1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )    ISCR Case No. 07-10237
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) and certified the accuracy of his information on October 23, 2006. On December
21, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) 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. 
On January 28, 2008, Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR, answered the
SOR allegations in writing, and requested a hearing. DOHA received that request on
February 26, 2008, and the matter was assigned to me on February 27, 2008.
Department Counsel and Applicant proposed a March 25, 2008, hearing, and a Notice
of Hearing was issued on March 14, 2008, to set the hearing for that date.
 Tr. 8.1
 Tr. 15-16.2
 Tr. 35.3
 Tr. 15.4
 Id.5
 Tr. 59.6
2
The hearing took place as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted three
exhibits (Ex.). which were accepted into the record as Exs. 1-3 without objection.
Applicant submitted one exhibit, accepted as Ex. A without objection. No witnesses
were called. Department Counsel referenced a typographical error in the SOR, noting
that the second line of allegation 1.a stating “until at least May 2007" should have read
“until at least May 2006.” Applicant concurred with the correction and reaffirmed his
admission to the allegation.  The transcript (Tr.) was received on April 2, 2008. Based1
upon a review of the case file, exhibits, and testimony, security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 44-year-old government consultant who has worked for the same
defense contractor since 2001. He has a bachelor’s degree in accounting information
systems and currently works as a computer operating system subject matter expert. He
has been married for 23 years and has three children, currently aged 19, 21, and 23.
Throughout most of Applicant’s married life, he and his wife strived to provide a
nurturing home for their children in which church attendance and open discussion were
encouraged.  Applicant prided himself in being the head of the family. In 2005, their2
youngest child was 16 years of age. She was strong willed and highly social, as
opposed to her more reserved siblings.  It was often difficult for Applicant to help her3
address her problems.  Moreover, she could not drive a car and felt bored and isolated4
at home. Applicant had already tackled the issue of cigarette smoking with he was
“were alarmed and upset” to discover she was buying and using marijuana.  5
Around the same time in 2005, Applicant and his wife were having their own
respective problems. For the first time in their lengthy marriage, each felt overwhelmed
by a number of factors, including marital, professional, and personal problems.  He was6
experiencing anxiety and some panic disorders while his wife was suffering from
fibromyalgia and mild depression. Both were prescribed and taking Zoloft, an
antidepressant. Applicant feels the medication affected his judgment and control and, in
concert with his stress, led Applicant and his wife to occasionally do things that they
would usually not otherwise do. He stated that, as of about July 2005, this included the
use of marijuana about once a week, a drug which he had not used since college.
Applicant’s problems and prescription also affected the way he dealt with his youngest
 Tr. 16.7
 Tr. 17.8
 Tr. 47.9
 Tr. 39.10
 Tr. 19-20, 30.11
 Tr. 20.12
 Tr. 21.13
 See., e.g., Tr. 55.14
 Tr. 22-23.15
 Tr. 25.16
 Tr. 26-27.17
3
child’s marijuana use.  Rather than forbid her use of the illegal drug or to forbid its use7
in their home, he decided she could use marijuana at home, where he believed her
illegal drug use would be “safer.”  Eventually, parents and daughter used marijuana8
together. 
Applicant never bought illegal drugs directly. He and his wife had taken in a
family friend after the friend was released from prison  to help in his rehabilitation.  The9 10
young man knew people who sold marijuana, so Applicant would buy the substance
through him. Twice during the summer of 2005, however, Applicant gave his 16-year-
old daughter money to go buy drugs for him from a known source in the
neighborhood.  11
Applicant’s change in behavior in 2005 carried over to his work life. Although now
in his 40s, he increased his after hours socialization with co-workers, often joining them
for cocktails after work. One night in April 2006, following a post-work happy hour, he
was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and put on probation for a year.  As12
part of his probation, Applicant was not permitted to drink alcohol or smoke “anything.”13
Applicant successfully completed a 10 week alcohol education course and 20
weeks of group counseling, attended a alcohol-focused victim impact panel session,
and refrained from drinking and smoking. His counseling was non-medical, mostly
conducted by licensed clinical social workers and credentialed specialists.  During this14
time, his interaction with many of the individuals in counseling “changed the way that
[he] looked at” himself as he realized “that’s not me.”  The experience made him15
reconsider his recent poor choices.  He has successfully re-assumed his role as head16
of his household and provides guidance for his family.  He stopped using marijuana in17
May 2006 and his family is now drug-free. He does not associate with those who use
drugs or drink heavily. Applicant is refocused on his parental duties as a leader and role
 Tr. 23.18
 Tr. 30.19
 Tr. 38.20
 Tr. 23; 51-53.21
 See, e.g., Tr. 53.22
 Tr. 50.23
4
model, he quit smoking cigarettes, and strictly limited his use of alcohol.  He has no18
intention of using drugs in the future or to let it “be a part of [his family’s] lives.”   19
-
As Applicant was completing his final counseling sessions, he completed his e-
QIP in October 2006. At the time, Applicant explained to his daughter the importance of
their getting their lives together and how their actions could impact their future. He
specifically pointed to his execution of the e-QIP, noting that he was obligated to
honestly and fully admit in detail the facts surrounding his alcohol use and drug use.20
Under Section 23 (Your Police Record), he acknowledged he had been “charged with
or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs.” He cited to his April 2006
DWI, described in detail the action taken by the county court, and listed all his probation
terms. Under Section 25 (Your Use of Alcohol), Applicant gave detailed information as
to his alcohol-related treatment between June 2006 and November 2006.
Under Section 24 (Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity), Applicant
admitted that he had illegally used a controlled substance in the last seven years and
noted that he used marijuana about four times per month from July 2005 through May
2006. Because he believed the question made reference to personal monetary profit,
however, he answered “no” to the question “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.”  His statements have been consistent on21
this interpretation throughout this process.  In his interview after submitting the22
application, Applicant volunteered that he had twice given his daughter money to buy
marijuana.
Applicant successfully completed all court-required aspects of his probation. His
probationary period ended May 14, 2007. He has been screened for drug usage in the
past year without adverse incident. His family took 20 weeks of family counseling to
work on their own dynamics and for Applicant to work on his marriage.  Today, the23
family lives together harmoniously with Applicant actively serving as the family’s leader.
Applicant is embarrassed and contrite about his judgment lapses concerning drugs.   
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).24
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).25
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).26
5
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. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this 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 a24
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable25
clearance decision is on the applicant.  26
 
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
 Id.27
 Id.28
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.29
6
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 access27
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily28
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the29
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 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 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 H, Drug Involvement
Applicant, now 44 years of age, used marijuana in high school and in college. He
also admits he bought and weekly used marijuana about once a week between July
 Because Applicant readily admits he bought the marijuana he used, specific discussion as to the unique30
facts involved in how he solicited such purchases is reserved for Guideline E, Personal Conduct.
7
2005 and May 2006. Consequently, Drug Involvement (DI) Disqualifying Condition (DC)
AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse) applies.  With a disqualifying condition thus established,30
the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns.
In context, Applicant’s student abuse of marijuana can be characterized as a
youthful indiscretion with no apparent nexus to his marijuana use over 20 years later.
That 10 months of weekly marijuana abuse in 2005-2006 occurred during an isolated
period fraught with personal problems and a diagnosed anxiety disorder that
necessitated a prescription drug. Although Applicant presents no medical corroboration
as to that drug’s effect on his thinking, the facts do indicate that at all other times he
was a husband and father who proudly served as a role model who maintained strict
control of both his family and himself. Applicant’s credible testimony also shows that the
April 2006 DWI and subsequent counseling prompted him to regain control of his family
and his life. Given the unique personal problems existent at the time, there is scant
likelihood that the situation will repeat itself. Therefore, DI Mitigating Condition (MC) 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 acknowledges that he made an adult choice to personally use illegal
drugs and he has made the adult choice to take personal responsibility for his actions.
In voluntarily disclosing facts that otherwise would never have been known, he
demonstrated honesty, candor, and genuine contrition. His explanations as to why he
used marijuana, why he stopped using it, and what he has done to change his life in
such a way as to eschew drugs in the future are highly credible. In light of his nominal
drug use during an isolated period, his embarrassment over his lapse in judgment with
regard to his personal integrity and familial responsibilities, and his depiction of how he
turned his life back around, Applicant has mitigated significant security concerns. 
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.
Applicant faces two allegations regarding such conduct. First, Applicant answered “no”
to e-QIP Section 24: Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Activity regarding the fact he bought
marijuana for personal use. He explained that he interpreted the question’s phrasing –
“have you been involved in the illegal purchase . . . [of] cannabis for your own intended
profit or that of another” – to ask whether he had purchased drugs to make money or
reap monetary profit for himself or others. Consequently, he answered “no.” 
8
In all other respects, Applicant’s e-QIP answers are candid and detailed. There is
no indication that he deliberately omitted or falsified facts, favorable or unfavorable.
Inasmuch as all the facts point to Applicant’s answer to Section 24 as being the result
of a simple misunderstanding, I conclude no Personal Conduct (PC) DC applies here. 
Second, the SOR also alleges that more generic personal conduct security
concerns arise from the fact Applicant gave his then-teenage daughter money to
illegally purchase marijuana for his personal consumption. This allegation, which
Applicant fully admits, is uniquely troubling. Such adult conduct, in light of all the other
facts, gives rise to PC DC AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that is not explicitly
covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which when combined with all available information supports a whole
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of
candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information). 
When Applicant fully disclosed and expressed contrition for his lapse in providing
familial leadership when he chose to personally use an illegal drug, it was with regard to
an adult choice he personally made. He made that choice with full knowledge of the
legal and professional repercussions it might cause him. Here, however, his conduct
was more pervasive. He did not simply abuse marijuana furtively or hide his personal
drug use – from his minor daughter or the young man he was helping to rehabilitate –
so as to maintain the facade of a role model. Nor did he simply “smoke along” with
them in what he described as the safety of his home. Rather than simply extend his
own illegal activities to include his personal purchase of marijuana, he actively sought
out the criminal involvement of others – his daughter, a minor undergoing a difficult
phase, and a young man recently released from prison and undergoing rehabilitation. In
so doing, he not only invited the complicity of those he was expected to protect and put
them in potential danger, but he condoned and encouraged their criminal activity for his
personal benefit. Such selfish conduct demonstrates exceptionally poor judgment and
an overt disregard of the law. After careful consideration, none of the available PC MCs
apply.
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
9
for a public trust position must be an overall common sense 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. Applicant is a middle aged father of three adult children. He is an
affable professional who takes pride in being the head of his family and a role model to
his children. For one brief 10-month period, due to a variety of genuine reasons, he
illegally used marijuana. Applicant’s past drug use can be mitigated to the extent it was
a brief period candidly detailed on his e-QIP which he is committed to never again
repeat.
Applicant’s candor, however, extended beyond his personal drug use into a more
troubling area. He invited the complicity of his minor daughter and a young, former
inmate, undergoing personal rehabilitation to purchase marijuana for his own use. Such
conduct displays uniquely poor judgment, with regard to Applicant’s overt disregard of
the law and to his exploitation of both his daughter and the young man, which remains
unmitigated. Because the applicable guidelines dictate that any doubt concerning
personnel being considered for access to classified information must be resolved in
favor of the national security, clearance is denied. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For 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