1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 08-04456
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 1973 to at least
August 2007, including while he held a security clearance, and he was diagnosed with
marijuana dependence. He deliberately omitted his marijuana involvement from
security clearance applications completed in January 2000 and August 2007 and during
in-person interviews in October and November 2007. He also misrepresented the extent
of his abuse in his June 2008 response to interrogatories. Drug abuse and personal
conduct concerns are not fully mitigated. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on August 14, 2007. On November 26, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline H and Guideline E that provided the basis for its
action to deny him a security clearance and refer the matter to an administrative judge.
DOHA misquoted the question in the SOR to allege whether Applicant had ever illegally used a1
controlled substance while “processing” rather than the correct “possessing a security clearance.”  However,
Applicant expressed no confusion and he admitted the allegation.
2
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 January 13, 2009, and requested a
hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. The case was assigned to another DOHA
administrative judge on February 18, 2009, and transferred to me on March 3, 2009. On
March 13, 2009, I scheduled a hearing for April 1, 2009.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. The government submitted four exhibits
(Ex. 1-4) and Applicant one exhibit (Ex. A), which were admitted without any objections.
Applicant testified on his behalf, as reflected in a hearing transcript (Tr.) received on
April 9, 2009.
At Applicant’s request, I held the record open for two weeks after the hearing for
Applicant to submit a written, signed statement of his intent to refrain from illegal drug
use in the future. Applicant forwarded a notarized statement on April 13, 2009. On April
16, 2009, Department Counsel indicated the government did not object to its admission,
and the document was marked and admitted as Exhibit B.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline H (drug involvement) that Applicant used
marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1996 to August 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.a),
including after he had been granted a security clearance in September 2000 (SOR ¶
1.c); that he purchased marijuana at times over an extended period for his personal use
(SOR ¶ 1.b); and that he received outpatient treatment from 1996 to July 2008 for
diagnosed alcohol and marijuana dependence, major depression, and anxiety (SOR ¶
1.d). Applicant was alleged under Guideline E (personal conduct) to have falsified a
January 2000 security clearance application (SF 86) (SOR ¶ 2.a) and an August 2007
e-QIP (SOR ¶ 2.b) by falsely denying any illegal drug use in the last seven years; to
have also falsified the August 2007 e-QIP by falsely denying any illegal drug use while
possessing a security clearance (SOR ¶ 2.c);  to have deliberately failed to disclose1
during an October 2007 interview that he had been treated for marijuana dependence
as well as for alcohol abuse and to have claimed he was sober when he was drinking
alcohol on a daily basis (SOR ¶ 2.d); to have failed to disclose during a followup
interview in November 2007 that he had been diagnosed with and treated for marijuana
dependence, major depression, and anxiety (SOR ¶ 2.e); and to have misrepresented
his marijuana use in his June 2008 response to interrogatories (SOR ¶ 2.f). Applicant
Applicant admitted that he first used marijuana at age 16, well before the time frame alleged in the2
SOR.
3
admitted the allegations, and the facts admitted are incorporated in the factual findings.
After review and consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, and hearing transcript, I make
the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is a 52-year-old “principle specialist-technical writer” who has worked
for his employer, a defense contractor, since December 1999. He seeks a top-secret
security clearance after having held a secret clearance since 2000 (Tr. 26).
Applicant served four years in the U.S. military from November 1976 to October
1980 (Tr. 32). In June 1983, he married his first wife and they had two sons, who were
born in 1986 and 1988. Applicant’s first marriage ended in divorce in December 1998
(Ex. 1). His sons resided with him (Ex. 2).
Applicant was granted his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in June
1986 (Ex. 2, Tr. 31). Shortly thereafter, he was granted a secret-level security clearance
for his job with a defense contractor (Ex. 2, Tr. 32-33). He held that clearance until mid-
1988 when he became unemployed. He did not require a security clearance for his work
in the commercial sector as a controls engineer from January 1989 to November 1994
and then as an electrical engineer from November 1994 to February 1997 (Tr. 32).
Following six months of unemployment, he worked as a contract engineer for little over
two years before commencing his current employment in late December 1999 (Ex. 1,
Ex. 2).
Applicant began using marijuana at age 16 in social contexts (Tr. 32, 44).  As the2
years passed, he began to use marijuana to self-medicate, to deal with the emotional
toll of marriage to a woman with serious mental health and physical incapacitation
issues (Ex. 3, Tr. 44-46). He obtained the drug from in-laws and friends (Tr. 44), buying
it on occasion for his personal use. In about 1997, Applicant began outpatient
counseling for diagnosed major depression and marijuana dependence (Ex. 4). He was
placed on Wellbutrin medication by a psychiatrist at the treatment center, and continued
to take the drug on and off. He did “extremely well” when he took the medication, but felt
isolated and depressed when he was off the drug. Applicant had his medication
renewed every month or two from April 1998 to March 1999. During a session in July
1999, Applicant indicated that he could not take time off from work for a therapy
appointment, but that he was not using any mood-altering substances. In October 1999,
he telephoned the counseling center and requested Wellbutrin. He met with the
psychiatrist in December 1999 and reported a significant decrease in stress in that he
had a new job with a defense contractor and he had a girlfriend who was moving in with
him (Ex. 4).
On January 21, 2000, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF
86) for a secret-level security clearance for his new job. He responded “No” to question
27 concerning whether he had illegally used any controlled substances since the age of
Applicant testified that alcohol became his drug of choice about a year into his second marriage.3
Although he indicated it occurred in 2001 (Tr. 54), medical record information indicates he was using
marijuana heavily in September 2002 (Ex. 4).
4
16 or in the last seven years, whichever was shorter. He also responded “No” to
whether he had  ever illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a security
clearance (Ex. 2). Applicant chose to not disclose his past marijuana use because of a
perceived stigma attached to illegal drug involvement (Tr. 27-28, 35). Applicant was
granted his secret clearance in September 2000 (Answer).
Applicant met with his psychiatrist in March 2000 and in June 2000. By the latter
session, he had stopped taking the Wellbutrin on his own because he felt “great.”  There
is no indication that he met with his psychiatrist at the center in 2001. In October 2001,
Applicant married his second wife, becoming a stepfather to three young adults and a
12-year-old (Ex. 1). Applicant had met his second wife at a Narcotics Anonymous
meeting. Applicant and his spouse both drank alcohol, but he did not recognize it as a
problem because he could leave alcohol alone after one or two drinks (Ex. 4).
By September 2002, Applicant was smoking marijuana chronically, smoking the
drug “nonstop” at times. On September 30, 2002, he met with the psychiatrist at the
center. Applicant admitted he had used marijuana within the last two weeks, to relax
and because it lessened his depression. He reported mood swings when he ran out of
marijuana. Applicant also reported drinking alcohol when angry and depressed,
increased drinking with his spouse, and altercations when they drank. Applicant was
diagnosed with major depression, marijuana dependence, and alcohol abuse. In the
opinion of the psychiatrist, he had fairly good insight but exhibited some minimization of
his drinking problem and some ambivalence about getting sober (Ex. 4).
Applicant managed only short periods of sobriety from marijuana and alcohol
thereafter, although alcohol eventually became his drug of choice.  By the summer of3
2004, he was drinking alcohol on a daily basis, but he managed to earn a second
bachelor’s degree in June 2004 (Ex. 1, Ex. 4). In the summer of 2004, Applicant had a
serious altercation with his spouse, who was also an active alcoholic. Applicant left the
house and was followed by his 18-year-old son, who brought him back home. His son
then drove off only to be arrested for operating without a license. Applicant resolved to
work on regaining his sobriety after this incident. He reconnected himself to self-help
(Alcoholics Anonymous or AA) meetings and went back to the psychiatrist in November
2004 for medication management and a psychiatric evaluation. Applicant was
diagnosed with marijuana dependence, alcohol dependence, and recurrent major
depression, and restarted on Wellbutrin. He was advised to return to the clinic in two to
three weeks. Applicant continued to meet with the psychiatrist on a monthly basis
through mid-May 2005. He reported improved mood with sobriety and meetings,  but his
spouse was still drinking as of mid-February 2005. In early April 2005, Applicant
reported a relapse in March 2005, but that he had been sober for the two weeks
preceding his session. He was started on Campral to treat increased cravings for
alcohol but stopped taking the medication on his own. He continued to meet with his
Applicant testified that he has seen a therapist at the center every two to three weeks for the past4
ten years. The record available for review does not include any notes of any sessions from the therapist. To
the contrary, there is no indication he was seeing the therapist in 2004, and his psychiatry progress note of
April 18, 2008, indicates that he was seeing the therapist rarely. (Ex. 4)
The psychiatry progress notes included in the record fail to confirm any sessions between June 20005
and September 2002, from October 2002 to November 22, 2004, or from October 2005 to August 2007 (see
Ex. 4).
5
psychiatrist for medication management until September 2005. In a follow-up session
with the psychiatrist for medication management on September 28, 2005, Applicant
reported he was still taking his Wellbutrin and his mood was stable, but that he had
resumed drinking alcohol with his spouse. He was ambivalent about medical advice to
abstain (Ex. 4).
Applicant and his second wife separated in April 2007 over parenting issues.
Applicant’s spouse moved to an apartment with her teenage son while her other
children lived on their own (Ex. 1). On August 6, 2007, Applicant returned to the
psychiatrist for medication. He had recent slips with drinking and marijuana use. He was
diagnosed with major depression, alcohol dependence, and marijuana dependence, and
his Wellbutrin and Campral medications were renewed. Applicant declined
psychotherapy treatment,  and the psychiatrist recommended that he complete 90 AA4
meetings in 90 days (Ex. 4).
On August 14, 2007, Applicant completed an e-QIP in application for a top-secret
clearance (Tr. 26). He listed alcohol-related and mental health treatment with the
psychiatrist in response to inquiries about his medical record and uses of alcohol from
about June 2000 to present. He responded “No” to question 24.a concerning illegal use
of any controlled substance in the last 7 years or since age 16, and to question 24.b
concerning any illegal use of a controlled substance ever while possessing a security
clearance. By signing the e-QIP, he certified that his statements on the form were “true,
complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [were] made in good
faith.” (Ex. 1). He knowingly withheld the information about his illegal drug use, again
because of the stigma attached to such drug abuse (Tr. 35-36).
Applicant met with his psychiatrist on October 5, 2007, for about 15 minutes to
assess his need for ongoing medication. Applicant reported that he was drinking alcohol
daily but not using illegal drugs. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and
referred for possible detoxification treatment. No medication was prescribed for him
during that session (Ex. 4).
On October 9, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator
about his contacts with the psychiatrist and his drinking. He averred that he had
received voluntary alcohol treatment with the psychiatrist on average once a month
since 2000.  Concerning his drinking, he indicated it escalated after his first marriage5
ended, and he drank hard liquor to intoxication three to four times a week. He claimed
he had been sober for about a year. He denied any illegal drug involvement, and
6
asserted that his SF 86 was accurate with some exceptions. He made no effort to
correct his negative responses to the illegal drug questions (Ex. 3, Tr. 27, 36). On
November 20, 2007, Applicant was reinterviewed for further details about his
counseling. Applicant admitted that he had been diagnosed as alcohol dependent but
denied he had been diagnosed with any other issues or involvement with drugs other
than alcohol. He expressed drinking was no longer problematic for him as he was
abstaining from alcohol (Ex. 3).
Applicant told his psychiatrist during a session on April 18, 2008, that he had
been sober about 30 days and was attending meetings. He again declined any ongoing
psychotherapy and requested that he remain off any medications. He was advised of
the potential risks/dangers of recurrence but was given no prescriptions (Exhibit 4).
In response to interrogatories from DOHA inquiring in part about whether he had
ever used any illegal drug, Applicant indicated on June 5, 2008, that he had used
marijuana “sporadic periodically 2-3 occurrences every 1 to 2 years” and that he had
abstained since about August 2007 and had no future intent to use illegal drugs. He
answered “Yes” to whether he had ever possessed any drug paraphernalia and added,
“Marijuana, various sporadic occurrences, alone at home.” He also answered “Yes” to
any purchase of illegal drugs, and indicated “Marijuana, random infrequent past
occurrences, circumstances, and expenditures.” He denied any current association with
persons or places with a potential for illegal drug activity. He provided a letter from his
psychiatrist dated May 23, 2008, in which she indicated he was compliant with his
current treatment, and she found no active symptoms that would indicate a flaw in his
judgment or reliability in the context of safeguarding classified information (Ex. 3). At his
next session with the psychiatrist on July 11, 2008, Applicant reported he had been
“clean and sober” since March 8, 2008. At his request, he was restarted on Wellbutrin
for diagnosed major depression and anxiety. He was advised to continue with AA
meetings and to return in one month (Ex. 4). 
As of February 27, 2009, Applicant was still under the care of his psychiatrist.  He
was seeing her once every six months (Tr. 41). To the psychiatrist’s knowledge,
Applicant remains fully compliant with his treatment and highly motivated for sobriety
with regular AA attendance (Ex. A). On April 13, 2009, Applicant submitted a notarized
statement of his intention to permanently abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs with
the understanding that his failure to do so would result in automatic revocation of his
security clearance. Applicant also express a willingness to submit to random drug and
alcohol testing to confirm his compliance (Ex. B). As of early April 2009, Applicant was
attending AA meetings six to eight times a week (Tr. 42). He has had his current
sponsor in AA since April 2008 (Tr. 50). His sponsor has 15 years of sobriety (Tr. 51).
Applicant’s employer and coworkers are still unaware of his past involvement with
marijuana (Tr. 43).
7
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security
emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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.
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
8
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Drug Involvement
The security concerns raised by illegal drug involvement are 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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed
in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
Applicant started using marijuana socially at age 16. He eventually turned to
marijuana to cope with the stress of marriage to his first wife, and in 1997, he was
diagnosed with marijuana dependence by his psychiatrist. As of September 2002, he
was using marijuana at times “nonstop.” Applicant’s psychiatrist again diagnosed him
with marijuana dependence in September 2002 and in November 2004. While he had
turned primarily to alcohol in recent years, he continued to smoke marijuana on
occasion until about August 2007. He bought the drug for his personal consumption
over the years from family and friends. Under Guideline H, four potentially disqualifying
conditions are implicated: AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(c), “illegal drug
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; 25(d), “diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse
or drug dependence”; and 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance.”
Even though Applicant’s abuse of marijuana had declined in recent years, to as
infrequently as two or three times yearly or every two years (Tr. 39), the chronic nature
of his previous abuse and the duration of his marijuana involvement (over 20 years)
precludes the application of AG ¶ 26(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so
infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not
9
cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” AG
¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future,” applies in that he
avoids situations and persons who use illegal drugs (AG ¶ 26(b)(1), “disassociation from
drug-using associates and contacts”), and he submitted “a signed statement of intent
with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation” (AG ¶ 26(b)(4)). It must be
noted in his favor that there is no clear evidence of marijuana use after summer 2007
despite increased feelings of anxiety and stress. He showed good judgment in returning
to his psychiatrist and asking to be restarted on Wellbutrin as of July 2008. As of
February 2009, his psychiatrist found him to be highly motivated for sobriety, based at
least in part on Applicant’s self-report of sobriety and continued regular attendance at
AA. Applicant has a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional under
AG ¶ 26(d), “satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including
but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse,
and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional,” although I cannot
conclude that Applicant has completed a drug treatment program of the type
contemplated within AG ¶ 26(d). His sessions with the psychiatrist  are only 15 minutes
in duration and appear to be focused on adjusting his medication for his depression.
Available progress notes of his outpatient sessions do not confirm ongoing counseling
with a therapist as of 2008. Applicant presented nothing from his AA sponsor or others
in AA to corroborate progress made in his recovery through the AA program.
Personal Conduct
The security concerns about personal conduct are 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.
Applicant intentionally concealed his involvement with marijuana when he first
applied for his security clearance for his present employment in January 2000. He
responded “No” to question 27 (any illegal use of controlled substances, including
marijuana since age 16 or in the last seven years) on his January 2000 SF 86 because
of the stigma associated with such drug use. He was issued his secret clearance in
September 2000 based on false information. On an August 2007 e-QIP completed for a
clearance upgrade, he reported his counseling with the psychiatrist, but responded “No”
to questions 24.a concerning any illegal drug use in the last seven years, and 24.b, any
illegal use of a controlled substance ever while possessing a security clearance. He
knowingly concealed his drug involvement, again because he feared the stigma
attached to illegal drugs. Disqualifying condition 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
10
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities,” is implicated because of
his falsifications of his security clearance applications.
Moreover, 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,” must also be considered
as a disqualifying factor. Applicant falsely denied during a personal subject interview on
October 9, 2007, that he had been involved with illegal drugs. He also indicated that he
had been sober for the past year when only two days before, he had told his psychiatrist
that he was drinking alcohol on a daily basis, and his psychiatrist had referred him for
possible detoxification treatment. He made several corrections to his security clearance
application during the interview, but did not correct his negative responses to the drug
inquiries. When he was reinterviewed on November 20, 2007, to discuss his counseling,
he denied any diagnoses other than alcohol dependence, and again denied involvement
with drugs other than alcohol. Applicant now submits that in contrast to his first
interview, his intent in November 2007 was to disclose his drug involvement “in the
medical context” (Tr. 37), and that he signed releases for the treatment records that
would reflect his drug use. The available record does not contain the releases that
Applicant claims he signed at the time, nor do the investigator’s summaries of the
interviews indicate that Applicant signed releases. On June 5, 2008, in response to
DOHA interrogatories, Applicant answered “Yes” to whether he had ever used any
illegal drug, to include cannabis, but he described his marijuana involvement as
“sporadic, periodically 2-3 occurrences every 1 to 2 years” with abstinence since about
August 2007. Admission of limited drug use, and through medical records his more
extensive abuse of the past, does not eliminate the personal conduct concerns.
Applicant’s concealment of his illegal drug use from his security clearance
applications and during his subject interviews also implicates 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 is
known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing.” While
Applicant is not required to inform his coworkers about his drug abuse, he continues to
conceal his involvement even from his employer (Tr. 43).
None of the mitigating conditions in AG ¶ 17 fully mitigate the personal conduct
concerns raised by his repeated concealment of relevant and material facts concerning
his drug involvement. Applicant deliberately concealed his marijuana use when he
completed his January 2000 SF 86 and his August 2007 e-QIP, and during two personal
subject interviews in the fall of 2007. AG ¶ 17(a), “the individual made prompt, good-
faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being
confronted with the facts,” does not apply. His unacceptable tendency to put his
personal interest ahead of his obligation of candor raises serious doubts about his
judgment, reliability, and candor, so 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,” is also not satisfied.
11
Applicant has partially acknowledged his behavior in that he authorized the
release of his treatment records to DOHA on October 14, 2008 (Ex. 4), and he admitted
during his hearing that he had knowingly and willfully withheld information about his
marijuana involvement from his security clearance applications and during his first
subject interview because of the stigma associated with illegal drug use. Admitting error
is an essential element in rehabilitation and is required under AG ¶ 17(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.” Yet, when asked about his May 2008 disclosure of only sporadic
marijuana involvement on two to three occurrences yearly or every two years, Applicant
responded that it was his actual use as best as he could recall (Tr. 39). This account of
his marijuana use cannot be reconciled with the diagnosis of marijuana dependence, or
with his subsequent admission that marijuana became an addiction issue until alcohol
began to take over (Tr. 44). When asked about the diagnosis of marijuana dependence,
Applicant responded, “I mean some of this terminology, just, to me, it’s pretty highly
subjective terminology, I just, I mean as far as sporadic versus periodic or chronic.” (Tr.
51). Although he had told DOHA that he had last used marijuana in about August 2007,
he now claims to not recall the date of his last use other than he has been clean and
sober since March 2008 (Tr. 49). The government still does not have a reasonably
accurate accounting from Applicant of his history of marijuana use. In light of his
extensive abuse at times in the past as the diagnosis of marijuana dependence would
indicate, it is understandable that he would be unable to recall the specific dates on
which he used marijuana. At the same time, it is difficult to believe he would not
remember the circumstances of his use of marijuana. While he denies vulnerability
because of his efforts to conceal his marijuana use, based on the facts of record, I am
unable to fully apply either AG ¶¶ 17(d) or 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps
to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
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) the 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.
Treatment is not viewed negatively. A finding against Applicant is warranted because of history of6
relapses, including chronic use of marijuana at times, after he began a therapeutic relationship with his
psychiatrist.
12
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept. I have incorporated my comments
under Guideline H and Guideline E in my whole person analysis. Some of the factors in
AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional
comment.
Applicant’s abuse of marijuana spanned more than 20 years. He turned to the
drug to cope with stress while he held a security clearance. Even after he married his
second wife, and he began to drink more heavily, he continued to smoke marijuana on
occasion. As of September 2002, he described his marijuana involvement to his
psychiatrist as “nonstop.” He has a history of relapses into drinking and marijuana use
in subsequent years, usually coinciding with times when he was not taking his
medication for his depression. His sobriety since March 2008 is a positive development
in overcoming his addictions, but it is too soon to conclude that his marijuana abuse is
safely in the past given his history. Furthermore, his recent admissions of illegal drug
involvement are not sufficient to overcome the judgment concerns raised by his
repeated deliberate falsifications. Based on all the information presented, I am unable to
conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
access to classified information.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant6
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
Subparagraph 2.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: Against Applicant
13
Conclusion
In light of the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge