1 
 
 
                                                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
 
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-00560 
                                                            )                                 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department  Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline 
J, Criminal Conduct; Guideline H, Drug Involvement; and Guideline E, Personal 
Conduct. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
Applicant completed an electronic Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (e-QIP) 
on about October 15, 2008. On July 27, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct; Guideline H, Drug Involvement; and 
Guideline 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. 
  
 
2 
 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, dated August 10, 2009, Applicant requested a 
decision on the record in lieu of a hearing. The Government did not request a hearing 
within 20 days of receipt of Applicant’s Answer. (See Directive, Enclosure 3, Additional 
Procedural Guidance (E3.1.7)). The Government then compiled its File of Relevant 
Material (FORM) on October 1, 2009. The FORM contained documents identified as 
Items 1 through 6. By letter dated October 7, 2009, DOHA forwarded a copy of the 
FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit any additional information and/or 
objections within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the file on October 14, 2009. His 
response was due on November 13, 2009. Applicant did not file additional information 
within the required time period. On January 8, 2010, the case was assigned to me for a 
decision.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains five allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline J, 
Criminal Conduct (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.e.); two allegations of disqualifying conduct 
under Guideline H, Drug Involvement (SOR ¶¶ 2.a. and 2.b.); and three allegations of 
disqualifying conduct under Guideline E, Personal Conduct (SOR ¶¶ 3.a through 3.c.). 
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the five Guideline J allegations and the 
two Guideline H allegations. He admitted one Guideline E allegation (SOR ¶ 3.c.) and 
denied two allegations under Guideline E (SOR ¶¶ 3.a. and 3.b.). Applicant’s 
admissions are entered herein as findings of fact. (Item 1; Item 4.)  
 
 After a thorough review of the documentary record before me, I make the 
following additional findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is 24 years old, never married, and employed as a mail processor by a 
government contractor. He has worked for his present employer since October 2008. In 
2006, he left a job under unfavorable circumstances when he was unable to work with a 
supervisor.  (Item 5.) 
 
 On November 14, 2008 and December 5, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by an 
authorized investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). On April 
6, 2009, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant provided a signed notarized 
statement which acknowledged and adopted the authorized investigator’s summary of 
his interviews as accurate. He also affirmed his understanding that his responses to the 
interrogatories and the content of the investigator’s report might be used as evidence to 
determine his suitability for a security clearance. (Item 6 at 7-8.) 
 
 Applicant has purchased marijuana, and he has used marijuana, with varying 
frequency, for approximately five years, from 2002 to at least October 2007. (Item 1: 
SOR ¶¶ 2.a. and 2.b.; Item 4 at 1; Item 6 at 3-5.) 
 
 Applicant began smoking marijuana when he was 17 years old. Each day, he 
shared about $20 worth of marijuana with his friends. He and his friends contributed 
 
3 
 
 
money towards the daily purchase of marijuana, or they took turns purchasing  
marijuana individually for the group’s use. (Item 6 at 4.) 
 
 In 2003, Applicant was arrested, detained in jail for two days, and charged with 
Possession of Marijuana and Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine (Felony). The 
government did not prosecute the charges, and they were dropped. (Item 1: SOR ¶ 1.d.; 
Item 4 at 1, 2-3; Item 6 at 3.) 
  
 In 2006, while Applicant was employed in a federal job program, he stopped 
using marijuana for about two and a half months. When the program ended, Applicant 
resumed his marijuana use. (Item 6 at 4.) 
 
 In September 2007, and again in October 2007, Applicant was arrested and 
charged with possession of marijuana. On both occasions, the government did not 
prosecute the charges, and they were dropped. (Item 1: SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.c.; Item 4 at 
1, 2-3; Item 6 at 3-4.) 
 
 Applicant told an authorized investigator that he last smoked marijuana on 
October 23, 2007. Applicant has not grown, sold, or manufactured marijuana. He has 
not been diagnosed as drug dependent, and he has not sought treatment for drug 
abuse or drug dependency. He has not tested positive for illegal drug use. (Item 6 at 4.) 
 
 Applicant began drinking alcohol when he was about 21 years old. In June 2008, 
Applicant was arrested and cited for Possession of Open Container/Alcohol. He was 
taken into custody by police. He paid a $25 fine and was released. (Item 1: SOR ¶ 1.a.; 
Item 4; Item 6 at 6.) 
 
 When he was interviewed by an authorized investigator, Applicant stated that he 
only drank alcohol on special occasions, which he estimated to be about three or four 
times a year. On those occasions, he consumed two to three mixed drinks in a social 
setting with friends. Applicant denied drinking to intoxication, and he denied ever being 
intoxicated. Applicant does not own an automobile, and he does not drive a vehicle after 
consuming alcohol. He has never been diagnosed or treated for alcohol abuse or 
alcohol dependence.  (Item 6 at 6.) 
 
 On October 15, 2008, Applicant executed an e-QIP. Section 23a of the e-QIP 
asks: “Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense? (Include 
those under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)” Applicant responded “No” to Section 
23a. The SOR alleged at SOR ¶ 3.a. that when Applicant answered “No” to Section 
23a, he deliberately falsified his e-QIP by failing to list the felony charge alleged at SOR 
¶ 1.d. (Item 1; Item 5 at 5.) 
 
 Section 23d of the e-QIP asks: “Have you ever been charged with or convicted of 
any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” Applicant responded “No” to Section 23d. 
The SOR alleged at ¶ 3.b. that when Applicant answered “No” to Section 23d, he 
 
4 
 
 
deliberately falsified his e-QIP by failing to list the drug and alcohol arrests and charges 
alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.d. (Item 1; Item 5 at 5.) 
 
 Section 24a of the e-QIP asks: “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, codeine, 
heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, 
etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD,PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?” Applicant answered “No” 
to Section 24a. The SOR alleged at ¶ 3.c.that when Applicant answered “No” to Section 
24a, he deliberately falsified his e-QIP by failing to list his illegal use of marijuana as 
alleged at SOR ¶¶ 2.a. and 2.b. (Item 1; Item 5 at 5.)   
 
 In his answer to the SOR, Applicant denied deliberately falsifying his answers to 
Section 23d and 23a of the e-QIP he executed in October 2008. In response to the SOR 
allegation at ¶ 3.a., Applicant stated: “I put no because I [had] never been charge[d] or 
convicted of anything[.] I was arrested and released within 24 hours and the arrest was 
no papered.” In response to the SOR allegation at ¶ 3.b., Applicant stated: “I put no 
because I [have] never been charged or convicted or anything[.] I was arrested and 
released and all arrested [were] no papered and I had to just [pay] a fine for the open 
container/alcohol.” In his November 14, 2008 interview with an authorized investigator, 
Applicant again stated that he did not list his 2003 and 2007 drug arrests on his e-QIP 
because he had been released without charge and did not know the arrests needed to 
be included. (Item 4 at 1; Ex. 6 at 3.) 
 
 To support his statements, Applicant provided a computer-generated list of his 
arrests and the dispositions made following the arrests. He also provided a letter, dated 
November 4, 2008, from an attorney in the Public Defender Service in the jurisdiction 
where he was arrested. The attorney stated, in pertinent part: “I have reviewed 
[Applicant’s] records in the [court’s] computer system, and the records show that 
[Applicant] has no convictions in [this jurisdiction.]” The attorney also identified the 
arrests alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d. as “no-papered” arrests and reported that 
the prosecutors “declined to bring any charges. That is [Applicant] was never charged in 
court, he never had any charges pending against him in court, and the government 
declined to prosecute him shortly after his arrest.” It is not clear from the record whether 
the Public Defender Service attorney represented Applicant or advised him specifically 
concerning the security clearance process and his responses to Section 23d and 23a 
on the e-QIP. (Item 4 at 2-3.) 
 
 In his answer to SOR ¶ 3.c., Applicant admitted that he deliberately falsified his 
answer to Section 24a on the e-QIP by failing to admit his illegal drug use. SOR ¶ 1.e. 
alleges that deliberate falsification of answers to questions on a security clearance 
application constitutes a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Applicant admitted the 
felonious conduct alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e. In his interview with the authorized investigator, 
he stated that he did not admit his illegal drug use on his e-QIP because he was afraid 
that listing it “would look bad.” (Item 1; Item 4; Item 6 at 4.) 
 
 
5 
 
 
         Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information. Id. at 
527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.    
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an   
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). These 
guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human 
behavior, the administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense 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 
 
6 
 
 
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 J, Criminal Conduct 
 
  Under the Criminal Conduct guideline “[c]riminal 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. 
 
  Applicant was arrested in 2003 for possession of marijuana and possession with 
intent to distribute cocaine, a felony. He was arrested twice in 2007 for marijuana 
possession. In 2008, he was arrested and paid a fine for possession of an open 
container of alcohol. Applicant deliberately failed to list his illegal drug use on his e-QIP 
because he was afraid it would “look bad.” This willful omission was a violation of 18 
U.S.C. Section 1001. 
  
           Applicant’s history of three drug arrests, one alcohol-related arrest, and his 
deliberate falsification of his drug use on his security clearance application raise 
concerns under AG ¶ 31(a) and AG ¶ 31(c). AG ¶ 31(a) reads: “a single serious crime or 
multiple lesser offenses.” AG ¶ 31(c) reads: “allegation or admission or criminal conduct, 
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or 
convicted.” 
 
  Two Criminal Conduct mitigating conditions might apply to Applicant’s case.  If 
“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, or good judgment,” AG ¶ 32(a) might apply.  If 
“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 involvement,” then AG ¶ 32(d) 
might apply. 
 
  The record establishes that Applicant was arrested for criminal behavior in 2003, 
2007, and 2008. Additionally, he admitted criminal conduct in October 2008 when he 
deliberately falsified his e-QIP. Applicant’s criminal behavior is recent; his most recent 
criminal conduct occurred approximately fifteen months ago. Nothing in the record 
before me suggests successful rehabilitation or provides assurances that Applicant’s 
criminal behavior is unlikely to recur. 
 
7 
 
 
  In 2008, Applicant deliberately falsified his e-QIP by concealing and failing to 
report his use of illegal drugs. His unwillingness to inform the government about this 
past criminal behavior raises concerns about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment. Additionally, his deliberate falsifications suggest a failure in rehabilitation. I 
conclude that AG ¶ 32(a) and AG ¶ 32(d) do not apply to Applicant’s criminal conduct 
and his deliberate falsification of his e-QIP in 2008. 
  
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
 Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about 
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness 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(a) defines drugs as “mood and behavior altering 
substances.” The definition of drugs includes “(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.” AG ¶ 24(b) defines drug abuse as “the 
illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved 
medical direction.” 
 
The record shows that Applicant admitted the illegal use and possession of 
marijuana, with varying frequency, for approximately five years, from 2002 until at least 
2007. In 2006, he attempted to stop using marijuana when he participated in a federal 
job program. When his participation in the program ended, he returned to marijuana 
use. Applicant’s marijuana use was habitual and a lifestyle choice. 
 
Applicant’s involvement with an illegal drug, marijuana, casts doubt on his 
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  It also raises security concerns about his 
ability or willingness to protect classified information and to comply with laws, rules, and 
regulations. I conclude that Applicant’s illegal drug use raises security concerns under 
AG ¶¶ 25(a) and 25(c). AG ¶ 25(a) reads: “any drug abuse [as defined at AG ¶ 24(b)].” 
AG ¶ 25(c) reads: “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, 
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.”  
  
Two Guideline H mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of Applicant’s 
case.  If Applicant’s drug use happened “so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt” on his 
“current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 26(a) might be 
applicable in mitigation. If Applicant “demonstrated [an] intent not to abuse any drugs in 
the future” by “(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing 
or avoiding the environment where drugs were used;” (3) abstaining from drug use for 
an appropriate period; and (4) signing a “statement of intent with the automatic 
revocation” of his security clearance “for any violation,” then AG ¶ 26(b) might be 
applicable.  
 
 
8 
 
 
                                           
The documentary record shows that Applicant’s first arrest for marijuana 
possession occurred in 2003. His most recent arrests for marijuana possession 
occurred in September and October 2007. His use at that time was on-going and 
frequent. While he told an authorized investigator that he ceased using illegal drugs in 
October 2007, he provided no documentation to corroborate his assertion. Nothing in 
the record supports a conclusion that he no longer associates with individuals who use 
drugs habitually. Nothing in the record establishes that he has abstained from drugs for 
an appropriate period in order to demonstrate an intent not to abuse drugs in the future. 
Applicant’s use of marijuana occurred under circumstances that are likely to recur. I 
conclude that AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) do not apply in mitigation to the security concerns 
raised by the facts in Applicant’s case. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
  
 AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security 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. 
 
 When Applicant completed and certified his e-QIP in 2008, he failed to report his  
criminal behavior, including a felony arrest, and his use of illegal drugs.1 In his answer 
to the SOR, he denied that his failure to disclose his criminal conduct was deliberate 
falsification of material facts and stated that he did not consider the conduct to be 
criminal since he was neither charged nor prosecuted. He was assessed a $25 fine as 
the result of his one alcohol-related arrest for Open Container/Alcohol. He provided a 
letter from a public defender attorney to corroborate his belief that his three drug arrests 
did not result in charges or prosecution and therefore he did not believe they were 
 
1 The Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases, stating:
 
(a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has the burden of 
proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove 
an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must 
consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or 
circumstantial evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the 
omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to conclude 
Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under Guideline E and the 
burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to present evidence to explain the 
omission.  
 
ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 (App. Bd. June 9, 
2004)).  
 
 
 
9 
 
 
reportable as criminal behavior on his e-QIP. Applicant’s rationale for failing to list his 
three drug arrests and one alcohol arrest on his e-QIP was corroborated by a letter 
supplied for the record by a Public Defender attorney who reviewed his record.  
 
The allegations in the SOR raise a security concern under AG ¶ 16(a), which 
reads: “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.” 
 
  Several Guideline mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of this case. 
Applicant’s disqualifying personal conduct might be mitigated under AG ¶ 17(a) if “the 
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” If “the refusal or failure to cooperate, 
omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or 
inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the 
individual specifically concerning the security process” and “[u]pon being made aware of 
the requirement to cooperate or provide information, the individual cooperated fully and 
completely,” then AG ¶ 17(b) might apply.  If “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 case doubt on the individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 17(c) might apply. 
 
  AG ¶ 17(d) might apply if “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.” AG ¶ 17(e) might apply if 
“the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to 
exploitation, manipulation, or duress.”   
 
I have reviewed the documentary evidence in this case carefully. While I was 
unable to question Applicant about his state of mind when he completed his e-QIP, the 
record reflects that he consistently believed he should not list his arrests and detentions 
on his e-QIP because he was not prosecuted and charges against him were dismissed. 
His belief was reinforced by the statements of the Public Defender attorney in her letter 
of November 4, 2008. I conclude that there is insufficient record evidence to conclude 
that Applicant’s “No” answers to Sections 23d and 23a on the e-QIP he executed on 
October 15, 2008 were willful and deliberate falsifications. 
 
However, I conclude that Applicant deliberately falsified material facts in his 
response to Section 24a on the e-QIP when he denied any illegal drug use since the 
age of 16 or in the last seven years.  Nothing in the record suggests that he took prompt 
good-faith action to correct the omissions, concealments, or falsifications before he was 
confronted with the facts. (AG ¶ 17(a).)  Nothing in the record suggests that his failure to 
report his illegal drug use was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or 
 
10 
 
 
inadequate advice specifically about the security clearance process from authorized 
individuals or legal counsel. (AG ¶ 17(b).) When he executed his e-QIP, Applicant knew 
he had used drugs illegally, and he acknowledged that he had falsified his e-QIP by 
omitting information about his illegal drug use because he believed “it looked bad.” As a 
mature adult, he knew that his criminal behavior was not minor, so remote in time, so 
infrequent, or had occurred under such unique circumstances that it would not seriously 
impact his eligibility for a security clearance. (AG 17(c).) Applicant failed to provide 
documentation that he obtained counseling or had taken other positive steps that might 
alleviate the circumstances that caused his unreliable conduct and, as a result, such 
behavior was unlikely to recur. (AG ¶ 17(d).) Nothing in the record suggests that 
Applicant took positive steps to reduce or eliminate the vulnerability to exploitation, 
manipulation, or duress that his behavior caused. (AG ¶ 17(e).) I conclude, therefore, 
that Applicant’s failure to report his illegal drug use on his e-QIP was deliberate and that 
none of the personal conduct mitigating conditions apply. 
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant 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. 
 
  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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  
 
Applicant habitually used the illegal drug marijuana from 2003 until at least 2007. 
He stopped using drugs when he attended a federal jobs program, but he resumed his 
use of illegal drugs after the program ended. He was arrested in 2003 for marijuana 
possession and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was arrested twice in 
2007 for marijuana possession. He was cited for an alcohol violation in 2008. In 2008, 
he completed an e-QIP and deliberately failed to report his illegal drug use, thereby 
creating a situation that could seriously mislead the government about his honesty, 
reliability, and trustworthiness. His falsification was not minor: it went to the heart of his 
 
11 
 
 
capacity for truthfulness, a critical qualification for one who would hold a security 
clearance. Applicant’s failure to be truthful was deliberate. He made no effort to correct 
his falsification before the government confronted him with his lack of candor. His 
deliberate falsification is recent. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his criminal 
conduct, drug involvement, and personal conduct.  
 
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 J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.e.:            Against Applicant 
  
 Paragraph 2, Guideline H:                        AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
             Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2.b.: Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a. - 3.b.:             For Applicant 
   
  Subparagraph 3.c.:   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 grant Applicant a security clearance. 
Clearance is denied. 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge