1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-02059
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (e-QIP) dated October 7,
2008. On September 28, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under
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, which are effective for SORs issued after September
1, 2006. 
In a March 6, 2009, response, Applicant admitted the three allegations raised
under Guideline H, but denied the two allegations set forth under Guideline E. DOHA
assigned the case to me on December 1, 2009. Department Counsel and Applicant
agreed to a hearing date of January 22, 2010. A notice of hearing was issued to that
effect on December 16, 2009. Due to a winter storm emergency, the hearing was
rescheduled for February 9, 2010. I convened the hearing as rescheduled. Applicant
gave testimony and offered two documents which were accepted into the record without
 Applicant has never gone to work under the influence of marijuana. Tr. 34.      1
 Tr. 30. Ex. 4 (Criminal Justice Information) notes that Applicant was “arrested or received 2008/09/13,”      2
with two drug-related charges noted. There is no evidence that any charges were levied at the time Applicant
was stopped or that a formal arrest occurred, although Ex. 5 (Court Summary) notes a 09/13/2008 “arrest.”
2
objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-B. Applicant was given through February 19, 2010, to
submit any additional materials. Department Counsel offered five documents, admitted
as exhibits (Exs.) 1-5 without objection. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was
received on February 18, 2010. On February 19, 2010, Applicant submitted five
additional documents through Department Counsel. Department Counsel forwarded
those materials without objection on March 16, 2010, after his receipt of a sixth
document which had been anticipated. Those six documents were accepted into the
record as Exs. C-H and the record was closed. Based on a review of the testimony,
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the drug
involvement security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 24-year-old operations support team technician who was recruited
by his present employer, a defense contractor, in October 2008. He started work
approximately two months later. Applicant currently has an interim security clearance,
which was granted in July 2007. He is single.
From August 2000 through June 2004, Applicant attended a technical school
that offered both a secondary education program and a vocational technical
component. Upon graduation in June 2004, he received both a high school diploma and
a certificate of achievement for the vocational field in which he was enrolled. While a
student, between about July 2002 and April 2003, Applicant used marijuana, an illegal
drug. Marijuana is the only illegal drug Applicant has used. He used it about seven or
eight times during that time period, then quit abusing the substance.
In July 2008, about a year after he was granted a security clearance, Applicant
was particularly unhappy with his former employment situation. One day, he went to his
apartment after a particularly difficult work day and his roommate offered him some
marijuana to relieve the stress. He accepted.  That month, he used marijuana about1
two or three times. He then quit using the substance. 
On September 13, 2008, Applicant was pulled over by police for driving with a
broken headlight. The officer asked him if there was anything in the car the officer
should know about. Applicant volunteered that he had marijuana with him that he had
purchased for an upcoming birthday. The yet unused quantity of marijuana was seized.
He was told to fix his light and proceed home. Because he was not given a ticket or
citation for the marijuana at that time, he was unclear as to what, if any, charges might
be forthcoming.  2
On October 7, 2008, Applicant started the paperwork to join his current
employer. He completed an e-QIP. On Section 23 (Your Police Record), Applicant
 Tr. 22.      3
 Tr. 25.      4
 Tr. 28-29.      5
 Tr. 31-33.      6
 Ex. H (Notice of Treatment Termination, dated Mar. 16, 2009).      7
 Tr. 31.      8
3
denied having been charged with or convicted of any felony offense, denied that there
were any charges pending against him for a criminal offense, and denied having been
arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any other offense in the preceding seven
years. To the best of his understanding and knowledge at the time, this was true. He
did, however, admit having been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to
alcohol or drugs, citing to an alcohol-related eventually dropped to a citation for
disorderly conduct in 2007. On Section 24 (Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity),
he admitted illegally using a controlled substance since the age of 16 or in the last
seven years. He explained that he had used marijuana about seven times between July
2002 and April 2003. Applicant did not mention his July 2008 marijuana use.
In explaining why he did not mention the July 2008 marijuana use or the
September 2008 traffic stop on the e-QIP, Applicant states: “I knew I had the charges
coming, but I was trying to get [the e-QIP] done and out of the way. I knew that you
could make additions to [it] if you received information that you did not know at the time.
And so I was going to throw the charges and the [July 2008] uses on there then.”  At3
the time, he “just kind of rushed through because [he] wanted to get the applicatory [sic]
process started as quick as possible.”  When asked whether he neglected to note the4
July 2008 marijuana use on his October 2008 e-QIP because he forgot in his haste or
was intentionally waiting to add it later, Applicant stated, “I think it may have been a little
of both because I was rushing through it. . . . I knew in my head I’d probably have to be
resubmitting it because of receiving the charges. . . so I don’t believe I checked
everything as well as I should have, or else it would have been on there.”5
When he arrived home very late that night, Applicant received a notice
containing a summons and information charging him with Possession of Marijuana and
Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Early the following morning, on October 8,
2008, he immediately called his future employer’s security officer, explained the
situation, and asked how he could resubmit his e-QIP with additions. He also informed
his program manager of the facts. He then prepared an amended e-QIP for submission
that noted the July 2008 marijuana use and the recently received criminal charges.   
On or about December 22, 2008, Applicant was sentenced to a six month
Addiction Diversionary Program (ADP) and ordered to pay a fine as a result of the
charges. He completed the program successfully and paid the fine.  He also completed6
a drug counseling program on March 16, 2009.  On or about June 2, 2009, both7
charges were nolle prossed. The charges were then expunged.8
 “I got my partying phase out of the way when I was younger.” Tr. 36.      9
 Tr. 45-47.      10
 Tr. 41.      11
 Tr. 38.      12
 Ex. D (Statement).      13
 Tr. 57.      14
4
Today, Applicant no longer lives with his former roommate or interacts with the
former friend who sold him marijuana. He avoids going to functions where people use
illegal drugs.  In his spare time, he plays video games and socializes with friends. Since9
July 2008, he has actively declined offers to use marijuana from peers.  At work, he is10
doing well and is well regarded. He has never been cited for any security violations.
Applicant does not have the stress he encountered working for his former employer.11
Noting that “[i]t’s not really worth risking a career over,” he has no intention to use drugs
in the future.  Applicant has signed a statement indicating his intent to refrain from12
future drug use with a clause indicating he will comply with an automatic revocation of
any security clearance should he again use drugs.  Moreover, having recently13
discovered he is the father of a baby, he intends to refrain from drugs and keep a clean
record in the hopes of eventually obtaining custody of the child.14
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. 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
commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this 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.
The government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in
the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      15
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      16
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      17
 Id.      18
 Id.      19
 AG ¶ 24.      20
5
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a15
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  16 17
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 an 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 applicant’s
loyalty. See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to
classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard indicates that
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any18
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information.19
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline H (Drug Use) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the most pertinent to this case. Conditions
pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and
discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline H – Drug Use
Under Guideline H, 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.  “Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior20
altering substances, and include drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds
identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended, (e.g.,
 Id. at AG ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      21
 Id. at AG ¶ 24(b).      22
 At the same time, however, Applicant notes that he has declined offers to use marijuana in the past year,      23
undermining application of DI MC AG ¶ 26(b)(1).
6
marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens) and
inhalants and other substances.  “Drug abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a21
legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  Here, Applicant22
admits using marijuana between July 2002 and April 2003. He also admits he used
marijuana while holding a security clearance in July 2008, and was sentenced for
Possession of Marijuana and Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in December
2008. Therefore, Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition (DI DC) AG ¶ 25(a) (“any
drug abuse”), AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution, or possession of drug paraphernalia), and
¶ 25(g) (any drug use after being granted a security clearance) apply. With disqualifying
conditions thus raised, it is Applicant’s burden to mitigate security concerns.
Applicant’s drug use has been intermittent. He has quit using the illegal drug
twice in the past seven years. He quit using marijuana in 2003, after using it for about a
year. He quit using the illegal drug again in July 2008. By September 2008, however, he
had purchased marijuana. He admitted to its possession and the possession of drug-
related paraphernalia. This most recent use and possession of marijuana occurred after
he was granted an interim security clearance. Legal issues involving the use and
possession of illicit drugs aside, his 2008 use and possession of marijuana were clear
violations of the prohibition against illegal drug use by those maintaining a security
clearance. Although he completed a drug awareness and drug counseling, Drug
Involvement Mitigating Condition (DI MC) 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 cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment”) does not apply. 
Applicant has been drug-free for under two years. He notes that he now eschews
the use of marijuana. He stresses that he has changed his friends. His former
roommate has moved. He does not attend parties or functions where drugs are used,
stating that he has passed his youthful “partying phase.”  He has changed his habits23
and hangouts. He expressed his intent not to use drugs in the future. Applicant
acknowledges that future drug use could and would jeopardize his professional
ambitions. He notes that it is his intent to eschew drugs in the hopes of obtaining
custody of his child. He also signed a statement with automatic revocation of clearance
for any future drug-related violation. DI MC AG ¶ 26(b) (a demonstrated intent not to
abuse any drugs in the future such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates
and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an
appropriate period of abstinence; and (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation) applies. None of the remaining mitigating
conditions are applicable.
 AG ¶ 15.      24
 SOR allegation ¶ 2.a.      25
7
Applicant quit using drugs in 2003. He again quit using marijuana in 2008. He
completed the ADP and drug counseling programs successfully. He has also been
drug-free for approximately 20 months. However, he was caught with marijuana and
drug paraphernalia during a traffic stop about 18 months ago. Especially troubling is the
fact that during his last marijuana use and when he was stopped by police, he had a
security clearance. Applicant was credible and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity
with regard to changes he has made in his life or his reasons for now quitting drugs for
good. His prior lapses, the recency of his last use and possession of marijana, and his
use of marijuana while holding a security clearance, however, require additional time for
him to demonstrate both his intentions regarding future drug use and his actual ability to
permanently refrain from marijuana. Therefore, despite his rehabilitative efforts, drug
use security concerns remain unmitigated.  
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Under Guideline E, “conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information.”  The SOR at ¶ 2.a alleges that Applicant falsely and deliberately omitted24
information regarding Applicant’s September 13, 2008, arrest and eventual charges of
Possession of Marijuana and Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  Given the lack25
of evidence that Applicant was formally arrested on September 13, 2008, and in light of
his highly plausible testimony that he did not learn what the actual charges were until
after completing the e-QIP, there is insufficient evidence of falsity or concealment to
raise a personal conduct disqualifying condition. 
On Section 24 of the October 2008 e-QIP, however, Applicant consciously
declined to disclose his July 2008 marijuana use. Such an omission raises Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition ¶ 16(a) ([the] deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal
history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities). With a disqualifying condition
raised, the onus shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns. 
Applicant’s explanation as to why he did not include information regarding his
July 2008 marijuana use is inconsistent and some what convoluted. He simultaneously
attributes his failure to disclose that drug use to: 1) his haste in completing the
application and starting the application process, 2) his failure to double check his
answers, and 3) his intent to later supplement his e-QIP with all 2008-related
information once he received formal charges regarding his traffic stop. The intent
required to sustain the third reason set forth would logically undermine the lack of
thought required to sustain his first two reasons. While his inconsistent thinking
stretches credulity, it does not necessarily prove intentional fraud. Regardless, he
8
alerted his security officer of the 2008-related facts first thing the following morning after
receiving his summons late that night. He also alerted his program manager.
Consequently, his error was corrected within hours, not days or weeks, and it was long
before anyone would have caught his failure to disclose. Therefore, AG ¶ 17(a) (the
individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts) applies. 
As noted, he informed his superior of the 2008 drug-related facts after he alerted
his security officer of those same facts. He has since been fully forthcoming regarding
his past drug use, traffic stop, summons, sentence, and all aspects related to the
September 2008 incident. Such facts raise AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive
steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
In light of the questions posed, Applicant had a plausible basis for not reporting
his September 2008 traffic stop on his e-QIP. Regarding his neglect in noting his July
2008 drug use, he should at least be commended for disclosing the information quickly,
even if his initial reason for not detailing it is dubious. Regardless, Applicant took
expedient and appropriate corrective measures which, in light of these unique
circumstances, mitigate personal conduct security concerns.
.
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 the circumstances. An 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 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, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is an intelligent young man with many good qualities. Professionally,
he is well-regarded and at the beginning of what will no doubt be a successful career.
He has, however, used marijuana, an illegal substance. His drug use has been erratic,
but minimal. It has continued, however, over repeated time periods over the past seven
years. Specifically, he has unsuccessfully quit using drugs twice. His first attempt while
in school was subsequently followed by a 2008 lapse, which occurred when he was
9
working and in his early 20s. His July 2008 attempt to quit was followed by the
September 2008 purchase of marijuana. Of special concern is the fact that during the
2008 events, he was maintaining a security clearance. His use and possession of drugs
at that time constitute clear violations of the terms under which he had been granted a
security clearance and warrants heightened scrutiny.
Applicant’s explanation regarding his omissions on the October 2008 e-QIP is
sufficient to mitigate personal conduct security concerns. His drug use, however, does
not mitigate drug-related security concerns. While he may have been drug free since
July 2008, he possessed marijuana as recently as September 2008. More importantly,
he did so while holding a security clearance. While his expressed commitment to
staying drug free and his reasons for future abstinence may be credible, and his candor
regarding his past drug use highly appreciated, insufficient time has passed to mitigate
drug use security concerns arising from the 2008 drug-related incidents noted. More
time is needed to test his resolve and demonstrate his ability to comport his conduct to
that expected of one possessing a security clearance. Clearance is denied. 
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For 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.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge