeks.
Arrests on drug-related charges in August 1996 and February 2001 had little impact on
changing his attitude toward illegal drugs. Except for occasional weekends spent back
home, he abstained from marijuana use from June 2002 to August 2003 when living out
of state. Once he returned in August 2003, he resumed his involvement with marijuana
on the weekends. He continued this abuse while in his current job, knowing it was
against his employer’s policy, and after he had obtained a secret clearance and applied
for an upgrade to top secret. He was arrested in his apartment for marijuana possession
in November 2005 and sentenced to a fine and community service. Yet, he continued to
smoke the drug weekly until March 2007, when he was caught entering a military
installation with marijuana and a small pipe in the console of his vehicle. Despite
ongoing counseling since late March 2007, Applicant again smoked marijuana on at
least one occasion in December 2007. AG ¶ 25(a) (“any drug abuse”), ¶ 25(c) (“illegal
drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia”), and ¶ 25(g) (“any illegal drug use
after being granted a security clearance”), are clearly applicable.
None of the mitigating conditions set forth in AG ¶ 26 apply. Marijuana played a
large part in Applicant’s life until March 2007 when he was caught entering a federal
installation with marijuana in his vehicle. AG ¶ 26(a) (“the behavior happened so long
10
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”) clearly does not apply. Despite ongoing counseling with an LMFT since
late March 2007 to assist him in achieving sustained abstinence, he continues to
associate with those friends with whom he used marijuana in the past. Applicant waited
until January 2008 to inform his close friend with whom he shared marijuana that he no
longer intends to use marijuana. As recently as February 2008, others pulled out
marijuana in his presence at this friend’s house. While Applicant left on that occasion,
he had smoked marijuana in a similar situation only a couple of months before.
Applicant is now willing if required to dissociate himself from drug-using associates (see
AG ¶ 26(b)(1)), but the fact that he has not yet done so raises considerable concerns
about his commitment to reform. Under AG ¶ 26(b)(2), a demonstrated intent not to
abuse drugs in the future can be shown by “changing or avoiding the environment
where drugs were used.” Within the past month, Applicant moved in with his girlfriend,
but it is too soon to conclude that he will be able to avoid those friends and
environments associated with marijuana use. It has been only three months since his
last use of marijuana, which is far short of that appropriate to demonstrate intent not to
abuse drugs in the future under AG ¶ 26(b)(3), given his years of frequent if not regular
drug abuse.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern related to the guideline for personal conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:
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.
When Applicant applied for a secret-level clearance in December 2003, he did
not disclose in response to question 24 (any alcohol or drug charges or convictions) that
he had been arrested for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia (convicted of
the latter) in 1996, and that he had been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia
in February 2001. He did not disclose the 2001 drug paraphernalia charge in response
to question 26 (any other arrests, charges, or convictions within the last seven years).
Applicant also responded “NO” to question 27 concerning any illegal drug use in the last
seven years, and to question 29 regarding any illegal drug purchases in the last seven
years. In August 2004, Applicant filled out an application for a top secret clearance. He
provided the same answers to questions 24, 26, 27, and 29. Accepting the Applicant did
not use marijuana while he was on probation for the February 2001 DUI, he had used
marijuana regularly in college from August 1995 to May 2001, sporadically from June
2002 to August 2003, and on weekends after starting his defense contractor
employment. His drug-related arrests, abuse of marijuana, and purchases of marijuana
11
were required to be reported on the December 2003 and August 2004 security
clearance applications.
While Applicant does not deny that he falsified his responses to question 27
concerning drug use, he explained that he thought he did not have to list the drug
charges because he had been told they would be expunged (i.e., no record of them, Tr.
43-44, 91), and that he thought question 29 applied to drug traffickers and he failed to
read it as closely as he should have (Tr. 89-90). He also attributed his inaccurate
responses to denial over his marijuana problem (“I think as part of the denial that goes
on in my head, I just wanted to get those questions over with as quickly as possible and
may have skimmed over them and not looked at them as closely as I should have.” Tr.
90). There is no evidence any of the drug charges had been expunged. If Applicant in
good faith had equated nolle prossed with expungement, he likely would have listed his
conviction of a drug paraphernalia charge in 1996. His clearance applications fail to
disclose any involvement with illegal drugs. It is telling that in a September 2004 written
statement, Applicant stated, “My Security Clearance Application does not reflect the
drug charges, nor does it reflect my marijuana use. I was embarrassed by these events
and thought that if I listed them my security clearance would be in jeopardy.” (See Ex.
3). 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”) applies because of the SF 86 falsifications alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a
through 2.f.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that Applicant falsified a September 1, 2004
sworn statement, and material facts during a July 7, 2006 interview beyond that alleged
in the recent amendments (SOR ¶¶ 2.g, 2.h, and 2.i). In his September 1, 2004-sworn
statement, Applicant admitted he had been charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia in addition to DUI in both 1996 and 2001, but he claimed the 1996 charge
had been nolle prossed. He did not reveal that he had also been charged with illegal
drug possession, which was the charge that had been nolle prossed, or that he had
been convicted of the drug paraphernalia charge in 1996 (see SOR ¶ 2.g). Not alleged
by the government but reluctantly acknowledged by Applicant at his hearing (Tr. 93-94),
he also falsely asserted that his last use of marijuana was in 2001 before his college
graduation. When reinterviewed on September 20, 2004 (Ex. 4), Applicant had an
opportunity to correct the record and admit that his marijuana abuse was ongoing.
Instead, he indicated, “I also left out that I had used drugs in the last seven years,
specifically in concert with the DWI . . . since I had done so on an earlier application for
a secret clearance, and was trying to stay consistent on all my applications. His
comment is misleading in that a reader could infer that his abuse occurred only in
concert with his drunk driving offenses. 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”)
applies.
The following exchange concerning his September 1, 2004, misrepresentations is illustrative:2
Q  But you, in that statement, you told him that your drug use had ceased when you left
college in 2001, correct?
A At that time, I had stopped, yes, and I started again later on. It’s, I mean it all varies,
I’m not, you know, at that time, when I had that interview with [the DSS Agent], I had
stopped.
Q Okay, but you had, you might not be, so let me clarify then. Your testimony is that
you were not using in September of 2004 when you were interviewed by [the DSS
Agent], correct?
A W hen I talked to him at that point, yes.
Q But you had used between 2001 and September of 2004, correct?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q So when you told him that you had stopped using in 2001, that was false, right?
A Yes.
(Tr. 93-94).
12
He was not completely candid with a government investigator on July 7, 2006, as
well. When asked about his November 2005 arrest for possession of marijuana,
Applicant claimed that his drug use consisted of marijuana between 1995 and 2002 four
to five times on the weekends while a college student, and he falsely denied any current
use. There is conflicting evidence as to whether Applicant used marijuana on a daily
basis from 1996 to 2002 (see n.1), but he unquestionably minimized the extent of his
marijuana involvement in college and, moreover, concealed his subsequent abuse,
including on the occasion of his arrest in November 2005 (SOR ¶ 2.i). AG ¶ 16(b) also
applies to his false statements in July 2006. Applicant’s ongoing association with known
illegal drug users implicates AG ¶ 16(g) (“association with persons involved in criminal
activity”), although it was not alleged as a separate concern under Guideline E.
Applicant does not satisfy any of the relevant mitigating conditions under
Guideline E. AG ¶ 17(a) (“the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts”) is
inapplicable to his record of piecemeal disclosure. There is no evidence that he relied
on the advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel concerning the security
clearance process required by AG ¶ 17(b). His record of multiple misrepresentation is
not only serious, but also too recent to consider AG ¶ 17(c) (“the offense was 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”). As recently as March 21,
2007, Applicant discussed with a government investigator his marijuana use and his
arrest in November 2005. Although he “volunteered “ during that interview that he used
a lot of marijuana in college and up to March 2007, the evidence does not show that he
told the investigator of his arrest the previous week on the military installation.
Applicant’s acknowledgment of the falsity of some of his previous statements to the
government  provides a limited degree of encouragement about his reformation.2
In the SOR as amended, the government alleged that Applicant was arrested for DUI on August 5, 1996, in3
addition to the drug charges in SOR ¶ 1.c. The DUI is relevant under Guideline H to the extent it shows
Applicant used marijuana at times in combination with alcohol. However, I find “For Applicant” because his
drug conduct at issue is addressed in ¶ 1.c and as such ¶ 1.g is duplicative. 
13
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. Applicant has raised considerable doubts about his
continued suitability for classified access, notwithstanding his record of properly
handling classified information at work. He was granted his secret clearance when the
government was unaware of the extent of his true drug involvement. He also continued
to smoke marijuana while holding that clearance, to as recently as December 2007.
Applicant also showed disregard for his fiduciary obligation of candor with the
government. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, I conclude it is
not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue a security clearance for him. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the
amended SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant3
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.i: Against Applicant
14
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
________________________
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge