1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )     ISCR Case No. 07-18828
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom,  Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Louis B. Cappuccio, Jr., Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) on June 28, 2005.
On August 20, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guideline H and Guideline E that provided the basis for its decision to deny him a
security clearance. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective
within the Department of Defense as of September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on September 15, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 20,
2008, to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
To date the notice that was mailed to Applicant’s counsel had not been returned to DOHA by the U.S.1
Postal Service.
2
continue a security clearance for him. On November 21, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for
December 17, 2008. On or about December 15, 2008, I was informed that counsel for
Applicant had not received the notice  but that he and Applicant could be available on1
December 19, 2008. On December 15, 2008, I issued an amended notice rescheduling
the hearing for December 19, 2008.
At the hearing, Applicant waived the 15-day notice requirement set forth in E3.1.8
of the Directive. Nine government exhibits (Ex. 1-9) were admitted without any
objections, and Applicant was called as an adverse witness, having declined to offer
testimony in his behalf. The hearing transcript (Tr.) was received on December 31,
2008. I held the record open for two weeks after the hearing for Applicant to submit
documentation. By first class mail on December 30, 2008, Applicant forwarded through
his counsel a statement to which Department Counsel did not object. The document
was admitted as Exhibit A. Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and hearing
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) that Applicant used cocaine
with varying frequency from about 1980 to at least October 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that he
was placed in a diversion program following his arrest for illegal possession of cocaine
in October 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.b); that he used cocaine while holding a security clearance
granted in 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.c); that he used marijuana from at least 1975 to 1981 (SOR ¶
1.d); and that he pleaded nolo contendere to a 1981 possession of marijuana charge
(SOR ¶ 1.e). Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) Applicant was alleged to have
falsified a 1994 National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ) by indicating that he had tried
marijuana a couple of times in 1975 and had not used the drug since (SOR ¶ 2.a); that
he had falsified a February 2, 1995, sworn statement by denying any illegal drug use
other than marijuana (SOR ¶ 2.b); and that he falsified a June 2005 SF 86 by denying
any illegal drug use in the last seven years (SOR ¶ 2.c) and any illegal drug use ever
while possessing a security clearance (SOR ¶ 2.d). The use of cocaine while holding a
security clearance was also cross-alleged under Guideline E (SOR ¶ 2.e).
Applicant denied the allegations with the exception of his arrest for cocaine
possession in October 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.b) and the use of cocaine while holding a
clearance (SOR ¶ 2.e), which he asserted happened once. After considering the
pleadings and the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 51-year-old material technical aide who has been employed by a
defense contractor since December 1989. He currently possesses a secret-level
security clearance that was granted to him in October 2001. He and his ex-wife divorced
in November 2001 after 22 years of marriage. They had three children together, the
youngest of which is now 17. (Exs. 1, 2)
3
Applicant smoked marijuana on average twice a month when it was passed to
him at parties from about 1975 to 1981 (Ex. 6). In September 1981, he was arrested for
possession of marijuana. Heading to the beach with a friend, he had pulled over to he
side of the road and was rolling a marijuana cigarette when an officer approached and
arrested him. He pleaded nolo contendere, and the charge was filed for one year with
costs (Exs. 7, 8). Applicant has also used cocaine. Following his initial experimentation
in 1980, he snorted the drug once every two to three years to at least 2003 (Ex. 4).
In December 1989, Applicant began working for his present employer, and he
was issued a company-granted confidential clearance. Needing a Department of
Defense confidential security clearance for his duties, Applicant completed a NAQ on
June 2, 1994. He listed October 1975 larceny and October 1981 driving while
intoxicated charges to which he had pleaded nolo contendere, as well as a July 1983
disorderly conduct charge for which he was fined. He did not include his arrest for
marijuana possession. In response to question 20.a (“Have you ever tried or used or
possessed any narcotic (to include heroin or cocaine), depressant (to include
guaaludes), stimulant, hallucinogen (to include LSD or PCP), or cannabis (to include
marijuana or hashish), or any mind altering substance (to include glue or paint), even
one time or on an experimental basis, except as prescribed by a licensed physician?”),
Applicant indicated, “MARIJUANA TRIED A COUPLE OF TIMES IN 1975, DIDN’T LIKE
IT, NO USE SINCE, NO FUTURE INTENT.” (Ex. 3). Applicant did not disclose his use
of cocaine on his NAQ because he was scared he would not obtain his clearance if he
did so (Tr. 63). 
On February 2, 1995, Applicant was interviewed by a senior special agent with
the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) about his arrests and illegal drug involvement.
Applicant acknowledged his September 1981 arrest for possession of marijuana.
Applicant related that he had not reported this arrest on his NAQ because it did not
appear on the copy of his arrest record that he obtained from the local police.
Concerning his use of illegal drugs, Applicant admitted that he had used marijuana
about 1975 to 1981. He denied any intent to use marijuana in the future or any
involvement with other illegal drugs. Applicant explained that he did not disclose the full
extent of his marijuana use on his NAQ because he did not feel that the secretary who
assisted him with the form should know the particulars of his use. He knew he would
have an interview with the DIS and intended to disclose his actual use at that time. (Ex.
6). Applicant was granted a Department of Defense confidential clearance shortly
thereafter, in March 1995 (Exs. 1, 2).
In October 2001, Applicant’s security clearance was upgraded to secret (Exs. 1,
2). For a periodic reinvestigation for that clearance, Applicant executed a security
clearance application (SF 86) on June 28, 2005. In response to question 24 concerning
whether he had ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol
or drugs, Applicant listed a March 2000 DWI for which he was placed on probation for
one year. He responded “NO” to questions 27 (“Since the age of 16 or in the last 7
years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for
example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine,
4
codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone,
tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?”) and 28
(“Have you EVER illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a law
enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; while possessing a security
clearance; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting public safety?”). (Ex.
1)
In mid-October 2006, the state police had a local business under surveillance for
alleged illegal gambling activities. They observed an individual exit the business
carrying a partially concealed brown paper bag. Detectives pulled this person over for a
motor vehicle violation and they found wagering slips, betting guides, and ledgers, as
well as more than $1,000 in currency and some marijuana. As the police were
searching this person’s home, Applicant entered the residence unannounced. Asked
about his intentions, Applicant explained that he had just left the business where he had
heard that something was going on and that he wanted to check on the occupant of the
residence. Applicant appeared intoxicated. An officer conducted a “pat-down search” of
Applicant for safety reasons, and he found in Applicant’s right pocket a green package
containing a substance that tested positive for cocaine and a rolled one-dollar bill.
Applicant was arrested for felony possession of a schedule I-V controlled substance
(cocaine). Applicant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in June 2007. In late August
2007, he was placed in a pretrial diversion program, and on completion his case was
dismissed in early May 2008. (Ex. 5).
On June 5, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about
his arrest for possession of cocaine. Applicant related (in variance to the police report)
that he had been doing his laundry at a local laundromat when he decided to visit his
friend. He claimed that he was searched when he first arrived at his friend’s home, but
that nothing was found on him until he was detained and searched a second time.
Applicant admitted that a small amount of cocaine was then discovered in his pant
pocket. The charges against him were still pending but his lawyer had assured him the
charges would be dismissed due to the “unfounded second personal search.” According
to the investigator, Applicant denied any use of illegal drugs other than cocaine, which
he first used in 1980, and snorted at parties once every two to three years when it was
given to him. Applicant denied any use of cocaine since his recent arrest, or any intent
to use cocaine in the future. Applicant related that the cocaine found on his person had
been given to him at a party two days before his arrest but that he had last used
cocaine three years before his arrest (Ex. 4).
At DOHA’s request, Applicant subsequently reviewed the investigator’s report of
his June 2007 interview for its accuracy. On May 23, 2008, Applicant responded in part:
Investigator states that I use cocaine when people give it to me. The
investigator made this statement sound current when it is not. I did tell the
investigator that I had tried cocaine in the past at parties etc. This
experimentation with cocaine occurred in my early twenties and thirties. I
have in the past used bad judgment and made mistakes that I truly regret.
5
Applicant provided documentation showing that he had completed the court-ordered
adult diversion program as of mid-April 2008, and that the charges pending against him
would be dismissed (Ex. 4).
At his hearing on December 19, 2008, Applicant testified that he last used
marijuana “[y]ears and years and years ago . . . High school, a little after high school.”
Applicant subsequently admitted he had illegal possession of, and was smoking
marijuana, to his arrest in 1981 (Tr. 53). As for his last use of cocaine, Applicant
responded, “Again, I’m not sure of the date. It could have been 20, 25 years ago.” He
denied any use of cocaine since going to work for the defense contractor and averred
that he used cocaine only about five times total (Tr. 35). He maintained that he was
"under duress" when he told the government investigator in June 2007 that he had used
cocaine on average every two to three years (Tr. 43-44). He denied that he had used
cocaine after being granted a security clearance in 2001 (Tr. 49).
Concerning his arrest for illegal possession in October 2006, Applicant testified
that he had been at a party at a stranger’s house with “a bunch of people” that he had
met at a bar. As to how he happened to be given the cocaine, Applicant claimed he took
it just to be “sociable” and that he did not believe he would have used what he assumed
was cocaine at some later point (Tr. 36). Applicant denied that he had used any of the
cocaine given to him on that occasion or otherwise at the party before his arrest (Tr.
37). Applicant also denied that he deliberately withheld any information about his illegal
drug involvement on his applications for a security clearance (Tr. 47) until he was
questioned by me about the omission of cocaine use from his NAQ. On December 22,
2008, Applicant signed a statement of his intent to dissociate himself from drug-using
associates and contacts and to abstain from using and drugs with the understanding
that any violation would result in the immediate automatic revocation of his security
clearance (Ex. A).
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 overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
6
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
The security concern about drug involvement is set out in AG ¶ 24: “Use of an
illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and because it
raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations.” Police records confirm, and Applicant does not deny, that he was caught
with marijuana in his possession in September 1981 and with cocaine in his possession
in October 2006. Despite Applicant’s recent efforts to minimize the extent of his illegal
drug involvement (see Guideline E, infra), his prior admissions to government
investigators support factual findings of marijuana use on average twice a month from
1975 to 1981, and of cocaine use initially in 1980 and then on an estimated basis of
once every two to three years until at least 2003, if not to the date of his arrest in
October 2006. AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(c), “illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
7
drug paraphernalia,” and 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance,” apply.
Concerning the potential mitigating factors under AG ¶ 26, there is no evidence
showing Applicant has used or possessed any marijuana since his arrest in September
1981. However, AG ¶ 26(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
happened under such circumstances that it is likely to recur or does not cast doubt on
the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot be fully
applied because of his more recent cocaine abuse and possession. It is difficult to
believe that he did not use any cocaine at that party in October 2006, or, if he did not
use the cocaine, that he took it with no intent to use it in the future. Even if he last used
cocaine in 2003, his illegal possession of the drug in October 2006, especially while he
held a security clearance, raises serious doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness,
and judgment.
Applicant submitted post hearing a written statement indicating that he is
dissociated from drug-using associates (see AG ¶ 25(b)(1), “disassociation from drug-
using associates and contacts”), and that he does not intend to abuse any drugs in the
future with the understanding that his clearance would be revoked for any violation (see
AG ¶ 25(b)(4), “a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation”). Applicant’s credibility is suspect because of his deliberate falsifications
about his illegal drug involvement during the investigation and adjudication of his
security clearance. His uncorroborated claims are not sufficient to demonstrate the
intent required for mitigation under AG ¶ 25(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any
drugs in the future."
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern about personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
When Applicant applied for his confidential-level clearance in June 1994, he
claimed that he had tried marijuana only a couple of times in 1975 and had not used it
since (Ex. 3). His minimization of his marijuana involvement and omission of his cocaine
abuse from that NAQ raise potentially disqualifying security concerns under 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.” In a sworn statement of February 2, 1995, provided during a subject
8
interview, Applicant falsely denied any use of illegal drugs other than marijuana (“I have
never used or experimented with any other illegal drugs.”). 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,” also applies. 
Furthermore, on his security clearance application completed for continuation of
his secret-level security clearance in June 2005, Applicant again concealed his
involvement with cocaine by responding “No” to question 27 (any use of illegal drugs in
the last seven years), and question 28 (any use of illegal drugs while possessing a
security clearance). AG ¶ 16(a) applies to these falsifications.
Potential personal vulnerability issues are also raised by Applicant’s concealment
of relevant and material facts about his illegal drug involvement (see AG ¶ 16(e),
“personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging in activities
which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community
standing”).  Applicant told a government investigator in February 1995 that he had not
revealed the extent of his marijuana involvement on his June 1994 NAQ because he did
not think a secretary assisting him with the form had a reason to know the information.
He admitted to me at his security clearance hearing that he had not disclosed his
cocaine use on that form because he was concerned it could affect his clearance.
Applicant acknowledged to Department Counsel at his hearing that he had not told his
supervisor about his October 2006 drug arrest, but he contends that he did not have to
because his coworkers read about his arrest in the paper. He provided no corroboration
for that claim. AG ¶ 16(e) applies.
Also alleged was Applicant’s use of cocaine after he had been granted a security
clearance in 2001 (SOR ¶ 2.e).  Certainly Applicant exercised poor judgment that would
raise security concerns under AG ¶ 15, but that conduct is more directly addressed by
Guideline H (see AG ¶ 25(g)).
None of the pertinent mitigating conditions fully apply to his repeated
concealment of relevant and material facts concerning his illegal drug abuse history.
Although Applicant acknowledged in his February 1995 statement that his marijuana
use had been more extensive than he had reported on his June 1994 NAQ, his
concealment of his cocaine abuse from that statement and from his SF 86 completed in
June 2005 preclude favorable consideration of AG ¶ 17(a), “the individual made prompt,
good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being
confronted with the facts.” 
Applicant’s recent attempts to discredit his prior admissions of drug use
undermine his case for mitigation under either AG ¶ 17(c), “the offense is 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,” or AG ¶ 17(d), “the individual
9
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.” In May 2008, Applicant objected to the investigator’s use of the
present tense in June 2007 when discussing his cocaine abuse, as his “experimentation
with cocaine occurred in [his] early twenties and thirties.” While the investigator reported
Applicant’s use of cocaine in the present tense (“SUBJECT USES COCAINE RARELY
AND ESTIMATES HE USES COCAINE ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE YEARS”), the
investigator also indicated that Applicant last used cocaine three years prior to his
arrest. Had Applicant not used any cocaine in the past 20 or 25 years (Tr. 32), he likely
would not have told the investigator that his last use of cocaine occurred as recently as
2003. There is no evidence to suggest that the investigator had any reason to report
other than what Applicant told her. When confronted at his December 2008 hearing
about his previous estimate of cocaine use every two to three years, Applicant did not
deny that he made that statement:
I believe I wrote that in a rebuttal–I was pretty scared at the time and she
asked me when was the last time you did cocaine and I says I don’t know,
maybe two or three years or something like that. But I said it under duress;
That wasn’t an accurate statement . . .  It was just a blurt because I was
scared. I just wanted to move on. I said it to accommodate her. (Tr. 43)
Applicant would stand to gain little by admitting relatively recent cocaine use unless it
was the truth. He also admitted SOR ¶ 2.e (one-time use of cocaine while holding a
security clearance granted in 2001) when he answered the SOR. While he now claims
that it was not in his handwriting, he admits he “might have” completed his Answer with
the aid of his attorney (Tr. 49). By signing his Answer, Applicant adopted the responses
as his own.
Applicant claims that he has been “pretty much straight” with his coworkers about
his October 2006 cocaine arrest. Given his persistent unwillingness to provide a
credible account of his illegal drug involvement or of his motives for his NAQ and SF 86
omissions, AG ¶ 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress,” does not 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 in light of 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) the extent to
10
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 security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
Applicant was granted his confidential security clearance in 1995 after he had
falsely claimed on an NAQ and to a government agent that he had not used any illegal
drug other than marijuana. He continued to use cocaine, including on at least one
occasion after his clearance had been upgraded to secret in 2001, and he was placed in
a diversion program for an October 2006 illegal possession of cocaine offense.
Although the felony charge was dismissed in May 2008 on his completion of the
diversion program, and he has submitted a statement of intent to refrain from any future
illegal drug involvement, I am unable to conclude that his drug abuse is safely behind
him, or that his representations can be relied on. Applicant would now have the
government believe that he had put his cocaine abuse behind him some 20 to 25 years
ago, he just happened to be given a package of cocaine by unknown persons he felt
comfortable with by simply sharing a beer or two at a bar, and he did not use or intend
to use the cocaine in October 2006. His illegal possession of cocaine alone reflects
extremely poor judgment on his part. His lack of forthright testimony at his hearing about
his illegal drug involvement compounds the concerns for his judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness and his 19 years of employment with a defense contractor are not
sufficient to mitigate those concerns.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the
amended SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: Against Applicant
11
Subparagraph 2.e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant's eligibility for a
security clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                           
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge