1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-09592
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed Security Clearance Applications (SF-86) in 1999, 2000, and
an SF-86 signed by Appellant on October 3, 2002, was affirmed on May 28, 2003. On
January 14, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns regarding personal conduct
and criminal 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 SOR issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR allegations on January 28, 2008, by denying all
allegations raised. The case was assigned to me on March 15, 2008. Department
Counsel and Applicant agreed to an April 9, 2008, hearing date and a Notice of Hearing
was issued on March 17, 2008, setting the hearing for that date. 
 Exs. A-B (Letters of Recommendation).    1
 Exs. C-K (Letters of Reference).    2
 Tr. 41. “. . . but outside of that – – that’s back in the ‘76 time frame. Outside of that, no. It’s the only other    3
time other than that I’ve used drugs is in 1991, during my divorce time frame.” 
 Applicant was unable to recall the years or exact number of her surgeries. Tr. 35.    4
 These dates come from Applicant’s SF-86.    5
 Tr. 72.    6
 Tr. 72-74.    7
2
The hearing took place as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted six exhibits
(Ex.), accepted into the record as Exs. 1-6 without objection. Applicant testified and
submitted 14 exhibits, which were accepted as Exs. A-N without objection. Two
witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant. The transcript (Tr.) was received on April 18,
2008. Based upon a review of the case file, exhibits, and testimony, security clearance
is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50-year-old sub-contractor working for a Federal government
entity. She has a bachelor of science (B.S.) degree and a master of science (M.S.)
degree in management information systems. She is a successful professional who is
lauded in her field.  Her personal attributes and community involvement are thoroughly1
praised by peers from her community.  She is divorced and has no children. 2
After graduating from high school in 1976, Applicant went to college. During that
time, she may have experimented with drugs.  In 1978, on the last day of summer3
school in her sophomore year, she was caught in a fire and severely burned. She was
treated in a hospital for three or four months with second and third degree burns all
over her body. Over the next 15 years, she would undergo seven or eight surgeries
related to the injury.  Prior to the end of her series of surgeries, she was married from4
September 1991 until her divorce in August 1992.  During her divorce, Applicant used5
marijuana. 
Applicant’s references to her divorce time frame generally equate to the time
frame of her marriage, 1991-1992. Without a copy of her divorce decree in front of her,
or a document like the SF-86 which she may have filled out with the help of a copy of
the decree, she cannot remember exactly when the divorce was.  Nor is she capable of6
remembering when she returned to college in the 1990s without resort to
documentation or reference to the divorce.7
Applicant is clear, however, she returned to college to finish her undergraduate
degree after she was divorced. She then completed her undergraduate degree in
 Tr. 41.    8
 Id.    9
 W ith regard to her undergraduate degree, the date noted is from her SF-86. It clarifies her statement that    10
“I think I got my B.S. degree in 1996. . . .” Tr. 34. Inasmuch as the SF-86 does not indicate a date for her
graduate degree completion, reliance is on her statement: “I think that was ‘99.” Tr. 34.
 “I think I’ve had a clearance since, maybe 2000, maybe before that. I – – I’ve had a clearance a long time.”    11
Tr. 37.
 Monthly use from January 1992 through December 1998 would indicate 84 instances; every other month    12
use would denote 42 instances of marijuana use.
3
August 1996. It was in 1996 that she first began work as a federal contractor. After
receiving her bachelor’s degree, Applicant continued with school and worked on a
master’s degree. During that time she was engaged, but her fiancée died before she
graduated.  In distinguishing this academic period of her life from the time of her8
divorce, Applicant noted that “[i]t was schooling that helped me get through that whole
scenario. Not drugs.”  She completed her graduate degree in 1999.  She thinks she9 10
received her first security clearance in 2000.  11
Applicant completed an unsigned SF-86 form that was electronically submitted
on July 1, 1999. In response to 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. . . ,” Applicant answered “no.” In response to question 28, “Have you EVER
illegally used a controlled substance while . . . possessing a security clearance. . . ,”
Applicant answered “no.” An identical or virtually identical application was electronically
submitted on January 13, 2000, with no discernable changes. The hard copies of those
electronic transmissions are unsigned.
An SF-86 form signed by Applicant on October 3, 2002, and again signed on
May 28, 2003, does have discernable updates. Her city, county, and state of birth are
incorrectly identified. Applicant’s employment and foreign travel destinations are up-
dated. A top secret security clearance from one Government entity is specifically noted
as received on October 5, 1999, and a confidential security clearance from another
Government entity is documented as having been received on August 1, 2000, refuting
her earlier belief she first received a security clearance in 2000. Appellant’s negative
answers regarding past drug use remained unchanged.  
An investigator’s statement summarized an interview of Applicant on May 28,
2003. The summary, which was not signed by Applicant, states that Applicant revealed
she began using marijuana in late 1991 or early 1992, after her divorce; she used the
drug once a month or every other month until 1999.  Her estimate of usage was stated12
as being approximately 200 times during that period. The interviewer stated Applicant
did not use marijuana in the year 2000 through May 2002 for fear of being given a
random drug test. It further states she recommenced using marijuana in May 2002. 
 Ex. 4 (Statement of July 9, 2003) at 1. The 2002/2003 SF-86 incorrectly identifies Appellant’s city of birth,    13
but reflects the proper year of birth. See Ex. 3 (NSA Denial, dated February 28, 2006).
 Id.    14
 Id. at 2.    15
 Id at 3.    16
 See also Tr. 51.    17
 Id. at 4.    18
Ex. 4, supra note 8, at 4.    19
 Tr. 58-61. E.g., “She said ‘W ell, you have to give us something. W e can’t sit here all day,’ And I said ‘Okay.    20
W ell, that’s the case, then I’ll go with this.” Tr. 61.
 Tr. 58.    21
4
After a July 9, 2003, interview, Applicant signed a statement prepared with the
assistance of a special agent. In that statement, Applicant properly stated her year and
city of birth, noting she must have mistakenly acknowledged the wrong city and year on
her October 2002/May 2003 SF-86 form or some other unidentified form.  On that13
same page, there is a typed comment regarding her place of residence and a
tenant/cohabitant. It is situated between her written initials and the handwritten notation
“Attachment 1 (2 pages).” No attachment, however, is appended to, or incorporated
into, the submitted exhibit.  In another section, Appellant noted that her academic14
career was nearly ended when she was once accused of plagiarism in graduate school.
She did not, however, recall the name of the professor.  On page three, she stated that15
she did not know the whereabouts of her father, her ex-husband, or two of her
siblings.  16
Regarding her past drug use, Applicant’s July 9, 2003, statement reads: “I did
not indicate any drug use on my security form because I believe my last use was prior
to the last 7 years. From my best recollection, my last use was in late 96 or early 97.  I17
am disclosing this information because I am not definitely sure about the year.”  No18
distinction is made as to whether Applicant meant the SF-86 security form transmitted
in July 1999 or January 2000, nor is it clear she knew it was twice transmitted. She
characterized her drug use as limited to marijuana at social gatherings, “and I would
averaged to have been at least 10 but no more than 20 times. . . .”  19
During the interview, Applicant felt pressed to provide precise dates and
numerical ranges of instances of marijuana use based on the investigator’s
questioning.  When further pressed for an answer, she ultimately gave a number just20
to satisfy the inquiry. She thought to herself: “And then afterwards I said ‘You know, this
is going to come back to haunt me.’”  In reviewing her statement during the hearing,21
Applicant acknowledged she gave those answers, but commented: “But I tell you the
 Tr. 53.    22
 Tr. 56.    23
 Tr. 54.    24
 Ex. 5 (Applicant’s Interrogatory Response, 2007).    25
 Although the page lacks letterhead, it does contain a template for the “For Official Use Only” stamp on the    26
bottom of the sheet indicating the document of some Government or Department origin. 
 Tr. 46.    27
 Tr. 45, 48.    28
 Tr. 45.    29
 Tr. 46.    30
5
dates is what I’m confused about . . . I’m not able to remember.”  “It states it here, but I22
don’t recall that. . . . I don’t recall saying that I did that.”  In further questioning23
regarding dates, she became more confused: “Okay. Here I’m getting confused
again.”  24
On December 8, 2006, Applicant gave an unsworn declaration to an Office of
Personnel Management representative. The Government introduced it as part of its
Exhibit 5, which is described in the Index of Government Exhibits as “Applicant’s
Interrogatory Response, signed on December 13, 2007 (including summary of
Applicant’s interview from December 8, 2006)(12 pages).”  Its four sections of25
materials vary in format, but it is stapled as a whole document. The second section is
the typed testimony from an “Interview Conducted Under Unsworn Declaration on
12/08/06,” in which Applicant is repeatedly noted as being unable to recall specific
names, dates, and facts from her past. She affirms she used marijuana during the
1991-1992 time frame, during her divorce. She denied drug use between 1992 and
1999, but concedes she may have smoked marijuana one or two times while attending
college between 1996 to 1999. In what appears to be direct responses to specific
questions, she stated she did not recall using drugs since 1999 or in May 2002. Tthe
testimony is followed by a section bearing no letterhead.  It seeks affirmation from26
Applicant that she reviewed the report and affirmed its content as accurate. Her
signature and a notary seal indicate she was offered this review on December 13, 2007,
over a year after the 2006 interview. No reason is indicated for this delay.
For many years now, Applicant has been far removed from the “party” scene.27
She has “grown considerably” since her divorce and her use of marijuana. She now
lives a “clean life.”  That clean life is one with many adult responsibilities  and she no28 29
longer associates with her former marijuana indulgers or those who use drugs.  Since30
eschewing drugs and those who use them, Applicant has worked for and received both
a B.S. and a M.S. degree. She is busy with work, but also takes time to volunteer within
her community, helping the jobless and homeless in her community find work and self-
 Tr. 45-46.    31
 Tr. 20, 45.    32
 Tr. 19, 47.    33
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).    34
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).    35
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).    36
6
sufficiency.  She owns her own home and, with regard to her family, provides primary31
support for her elderly mother.  She helped her brother reverse a downward spiral32
toward suicide by helping him overcome drug and alcohol dependence, and she
continues to provide him with support today.33
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 a34
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  35 36
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
 Id.    37
 Id.    38
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.    39
7
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 access37
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily38
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the39
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
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. 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.
Applicant maintains she smoked marijuana around the time of her divorce, in
1991-1992, and used it about 10-20 times. That was her position when she completed
her first SF-86s and it remained her position at the hearing. The Government presented
evidence from intervening interviews, statements, and summaries bearing inconsistent
answers to the same questions regarding frequency and time frame of drug use. It
argues her successive inconsistent answers demonstrate she purposefully misled or
deceived the Government. However, Applicant’s inconsistencies on matters both of
relevance and on immaterial matters run throughout the documents discussed. She
repeatedly couches her answers in tentative terms and acknowledges her poor recall.
Lost on specific dates, she commonly has to make reference to her divorce (drug use)
or to her return to college (no drug use) to establish a time frame. The overwhelming
evidence demonstrates not that she lied or misled, but that she has poor recall with
 If this is a ploy, it has been adroitly executed with uncanny consistency for nearly a decade.     40
 Applicant has been at her most reliable, or at least most consistent, with regard to her SF-86s. Her allusion    41
to possibly having had a copy of her divorce decree at hand when she completed her SF-86s may provide a
clue that her answers on those forms were entered with documentary assistance to refresh her memory. 
8
regard to personal matters. Moreover, some of the interview summaries upon which the
Government depends contain wildly inconsistent statements. For example, the giant
leap from her having used marijuana 10-20 times to having used it 200 times. Such
discrepancies, especially in the case of an unsigned declaration or one signed over a
year after the fact, makes one ponder whether there is a transcription mistake or
interpretative misunderstanding at play. The one constant seems to be the Applicant’s
SF-86, which was apparently completed with the aid of documents, such as her divorce
decree. Given these facts, I do not find any of the Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Conditions applicable. 
In the alternative, however, if falsity is found, Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition (PC DC) 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 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) apply.
The evidence presented by the Government against Applicant comes directly
from her own statements and submissions, as well as from purported representations of
her statements. Applicant has overcome several obstacles to get where she is today, a
lauded professional in her particular field. In maintenance of a security clearance, she
has comported herself professionally, welcomed interviews, and conveyed appropriate
equivocation when she was unsure of an answer. Based on the record and her highly
credible appearance at the hearing, however, her recall with regard to her personal life
is poor and unreliable. The more a question is rephrased, the more visibly frustrated
she grows in not being able to be more precise. When persisted into giving a date
range or a guess, she often gave the latter equivocally. While it may be argued that a
selective memory is to her advantage with regard to the time frame of her marijuana
usage and the number of instances she abused drugs, her lack of recall has been
consistently shown to extend equally to minor and immaterial matters.  She40
misidentified her city, county, and state of birth on one SF-86 through simple
negligence. She apparently misidentified her year of birth on a form. She cannot
remember the number of surgeries her tragic accident required. She has varying
recollections as to what year she received her first security clearance.  She has lost41
contact information for siblings. She cannot remember the name of the professor who
accused her of plagiarism, although the incident almost jeopardized her academic
career. She is unable to recall the dates of her marriage or the date she was divorced.
She cannot remember when she returned to college in the 1990s, except that it was
after the time frame of her divorce. These latter two memory lapses are particularly
9
notable because they are repeatedly used to frame a reference for when she stopped
using marijuana. While her professional credentials and success portray her as a gifted
businesswoman, her statements and testimony consistently show that she can be
absent minded with regard to her personal life. To her credit, however, she has
consistently forewarned interviewers when she was unsure of dates, events, and
identities, so it is hard to imagine her memory lapses now are a matter of convenience.
Despite sufficient evidence that Applicant’s recall is imprecise, the Government
relies heavily on her inconsistencies. In particular, it relies on two exhibits to
demonstrate Applicant falsified or misled investigators. Those two exhibits, however,
are not without flaws. The May 2003 interview concerned answers to questions entered
on SF-86s dating back to 1999 and covering events occurring over a decade earlier. In
that interview, her answers varied wildly. She indicated she used marijuana 200 times
between late 1991 or early 1992 until 1999, using it once a month or every other month.
Yet the interviewer never asked how or why her drug use continued after 1992, when it
increased from 10-20 instances to 200 instances, or how such infrequent use could add
up to 200 incidents. The jump from 10-20 incidents to 200, in particular, is so
inconsistent it is striking. Applicant, however, never signed that statement and there is
no indication she was ever afforded the opportunity to review it. Such striking
inconsistency and the failure to offer Applicant an opportunity to review affect the
weight the statement should be given. Similar questions arise regarding the reliability of
the December 8, 2006, statement included in the oddly comprised Exhibit 5. It appears
Applicant was afforded the opportunity to review the statement attributed to her and to
note whether it accurately reflected her conversation. That opportunity, however, was
curiously and inexplicably not extended until December 13, 2007, over a year after the
interview. It would be difficult to expect anyone to reliably affirm or refute detailed notes
from a meeting over a year in the past. Again, such facts must be considered in
weighing the reliability of the document. Aside from issues regarding the weight of the
evidence, Given the flaws and weaknesses of these documents in contrast to
Applicant’s admitted difficulties with recall, Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC
MC) AG ¶ 17(f) (the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability) is applicable with regard to these statements. 
The July 9, 2003, statement appears to be the most reliable evidence presented,
although it also has a curious fault. The first page alludes to a two-page attachment that
is not appended to the document. Regardless, the statement is signed and there is no
indication Applicant objected to her statement with regard to drug use. That statement
limits her drug use to 10-20 times, which is consistent with all other allusions except the
wildly variant content in the unsigned statement from May 2003. Her date of last drug
use is extended beyond her divorce time frame.
With regard to her last drug use, Applicant prefaces her comments by stating, “I
did not indicate any drug use on my security form because I believe my last drug use
was prior to the last 7 years.” She then comes to her main point of departure
concerning past drug use – as based “[f]rom [her] own recollection,” she used
marijuana from the late 1991 to early 1992 period into late 1996 or early 1997. She then
notes that she was “disclosing this information because [she was] not definitely sure
 Of even less significance to the issues is Applicant’s following sentence, where she states that despite    42
being unsure, she is “certain that since 97 [she has] not been involved with any illegal drugs.” It simply affirms
no drug use since 1997; it does not necessarily admit or imply drug use prior to that year. 
 Even if Applicant’s drug use had continued until the end of her graduate program despite repeated    43
testimony she did not do drugs while in school, most of the following factors would still apply. 
10
about the year.” Aside from the repeatedly equivocal language and disclaimers, the
time frame is implausible. 
At the time, Applicant clearly meant to convey that her last drug use was prior to
the last seven years. She makes it clear that her suggestion of 1996/1997 is something
of a “guesstimate.” Whether indicating her 1999 SF-86 or the security form submitted in
May 2003, neither could account for a seven year gap since drug use, and she clearly
meant to assert that seven years had passed between drug use and security form. In
failing to provide any follow up to these statements, the interviewer was left with an
inconsistency.  Such a result offers little to substantiate the Government’s allegations.42
Therefore, PC MC AG ¶ 17(f) again applies. 
In the end, all the statements pertaining to Applicant’s drug use come from her or
are attributed to her. Inconsistency may indicate a lack of credibility or a scheme to
mislead, but it may also indicate a basic inability to recall accurately. Here, Applicant’s
gift for recall was demonstrated at the hearing to be weak, although she was otherwise
credible in testimony, demeanor, and delivery. Repeatedly, however, she has
expressed her contrition and cited to her drug use as an evil she started and practiced
during the time frame of her divorce.  Years have passed since Applicant’s divorce,43
she has not seen her ex-husband since that time, and she does not know his
whereabouts. She has since completed undergraduate school and earned a master’s
degree. She has thrown herself into her work and excelled in her chosen profession.
She devotes significant time to her family and community. She has distanced herself
from drug users. There is no indication she would use them again and no unrebutted
evidence she has used them since her divorce. She has accumulated numerous
personal and professional references as to her character today. She demonstrated her
willingness to give true statements about her past drug use despite a recollection deficit
for personal detail. PC MC AG ¶ 16(d) (the individual has acknowledged the behavior
and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to
alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur), PC MC AG ¶
16(c) (the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress), and PC MC AG ¶ 16 (g) (association with
persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or occurs under circumstances that do
not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness
to comply with rules and regulations) apply. 
 AG ¶ 30.    44
11
Criminal Conduct
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
untrustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with rules, laws, and regulations.  Conditions that could raise a44
security concern and may be disqualifying include Criminal Conduct Disqualifying
Conditions (CC DC) AG ¶ 31 (a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses, (b)
discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, (c)
allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was
formally charged, formally prosecuted, or convicted; (d) individual is currently on parole
or probation, and (e) violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-
mandated rehabilitation program.
The criminal conduct here is the allegation that Applicant misled investigators,
not her past drug use. Having previously determined Applicant did not intentionally
mislead or defraud, no Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) applies. 
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 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 mature, self-made woman who has overcome
adversity to complete her education and become a successful professional. The period
at issue concerns minimal to moderate marijuana in the 1990s, with no suggestion she
has used the substance in the last five years. Her documentary statements on the
matter come from 1999 to 2003. Consequently, both the personal and criminal conduct
at issue are matters now squarely in the past.
12
The Government culled from statements Applicant has made over the years to
expand her use of drugs to beyond the 1991-1992/divorce time period she claims. In
doing so, the Government contends Applicant falsified her SF-86 forms and mislead
investigators. Those same statements, however, hold their own inconsistencies or flaws
which bring their reliability into question. They also reflect the fact that Applicant’s
recollection with regard to personal matters – dates, people, and places – is poor. The
entire period between her marriage and her returning to college seems to be a blur,
including her drug use. In the end, it is a matter of “she said” versus what “she
tentatively said or was interpreted to have said.” Giving the most weight to Applicant’s
live testimony and her July 2003 statement, despite its missing attachment(s), Applicant
either ceased using marijuana around 1992 or the end of 1996, beginning of 1997.
Considering Applicant’s credible testimony and argument, and after rereading the July
2003 summation in context, it is clear that Applicant’s intent was to convey not a
specific year, but that she had not used marijuana for at least seven years prior to her
SF-86. That would automatically strike the late 1996/early 1997 benchmark as another
indication of faulty memory. 
Regardless, Applicant has raised significant mitigating conditions with regard to
both the personal and criminal conduct security concerns. An examination of the whole
person shows a mature woman devoted to her career, her work, her community, and
her family, with no other indications that raise issue with her veracity, trustworthiness,
and honesty, or her intent to remain drug free. It is clearly consistent with the national
security to continue Applicant’s security clearance. Clearance is granted. 
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 E: 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 J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2a: For Applicant
13
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is granted.
__________________________
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge