1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 07-08640
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq. Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA), on November 24,
2006. On May 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under drug use (Guideline H),
and personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken pursuant to 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 made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued on or after
September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant’s undated answer to the SOR was received on or about June 13, 2008.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on July 28, 2008, and the hearing was held on August
14, 2008. At the hearing, three exhibits (GE 1 through GE 3) were admitted in evidence
without objection to support the government’s case. Applicant testified. After the
hearing, Applicant submitted character evidence from a former supervisor and current
coworkers. On August 19 and August 22, 2008, the government indicated no objection
2
to these exhibits being admitted in evidence. Department DOHA obtained a copy of the
hearing transcript on August 20, 2008. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains one allegation under the drug involvement guideline, and two
allegations under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant admitted all allegations. 
Applicant is 27 years old, single, with no children. He graduated from high school
in June 2000, and attended college for one semester. He has been working as a
material handler for his current employer since September 2005. He handles incoming
shipping items, assists in x-raying items that are transported into and around the facility,
and monitors items that leave the facility. He seeks a security clearance. 
Drug Involvement
Applicant began using marijuana in 2001 when he was 19 years old. His
marijuana use ended in late 2004 or early 2005. He provided his marijuana history in
answers to interrogatories (GE 2, September 2006) and answers to interrogatories (GE
3, October 2007) Curiosity and peer pressure were the two primary reasons he used the
drug about once a week either with friends or alone over a four-year period. He
occasionally purchased $5.00 worth of the drug wrapped in cigarette papers. The
largest quantity he ever purchased was $10.00 worth wrapped in two sets of cigarette
papers. Applicant never used any other illegal drug or misused any prescription drug. 
Fear of testing positive after a job-related, random drug test was one of the
reasons Applicant discontinued marijuana use. He also decided he did not want drug
use to be a part of his future. Finally, he realized he wanted more financial stability in his
future. In recent years, he obtained several high-interest loans from money lending
businesses (not banks) to help a relative pay attorney fees for an appeal of a personal
injury case.
Applicant has not used marijuana or any other drug since late 2004 or early
2005, and has no intention of using any drug in the future. He no longer associates with
those friends who used marijuana with him more than three years ago. 
Personal Conduct
On November 24, 2006, Applicant certified that the information he provided in his
security clearance application (SCA) was true and made in good faith. (GE 1, SCA,
certification section located just ahead of Applicant’s signature) Yet, in response to
question 24 a., requiring information about drug use since the age of 16 or in the last 7
years, Applicant answered “No,” even though he used marijuana about once a week
between 2001 and late 2004 or early 2005. He initially characterized the omission as a
mistake at the hearing. But, he knew he was hiding four years of marijuana use with his
3
“No” answer to question 24 a. He answered “No” to question 24 a. because he believed
that telling the truth would spoil his chances of receiving a security clearance. 
Character Evidence
Applicant’s supervisor for an unknown at his present employer wrote a character
statement indicating that Applicant is dependable and hardworking. Applicant submitted
a set of performance objectives for 2008. The exhibit does not show Applicant’s
performance ratings for the past three years. In a character statement provided by the
team leader (who signed the 2008 performance objectives), she indicated she worked
with Applicant on a daily basis, and found him to be a team player that follows
directions. Over the past three years, Applicant has always demonstrated
professionalism to the property officer, while two other coworkers, who have known
Applicant for about nine months, recommend him for a position of trust. 
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 flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation 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 ¶ 2b.
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. 
4
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an around-the-clock
responsibility between an applicant and the federal government. 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.
Drug Involvement (DI)
Drug Involvement casts doubt on a person’s willingness to comply with security
rules and regulations. 
Personal Conduct (PC) 
Providing dishonest or incomplete information during a security investigation
demonstrates poor judgment. 
ANALYSIS
Drug Involvement (DI) 
24. 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 or regulations.”
Applicant’s drug involvement falls within the scope of DI disqualifying condition
(DC) 25.a. (any drug abuse) and DI DC 24.c. (illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia) based on Applicant’s marijuana use, purchase, and possession of
materials to ingest the drug. Applicant used the drug on a weekly basis for more than
four years. He purchased the drug in $5.00 and $10.00 increments. It is reasonable to
assume he liked the drug’s effect as he occasionally used the drug by himself, or away
from the influence of peers. Finally, he used drug paraphernalia (papers). 
The first two DI mitigating conditions are potentially applicable to circumstances
of this case. The passage of almost four years affords a sufficient basis to apply DI
mitigating condition (MC) 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) in his favor. The
passage of time coupled with Applicant’s credible statements and testimony about
changing his life convince me that his past drug use will not recur. DI MC 26.b. ((1)
disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts, (3) an appropriate period of
5
abstinence) applies to Applicant’s decision to sever his ties with his drug using friends,
combined with the passage of almost four years of abstinence. The DI guideline is
resolved in Applicant’s favor. 
Personal Conduct (PC)
15. 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.”
Deliberate as opposed to unintentional omissions of material information are
cognizable under the PC guideline. Examples of unintentional omissions are those that
occur through haste, oversight or misunderstanding the question. 
Applicant’s deliberate falsification of his SCA in November 2006 falls within the
ambit of PC DC 16.a. (deliberate omission or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire to determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness) Based on Applicant’s initial testimony at the hearing indicating the
omission was a mistake, PC DC 16.b. (deliberately providing false or misleading
information concerning relevant facts to an investigator or other official government
representative) could be applied to interpret Applicant’s mistake explanation as really a
second attempt to conceal his history of marijuana use. However, I do not believe
Applicant was trying to conceal his marijuana use, given the detailed account he
provided of his marijuana history in GE 2, and GE 3, and the generally credible nature
of Applicant’s testimony. 
There are four mitigating conditions (MC) that are potentially applicable to the
circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: PC MC 17.a. (the individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment or falsification, before
being confronted with the facts); PC MC 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); and, PC MC 17.d. (the individual has
acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken
other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely
to recur). 
PC MC 17.a. is not applicable as Applicant did not make efforts to provide the full
scope of his drug history until he was asked about his drug use by the investigator in
September 2006. However, PC MC 17.c. and PC MC 17.d. are applicable because
Applicant’s deliberate falsification occurred only once, even though the falsification
occurred less than 16 months before the hearing. Within the last three and closer to four
6
years, Applicant admitted the illegality of his drug use and stopped using marijuana, he
discontinued his ties with his drug using friends, and developed a good work reputation
because of his trustworthiness and reliability. The PC guideline is found for Applicant. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC)
The AG indicates the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the whole person concept. Nine general policy factors define the WPC.
They are: (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 the participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress; and, (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Peer pressure is a potent influence on most teenagers and young adults.
However, Applicant continued to regularly use marijuana until he was 23. He purchased
the drug occasionally. Though he stopped using marijuana in late 2004 or early 2005,
he deliberately concealed his drug history from his SCA in November 2006. Weighing
against the deliberate falsification that occurred less than 16 months ago is the
favorable evidence persuading me Applicant will not repeat this adverse conduct in the
future. In late 2004 or early 2005, Applicant stopped using marijuana driven by a
concern for his future. He did not want to be caught by a drug test and potentially lose
his job. He stopped associating with drug users. The character evidence reflects he has
established a good employment record since September 2005. His coworkers applaud
his professionalism and dependability. He has taken remedial action in paying off the
expensive, high-interest loans. Having weighed and balanced all the evidence,
Applicant has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under the DI and PC guidelines. 
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 (Drug Involvement, Guideline H): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b. For Applicant
7
CONCLUSION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge