FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 07-06353
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert E. Coacher, Esq. 
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his most recent Security Clearance Application (SCA), on
March 15, 2006. On April 15, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
personal conduct (Guideline E), and criminal conduct (Guideline J). 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 effectively within the Department of
Defense for SORs issued on or after September 1, 2006. Based upon a review of the
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied. 
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on May 11, 2008. He
elected to have his case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. DOHA mailed a File
of Relevant Material (FORM, information provided to an applicant to support the
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
2
allegations of the SOR) to Applicant on December 30, 2008. He received the FORM on
January 5, 2009. His response was due on February 4, 2009. No response was
submitted. I was assigned the case on March 3, 2009. 
Rulings on Procedure
Subparagraph 2.a. incorrectly identifies subparagraphs 2.a., 2.d., 2.e., and 2.f. to
show criminal behavior and/or rules violations. There is only one subparagraph under
paragraph 2. Accordingly, the corrected references are subparagraphs 1.a., 1.d., 1.e.,
and 1.f. as examples of Applicant omitting material information about his drug use from
the government during a security investigation. The corrections are made to remedy an
administrative oversight, and do not affect the substantive rights of the parties. The
SOR shall be amended to conform the SOR to the evidence presented. See, Directive
E3.1.17.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 48 years old. He was married in 1987, and divorced in 2001. He
currently is involved in a spouse-like relationship. His security applications (SCAs),
Items 4, 5, and 6, show he has been employed as a property administrator with a
defense contractor since 1985. He has held a security clearance since February 1987.
He seeks a security clearance. 
The SOR includes six allegations under the personal conduct guideline, and one
allegation under the criminal conduct guideline. Applicant admitted all allegations. In
addition to Applicant’s admissions, I make the following factual findings. 
SOR 1.a. On January 31, 2005, Applicant was interviewed as a part of the
special access investigation with another agency of DoD. During this polygraph
interview, he was asked if he had used illegal drugs in the last seven years, and his
answer was “No.” Applicant was re-interviewed using a polygraph the next day. He
admitted using marijuana once in June 2004, but denied using the drug at any other
time (Id.). He furnished false information in his January 31, 2005-interview about using
marijuana because he was ashamed, and he did not want to jeopardize his employment
and security clearance (Item 7). 
SOR 1.b. Applicant’s special access application to another agency of DoD was
denied on May 3, 2005 (Item 9) because of his drug use in June 2004, when he was
being sponsored for special access, and while he held a Top Secret security clearance.
Applicant had also signed a DoD policy letter on February 25, 2004 acknowledging that
the use of illegal drugs while holding a security clearance was prohibited.
SOR 1.c. Applicant admitted in his sworn statement dated October 25, 2007
(Item 7), that he was aware of his responsibility to report his drug usage in June 2004,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
3
but did not make the disclosure until advised by a representative of another agency of
the DoD. Applicant’s disclosure of his drug use prompted an adverse information report
being filed against him. 
SOR 1.d. In Applicant’s sworn statement on October 25, 2007, he falsely stated
that his marijuana use in June 2004, which he reported in his March 21, 2006 SCA, was
the first time he admitted drug use on an SCA. In actuality, he admitted using marijuana
on three occasions: (1) in an SCA that he certified and signed on December 2, 1985
(Item 6), he indicated he used marijuana about twice; (2) in a signed sworn statement
dated January 24, 1986, Applicant recalled using marijuana about ten times between
1974 and 1976; and, (3) in an SCA dated March 12, 1991, Applicant stated he used
marijuana once in the fall of 1976.
SOR 1.e. In Applicant’s signed statement of October 25, 2007, he specifically
denied using marijuana in the mid-1970s, or in the 1976-1977 time frame. He falsely
claimed he used marijuana on only one occasion in June 2004, and at no other time.
SOR 1.f. In his SCA dated March 21, 2006, Applicant deliberately answered “No”
to question 32, requiring a truthful response to having had a clearance or access
denied. Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his special access application was
denied by another agency of DoD in May 2005.  
SOR 2.a. The deliberate omissions of information about his marijuana use in
subparagraphs 1.a., 1.d., 1.e., and 1.f., constitute a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1001, a federal law. All factual allegations under SOR 1 and 2 are found against
Applicant.
Character Evidence
On December 30, 2008, Applicant was sent a copy of the FORM. In an
explanatory statement attached to the FORM, Applicant was advised he had 30 days to
reply to the enclosed governmental exhibits, which the government intended to use to
substantiate the SOR allegations. Also, he was advised he could object to the exhibits
and/or other documents. He was advised he could access the Internet for decisions
made by DOHA Administrative Judges for guidance in the presentation of his case.
Finally, Applicant was informed in the final paragraph of the December 30 letter to call
Department Counsel if he had questions. Other than his admissions in his answer to the
SOR on May 11, 2008, Applicant provided no information in response to the FORM. 
Items 4 (SCA, March 21, 2006), 5 (SCA, March 12, 1991), and 6 (SCA,
December 1985) indicate Applicant has worked for his current employer since July
1985. Sometime in the 1990s, Applicant’s position was renamed from “security
coordinator” to “property administrator.” There is no information in the SCAs or in other
locations in the file describing Applicant’s job responsibilities. Items 4, 5 and 6 also
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
4
provide the names and addresses of seven individuals Applicant described as character
references and/or individuals who know him well. Applicant supplied no other
information about these individuals, and/or whether they are aware that he deliberately
provided false information about his drug use during his security investigation over the
years.
Policies
As set forth in Appendix 8 of the Regulation, every recommended personnel
security decision must be a fair and impartial, overall commonsense decision based on
all available evidence, both favorable and unfavorable. The decision must be arrived at
by applying the standard that the grant or continuance of a security clearance or access
to classified information must be clearly consistent with the interests of national security.
The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
eligible for a security clearance. The adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a
number of variables in considering the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we
should view a person by the totality of their acts, omissions, motivations and various
other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into account all
relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis. No unfavorable personnel security clearance or access determination may be
made without granting the individual concerned the procedural benefits set forth in the
Regulation. See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access
or sensitive information).
In all adjudications, the protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. Therefore, any reasonable doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access to classified information must 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 speculation or guesswork. 
Analysis
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.” 
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
5
This guideline applies to intentional attempts to conceal or omit information from
an SCA or an interview or a sworn statement. Whether an omission is intentional or
deliberate, depends on the circumstances of each case. Applicant admitted deliberately
omitting material information about his marijuana use from a January 2005 interview, an
October 2007 sworn statement, and a March 2006 SCA. Applicant’s deliberate
omissions to all subparagraphs under paragraph 1 completely undermine the
believability of his statements describing his marijuana use over the years. His false
statements in interviews and sworn statements invoke PC DC 16.b. (deliberately
providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer,
investigator or other official government representative). The false information he
provided in SCAs activates PC DC 16.a. (deliberate omission, falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness). 
There are three mitigating conditions (MC) under the PC guideline 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 has not made
any effort to provide the full scope of his drug history. Even though he was confronted a
second time with a polygraph in January 2005, he furnished an incomplete account of
his drug history. He had an additional opportunity to set the record straight by
responding to the FORM, and declined. PC MC 17.a. does not apply. 
PC MC 17.c. is inapplicable because Applicant’s deliberate falsifications were not
isolated. Rather, they constituted a pattern of dishonesty dating to at least 1985, that
cannot be credibly reconciled as minor. The second element of the condition cannot be
applied as the most recent falsification occurred less than 18 months before January 5,
2009, when Applicant received the FORM. 
Rehabilitating dishonest behavior begins with accepting full responsibility for
one’s conduct. The favorable mitigation Applicant receives under the first element of PC
MC 17.d. in acknowledging the behavior is reduced by Applicant’s decision not to
describe the full scope and history of his drug use. Further, PC MC 17.d. calls for
additional evidence to be taken into consideration under the condition. Applicant has
presented no evidence that demonstrates he has taken positive steps to prevent his
drug use from recurring. Without positive action to reduce the chances for drug use in
the future, there remains corresponding concerns about the recurrence of Applicant’s
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
6
drug involvement as well as his vulnerability to pressure and coercion in the future. The
PC guideline is found against Applicant. 
Criminal Conduct (CC)
30. The Concern. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.” AG ¶ 30
The two disqualifying conditions under the CC guideline applicable to the
circumstances of this case are CC DC 31.a. (a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses) and CC DC 31.c. (allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). On several
occasions since 1986, Applicant intentionally omitted material information (information
the government has a legitimate right to know about to make an informed decision
regarding an applicant’s security suitability) about his drug use. Applicant’s intentional
omissions between 1991 and October 2007 represent felonious criminal conduct under
18 U.S.C. § 1001. 
I have carefully considered the mitigating conditions, however, I conclude that
none apply. CC MC 32.a. (so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior
happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and good
judgment) does not apply since Applicant’s most recent omission occurred less than 18
months ago. Applicant’s decision not to respond to the FORM continues to cast
concerns on his judgment and reliability. 
CC MC 32.d. (there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not
limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive
community involvement) has only limited application. Though Applicant’s October 2007-
sworn statement reflects his remorse for lying about his drug use, that remorse did not
stop him from continuing to provide false information about his drug history in his
October 2007 statement. Though his tenure at his current employer of 23 years infers a
good employment record, that inference is tenuous without performance evaluations,
character endorsements, and certificates/awards praising his job performance.
Applicant’s criminal conduct has not been mitigated.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
7
Whole Person Concept (WPC) 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the PC and CC guidelines. I have also weighed the circumstances of this case within
the context of nine variables known as the whole person concept: 
(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) the extent to
which the participation was 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. AG ¶ 2(a)
In 1985, Applicant was 25 years old, and had just started working for the
predecessor of his current employer. He stated in an SCA in December 1985 that he
tried marijuana a couple of times. About a month ½ later, he stated he used the drug
about 10 times between 1974 and 1976. Yet, in an SCA in 1991, Applicant changed his
story (use only in the Fall of 1976) a third time in six years. In January 2005, Applicant
provided still a fifth account of using marijuana on only one occasion in June 2004,
which he recounted in a sworn statement in October 2007. Though his October 2007
clearly shows his understanding of the reporting requirements for security violations, he
has yet to demonstrate the commonsense rule of telling the truth about his drug use. By
presenting no evidence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes, there appears to
be a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of his drug use that requires a finding
against Applicant under the PC and CC guidelines. 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.f Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Criminal Conduct, (Guideline J): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. Against Applicant
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
8
Conclusion\
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge