1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ------------------------ )     ISCR Case No. 09-04421
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Leonard L. Bergersen, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant is a 22-year-old recent college graduate who smoked marijuana on
several occasions after he had been granted a security clearance. Discrepant accounts
about the extent of his illegal drug involvement compound the doubts about his
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 16, 2006. On September 25, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline E, personal
conduct, that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny him a security
clearance. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
The Questionnaire for National Security Positions is a component of the e-QIP, which  was admitted1
into evidence as Exhibit 1.
2
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense as of September 1, 2006.
Applicant responded to the SOR on October 16, 2009, and he requested a
hearing. On November 2, 2009, the case was assigned to me to consider whether it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. On November 20, 2009, I scheduled a hearing for December 16, 2009.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Three Government exhibits were offered
into evidence. Exhibit 1, Applicant’s May 2006 e-QIP, was admitted without an
objection.  Exhibit 2 was accepted over Applicant’s objection about the accuracy of the
transcription of the personal subject interview. Applicant had reviewed and attested to
the accuracy of the interview with the exception of one representation in the report that
his friend had been arrested during an incident of August 2008. Proposed exhibit 3, a
JPAS Incident History, was objected to on the basis of hearsay and lack of foundation.
The record was held open following the hearing, until January 4, 2010, for the
Government to authenticate the document. Applicant submitted one exhibit at the
hearing (Ex. A) that was accepted into the record without an objection. Applicant and
one witness testified on Applicant’s behalf, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on
December 26, 2009.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
The record was open until January 4, 2010, to allow the Government to provide
evidence about the information source for the JPAS Incident History report offered as
Exhibit 3 over Applicant’s objection. Nothing was received by the due-date. The
Government failed to establish that the document was a business record that would
qualify for admission under Section 5 of the Directive. Given the hearsay nature of the
information and the lack of sufficient authentication, proposed exhibit 3 is not admitted.
However, it is attached to the record for potential appellate purposes.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline H, drug involvement, that Applicant used
marijuana from about 2005 until at least August 2008 (SOR 1.a), including after he had
been granted a DoD security clearance in about September 2006 (SOR 1.b), and that
marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found in his car during a police search in about
August 2008 (SOR 1.c). Under Guideline E, personal conduct, Applicant was alleged to
have deliberately falsified a May 26, 2006, Questionnaire for National Security
Positions  by denying any illegal drug use since age 16 or within the last seven years1
(SOR 2.a). Also, his use of marijuana while holding a security clearance was cross-
alleged under Guideline E (SOR 2.b).
3
In his Answer, Applicant denied any use of marijuana before mid-to-late
September 2006, and contended that he had been truthful on his security clearance
application when he responded negatively to the illegal drug inquiry. He admitted
experimenting with the drug “on a limited basis” after mid to late September 2006, and
after he had been granted a security clearance. Concerning the search of his vehicle in
August 2008, Applicant denied any illegal drugs were found in his car. While a pipe
belonging to a passenger was found, Applicant indicated he was not sure whether it
was “paraphernalia” because it was not tested or confiscated. After considering the
pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 22-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He started as an
intern with the company in May 2008, and has been a full-time employee since June
2009. (Tr. 41.)
Applicant attended college from September 2005 to June 2009. (Tr. 33.) At the
end of his freshman year, he applied for an internship with the U.S. military. In
conjunction with his application, he completed an e-QIP on May 16, 2006, on which he
responded negatively to illegal drug inquiries, including question 24.a, “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?” (Ex. 1.) Applicant was hired, and he started working for the U.S. military in June
2006. (Tr. 31.) At the end of the summer of 2006, he was granted a Department of
Defense security clearance. (Tr. 32.)
Applicant worked as an intern for the military part-time, about ten hours per
week, while college was in session and full-time during school vacations and over the
summers. (Tr. 32-34.) Starting in mid-May 2008, he began to intern for his current
employer, although he continued to hold his clearance through his student contract with
the military. (Tr. 39-41.)
On August 31, 2008, Applicant and some friends from his hometown went to the
city where they planned to meet some other friends. On their arrival, his companions
left, and Applicant joined another old friend from his hometown in his friend’s vehicle.
Apparently within seconds of Applicant entering his friend’s car, the police arrived and
searched both of them. No drugs were found on Applicant’s person, or to Applicant’s
knowledge, on his friend. (Tr. 49.) Applicant has not had any contact with this friend
since that day. (Tr. 48, 52.) Applicant consented to a search of his own vehicle because
he felt he had no choice if he didn’t want to spend the weekend in jail. (Tr. 27.) The
police found a marijuana pipe belonging to one of Applicant’s two passengers. (Ex. 2,
Tr. 27-28, 48-49.) Applicant was not arrested and the paraphernalia was not
confiscated. (Ex. 2, Tr. 49.) Applicant denies knowing that either of his passengers had
the marijuana pipe on him that day, or that marijuana was smoked in his vehicle that
Applicant testified that there was an unknown residue in the marijuana pipe that was never tested2
by police. (Tr. 66.) It is unclear how Applicant knew there was residue in the pipe if it did not belong to him and
no passenger smoked in his vehicle that day. He was apparently shown the pipe, but denied that he was able
to identify the presence of marijuana in the pipe. (Tr. 66.) 
As for whether he knew if either of his passengers was a user of marijuana, Applicant responded,3
“I don’t keep track of what they do on their daily basis.” (Tr. 65.)
The Government proffered that the source of the information was the police agency involved in the4
search, but there is no evidence confirming the source of the information that led the m ilitary to remove
Applicant’s access to work at the facility.
4
day.  He also testified that he has had no contact with the friend who owned the2
marijuana pipe since that day.  (Tr. 59-60, 66-67.)3
Someone apprised security personnel at the military base of the August 2008
incident.  In September 2008, Applicant’s government sponsor removed his credentials4
(badge and parking sticker) needed to access the installation. Applicant was told that
his friend had a drug problem, the nature of which Applicant had been previously
unaware. (Tr. 28, 50-51.) Applicant was told that he was under investigation and could
not return to work for the military while the investigation was pending. (Tr. 34.)
On January 7, 2009, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator
about the August 2008 incident. The investigator summarized the interview, in part as
follows:
[Applicant] was interviewed on 1/7/09 in reference to an incident on 8/08 in
[city and state omitted] where he met a friend [name omitted] after parking
his car and once meeting his friend in his car, the police surrounded [his
friend’s] car and he was arrested for a drug charge. [Applicant] was then
taken out of the car by police and searched for drugs and none was found.
[Applicant] then gave the police permission to search his car and they
found a marijuana pipe (paraphernalia) with trace amounts of marijuana.
The police did not arrest [Applicant] and released him after this matter.
[Applicant] has smoked marijuana about 10-20 times between
summer/2005 to 8/2008. He smoked small amounts in pipe form with
friends at one anothers [sic] homes. He smoked the marijuana out of
curiosity and recreational use while in college. It was obtained from friends
of friends. [Applicant] has never sold, supplied or dealt drugs. He stopped
use after the 8/08 incident as he wanted to focus on his engineering
career. He has no plans for any future drug use. . . . He does have an
acquaintance he has contact with about once a month who uses
marijuana but he does not do it around him or ask him to participate. (Ex.
2.)
On his graduation from college in June 2009, Applicant became a full-time
employee of his current defense contractor employer. (Tr. 38, 41.) Around July 2009,
Applicant testified that it took him about a month to respond to the interrogatories from DOHA. (Tr.5
56.)
5
DOHA asked Applicant to review the investigator’s summary of his January 2009
interview for accuracy. On August 19, 2009, Applicant certified that the information was
correct with one exception—that no one was arrested during the August 2008 incident.5
(Ex. 2.) But in his Answer to the SOR, and at his hearing, Applicant asserted that his
first use of marijuana was not until September 2006, when he was a college sophomore
living in his own apartment (“I had a bunch of buddies that were living close to me, a
bunch of them came over, one of them came over with it, supplied it, and it happened”).
(Tr. 45.) Applicant denied telling the investigator that he had used marijuana from the
summer of 2005 (“I told him that it was in the early years of my college experience,
limited in use and done in a social environment” (Tr. 25.); “I told him that it was done
through my college years, and he said of, you were in college from 2005 to 2008 or, and
that’s where those dates came from. And I agreed to it because it was my college
years”). (Tr. 56.) Applicant testified that he was unable to provide dates of use when
asked by the investigator. (Tr. 59.)
Applicant’s explanation is not particularly persuasive, in light of the fact that he
was not yet in college in the summer of 2005, and in August 2009, he certified the
accuracy of the investigator’s summary concerning his past drug use. Applicant had the
interrogatories a month or so before he responded, so he had ample opportunity to
clarify the record concerning his drug involvement and he did not do so. When asked
why he failed to indicate that he used marijuana initially in September 2006 rather than
in the summer of 2005, Applicant responded:
The only reason I can think of is that the information that I had given was I
was trying to be as truthful as possible at that given point in time and I
didn’t have any information at that given time saying that any of these
things would, I would be, I don’t– 
(Tr. 43.) Applicant offered no credible explanation for what prompted his present recall
of an initial experimentation with marijuana in September 2006 when he was unable to
provide any dates for his drug use during his more contemporaneous January 2009
interview. It was not until after the SOR was issued, and concerns surfaced about
Applicant’s failure to report any illicit drug use on his e-QIP, that Applicant first asserted
that his drug use began in September 2006. The account of his drug use provided to the
investigator, and certified as accurate by him in August 2009, is likely more credible
than his hearing testimony under the circumstances. That having been said, there is no
evidence that Applicant has used marijuana since August 2008, that he has been in the
presence of anyone smoking marijuana since late 2008, or that he ever bought any
illegal drugs. (Ex. 2, Tr. 46, 55.)
As of January 2009, Applicant was associating about once a month with a friend
from high school, who he knew used marijuana. They had attended college together,
and Applicant listed this friend as a reference on his e-QIP. (Ex. 1.) Applicant saw this
friend most recently in November 2009. To Applicant’s knowledge, this friend was no
6
longer using marijuana. (Tr. 54-55.) Applicant denies any intent to use marijuana in the
future. (Ex. 2, Tr. 47.)
Applicant’s present employer is aware that Applicant used marijuana in college.
The president of the company has not discussed Applicant’s illicit drug involvement with
him. Applicant’s security clearance was not an issue when Applicant started with the
company, and the president has observed nothing about Applicant’s duty performance
that would lead him to question Applicant’s technical competence, or his judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. (Tr. 69-77.) 
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,
emphasizing that “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 adjudicative guidelines
(AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are
required to be considered 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 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
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, as referred to in the Controlled Substances Act, are contained in 216
U.S.C. § 812(c). Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance.
7
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national
interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access
to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Drug Involvement
The security concern about drug involvement is set out in AG ¶ 24:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(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),  and6
(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 smoked marijuana at social gatherings on 10 to 20 occasions while he
held a security clearance. AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” and AG ¶ 25(g), “any illegal
drug use after being granted a security clearance,” apply. AG ¶ 25(c), “illegal drug
possession, cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution, or
possession of drug paraphernalia,” applies only in the limited sense that Applicant can
be said to have had physical custody or possession of the marijuana when he smoked
it.
Applicant had friends from his hometown that were drug users, and there is
credible evidence that he started using marijuana the summer preceding college. Even
assuming that he first tried marijuana in September 2006, as he now claims, then he
would have smoked marijuana as many as 20 occasions over a two-year time span. AG
¶ 26(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under
such circumstances that it is likely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
8
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” is not particularly persuasive,
given the relative recency of his abuse and the fact that it occurred while he held a
secret-level security clearance.
Concerning whether Applicant has demonstrated an intent to forego future drug
abuse sufficient to satisfy AG ¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in
the future,” he has denied any contact since August 2008 with the friends involved in the
incident where drug paraphernalia was found in his vehicle, and there is no evidence to
the contrary in the record reviewed. Applicant’s continued association with the close
high school friend who was using marijuana as recently as January 2009 makes it
difficult to fully apply AG ¶ 26(b)(1) (stating, “disassociation from drug-using associates
and contacts”), even if I accept Applicant’s uncorroborated testimony that this friend was
no longer using marijuana as of their latest meeting in November 2009. AG ¶ 26(b)(2),
“changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used,” requires affirmative
changes consistent with a drug-free lifestyle. Apart from Applicant’s denials of any
ongoing association with those persons involved in the August 2008 incident, there is
little to no information about his present social activities or his living environment upon
which to base an affirmative finding that his drug use is safely in the past. Applicant
denies any intent or plan to use marijuana in the future. Yet, he has not executed a
written statement of intent to refrain from drug abuse that would satisfy AG ¶ 26(b)(4),
“a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.”
Applicant’s present abstinence from August 2008 is consistent with intent not to abuse
any drugs in future, but given the concerns about Applicant’s credibility (see Guideline
E, infra), and his ongoing friendship with someone whom he knew was using marijuana
as of January 2009, AG ¶ 26(b)(3), “an appropriate period of abstinence,” is not yet
satisfied. Applicant’s current employment situation could serve as a significant deterrent
to any future drug abuse, but he smoked marijuana in the past while working as an
intern for the military and then for his present employer.
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in Guideline E, 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 exercised poor judgment within the context of AG ¶ 15 when he abused
marijuana while holding an active security clearance (SOR 2.b). He may not have been
thinking about his clearance obligations when he accepted the offers to smoke
marijuana, but he knew he was violating the law by doing so. While the concerns about
his illicit substance abuse are more appropriately covered under Guideline H, supra,
personal conduct AG ¶ 16(e), “personal conduct, or concealment of information about
one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
9
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal,
professional, or community standing,” is pertinent. Drug abuse is conduct, which if
known, could adversely affect one’s reputation.
Furthermore, there is credible evidence that would establish knowing falsification
of his e-QIP by failing to disclose his marijuana use. Applicant testified that he was
candid with the investigator in January 2009. As reported by the investigator, and
certified by Applicant to be accurate, he smoked marijuana from the summer of 2005
until the August 2008 incident. Applicant had some friends from his hometown who
were drug users, including the friend who left the marijuana pipe in Applicant’s vehicle in
August 2008, so AG ¶ 16(g), “association with persons involved in criminal activity,”
must also be considered. Given Applicant can be held to have admitted using marijuana
in the summer of 2005, which would have been before he went off to college, the weight
of the evidence likewise supports application of AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission,
concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire,
personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine
employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.” 
Applicant’s disclosure of his illegal drug involvement during his subject interview
in January 2009 is not sufficiently prompt to qualify for mitigation under AG ¶ 17(a), “the
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” Applicant continued his illicit
substance abuse after he completed his e-QIP, and after he had been granted a secret-
level security clearance. There is no indication that he made any effort to come forward
with this information before his credentials were revoked by his government sponsor.
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,” cannot apply. His drug use and concealment of that abuse while in a position
of trust with the U.S. military was inconsistent with the fiduciary obligations of his
security clearance.
AG ¶ 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress,” applies in that his employer and
the Government are aware that he used marijuana. But AG ¶ 17(e) does not mitigate
the ongoing concerns about Applicant’s credibility, and whether he can be counted on to
provide complete and accurate information to relevant inquiries. Notwithstanding his
prior admission to drug use commencing in the summer of 2005, and of socializing with
hometown friends known by him to use marijuana, Applicant would have the
Government believe that he did not use marijuana until his sophomore year in college.
When asked at his hearing about his once monthly acquaintance with a marijuana user
as of January 2009, Applicant initially responded that he did not still have contact with
that acquaintance, who was from college. After being pressed about the identity of the
person, Applicant admitted that it was a friend from high school as well as college, who
lives in the same town, and that he had seen him in about November 2009. (Tr. 53-54.)
Concerning how he knew that this friend was no longer smoking marijuana, Applicant
10
responded, “I’m not his mother, I don’t really monitor what he does.” (Tr. 55.)
Irrespective of whether I accept his correction at the hearing about his first use of
marijuana, which would mean that he did not falsify his e-QIP, Applicant has not
demonstrated the level of candor that must be demanded of those persons with access
to classified information. 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,” is not satisfied.  
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 his conduct
and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at
AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
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. 
Applicant displayed extremely poor judgment in using marijuana while he held a
security clearance and in associating with known users of illegal drugs. As the August
2008 incident shows, he had two groups of friends that were drug users, the friends in
the college setting with whom he smoked marijuana, and those friends from his
hometown. His immaturity only partially extenuates the drug involvement and personal
conduct concerns. His initial use of marijuana was in all likelihood in the summer of
2005. His involvement with marijuana cannot reasonably be described as limited
experimentation based on his reported duration and frequency of marijuana use. I am
not convinced that he was fully candid about his drug use at his hearing.  Based on the
evidence before me, I am unable to conclude at this time that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
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
11
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge