1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-04604
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s 30-year history of illegal drug use, his two drug-related arrests, and
his failure to be forthcoming about his drug involvement on two security clearances
applications make him an unacceptable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
Statement of the Case
On April 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing a security concern under Guidelines
H, Drug Involvement, and E, Personal Conduct. 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 for SORs issued after September
1, 2006. 
See Evidentiary Ruling section of Decision, infra.1
2
Applicant answered the SOR on April 22, 2009, denying all of the allegations.
The case was assigned to me on August 12, 2009. On August 31, 2009, a notice of
video-teleconference was issued scheduling the case for September 23, 2009. The
hearing was conducted as scheduled. I received 13 government exhibits, marked and
identified as Exhibits 1 through 13, and 18 Applicant exhibits, marked and identified as
Exhibits A through R. Department Counsel objected to Exhibit A, and I reserved
judgment.  I also received the testimony of two Applicant witnesses. The transcript was1
received on September 30, 2009.
Evidentiary Ruling
Exhibit A sets forth the results of a drug test. The date on the exhibit is two
weeks after the hearing. Also, the results are in a foreign language. Department
Counsel objected arguing that Exhibit A lacked a proper foundation. I reserved
judgment on Exhibit A’s admissibility, and left the record open at Applicant’s request to
provide him an opportunity to submit a translated copy and any other supplementary
documentation clarifying when he underwent drug testing (Tr. 24). 
On September 29, 2009, Applicant provided three additional documents. I
marked them as follows: 
Exhibit S - Drug Test dated May 26, 2009; 
Exhibit T - Drug Test dated September 8, 2009; and, 
Exhibit U - Drug Test dated October 6, 2009.
Department Counsel renewed his objections to their admissibility.
Like Exhibit A, Exhibits S and U are in a foreign language. Exhibit T is in English.
Upon considering Applicant’s motion for admission of these documents and Department
Counsel’s objections, I hereby deny Applicant’s motion to admit Exhibits A, S, and U,
and grant his motion to admit Exhibit T.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50-year-old man with two children, ages 19 and 12. Two prior
marriages ended in divorce. His first wife is the mother of the older child and his second
wife is the mother of the younger child. Currently, Applicant lives with his girlfriend and
her two teenage sons (Exhibit K).
Applicant graduated from high school in 1977. Two years later he joined the U.S.
Army where he served for seven years until his honorable discharge in 1986 (Exhibit 8
at 11).
3
Since leaving the military, Applicant has worked in the telecommunications field
(Exhibit 10 at 1; Tr. 31). Among other things, he develops communication networks for
the military in various combat theaters, and maintains battle command video wall
displays (Exhibits Q, L). He has deployed with the military to multiple combat theaters
during the past 20 years (Exhibit O). Because of the nature of his work, he has typically
been one of the first group of civilians to deploy with the military to various flashpoints
and combat theaters. Consequently, his work is hazardous (Exhibit I). 
Applicant has lived abroad since leaving the military. He has been working with
the same telecommunications contractor since 2001 (Exhibit I). He has lived in the
same foreign country for the past two years (Exhibit C). He has held a security
clearance continuously since 1979 (Tr. 44).
Applicant’s second-line supervisor, who oversees 87 people, describes Applicant
as one of his top performers (Tr. 31). Applicant’s supervisor, who worked with him from
2003 to 2004 while stationed in Iraq, characterized his work as extraordinary (Exhibit D).
According to another former supervisor, Applicant’s “work ethic is beyond reproach”
(Exhibit H). 
Applicant is equally well-respected by his coworkers. According to one coworker,
he is extremely meticulous in handling classified material, and on one occasion,
implemented a training program to ensure that security standards were upheld (Exhibit
O). Another coworker characterized him as an on-the-job leader who is always willing to
share his expertise with coworkers (Exhibit I).
Applicant has used marijuana and hashish intermittently for more than 30 years.
He began smoking marijuana in 1976 while in high school, and continued to smoke it
after entering the Army. In 1982, he experimented with hashish while at a party with
friends (Answer). He used hashish two or three more times over a one-month period
between May and June of 1985 (Answer). 
In July 1985, while stationed abroad, Applicant was arrested by the police of the
country where he was stationed after being caught purchasing hashish (Exhibit 1 at 2).
While being booked, he attempted to flee. The police again detained him, and later
released him to Army’s custody. He was then punished under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for resisting arrest and wrongful possession of hashish. He was reduced
to a lower pay grade, forfeited $300 pay per month for two months, and ordered to
perform extra duty for 45 days (Exhibit 1 at 6). Later, he was barred from re-enlisting
(Exhibit 2).
As part of a periodic review of Applicant’s security clearance eligibility in 1987, a
Defense Investigative Service agent interviewed him (Exhibit 6 ). When the agent asked
Applicant if he intended to use illegal drugs in the future, he responded, “not only no, but
hell no!” (Exhibit 6 at 1).
4
In 1992, Applicant shared some hashish with a friend while playing video games
(Exhibit 10 at 1). He used it on three other occasions that year (Tr. 37). During a
periodic reinvestigation of his security clearance eligibility in 2000, a Defense Security
Service agent interviewed him (Exhibit 10). He disclosed the 1992 drug use, but stated
he had no intention of using illegal drugs in the future (Id.). 
In March 2004, Applicant, while cleaning his recently deceased brother’s
apartment, “came across a drawer with a shoe box of seeds and stems and one rolled
joint” of marijuana (Tr. 52). He decided to sample some of it (Tr. 52).
In September 2004, Applicant, while travelling through Europe to visit his son,
decided to stop in a country where hashish was legal, and purchase some (Tr. 50). His
intention was to use the hashish while in the country where his son lived, and hide the
remainder at his son’s house, for his next visit, before returning home (Exhibit 13 at 7).
Shortly after leaving the country where hashish is legal, Applicant was stopped by police
of a bordering country where hashish possession constitutes a misdemeanor criminal
offense. The police arrested and charged him with possession of hashish (Tr. 51).
Applicant subsequently paid a fine (Answer).
In 1986, Applicant completed a security clearance application (Tr. 45). He failed
to disclose past hashish use and his 1985 drug-related arrest (Exhibit 5 at 2). He
omitted this information because he was afraid that he would not get the job for which
he had applied (Tr. 45).
In 2006, Applicant completed another security clearance application. He failed to
disclose his drug-related arrests and his 2004 episodes of illegal drug use, as required
(Exhibit 11 at 33). He omitted this information because he did not want his new
employer to perceive him as “the new druggie that just came in, just got busted by the
police” (Tr. 48-49).
In May 2009, Applicant executed a statement of intent never to use illegal drugs
again (Exhibit E). In September 2009, Applicant passed a drug test (Exhibit T). 
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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The
5
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.” 
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.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 24). Applicant has used marijuana
and hashish periodically for 30 years. During much of this time, he held a security
clearance. AG ¶¶ 24(a), “any drug abuse,” 24(c), “illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia;” and 24(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance,” apply.
Applicant’s signed statement of intent not to use illegal drugs in the future
triggers the application of mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b)(4), “a signed statement of
intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.” The application of this
mitigating condition, however, has little probative value given Applicant’s repeated,
earlier promises to stop using illegal drugs.
None of the remaining mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s most recent
episodes of marijuana abuse occurred less than six years ago. Moreover, his
explanation that he used it most recently to help him counteract the loss of appetite
precipitated by a chronic illness is not credible given the number of years he has been
abusing marijuana recreationally.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 15). Applicant’s deliberate omission of his drug usage and drug-
6
related arrests from his security clearance applications of 1986 and 2006 trigger the
application of AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . .”
Applicant attributes his 1986 omission to a fear of not getting the job if his
potential employer knew of his drug history. He attributes his 2006 omission to concerns
of how his employer would perceive him if his drug involvement history was known.
Applicant has a duty to provide truthful, candid information throughout the security
clearance process. According to the Appeal Board, “[s]elf-interest is not a valid
justification for falsifying” (ISCR Case No. 96-0685 (App. Bd. November 14, 1997) at 1))
I have considered the mitigating conditions and conclude none 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. 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.
Applicant’s drug abuse has spanned 30 years, but has been sporadic. He has a
stellar work history. The sporadic nature of his drug use is outweighed by his repeated
promises to quit abusing drugs, and his strong work credentials are outweighed by his
lack of honesty demonstrated through his repeated falsification of security clearance
applications. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole person concept, I
conclude Applicant is an unacceptable candidate for a security clearance.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.d: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge