1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-00898
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Stephanie N. Mendez, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On June 4, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline H
(Drug Involvement), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), 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
(DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned
the case to me on July 26, 2010. A Notice of Hearing was issued on September 10,
2010, and the case was heard on October 5, 2010. Department Counsel offered
fourteen exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (GE)
1-14. Applicant testified and presented one witness. He submitted exhibits AE A
through P at the hearing, which were admitted. I kept the record open at Applicant’s
request, and he submitted AE Q through T, which were admitted into the record without
objection. Based on a review of the pleadings, submissions, testimony, and exhibits, I
2
find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security
clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1989. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy in November 1989 and served until
December 2001. (Tr. 114). Applicant was in the Navy reserves for almost one year in
2002. He attended a technical college for several years. (AE E) Applicant is married
and has two children. Applicant has held a security clearance since 1990. (Tr. 118) He
has worked for his current employer since 2008. (Tr. 118)
Drug Involvement
Applicant used marijuana in high school during his senior year (1988). (Tr. 56)
He also purchased and used marijuana on an intermittent basis from 2002 until 2007.
He describes his most recent use of marijuana as inconsistent and “rare.” (GE 4) He
acknowledged that he used marijuana when he attended concerts (raves) in 2003-
2004. He further elaborated that he knew drugs would be available at the concerts and
that he used the marijuana to intensify the music experience. (Tr. 144) He also used
marijuana during social gatherings at football games. (Tr. 145)
  
Applicant used Ecstasy and Mushrooms a “few times” after leaving the Navy in
2001until 2004. (GE 4) He used the drugs when he attended concerts as noted above.
(Tr. 62) He held a security clearance during that time. (Tr. 148)
On November 21, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of
marijuana. (GE 7 and Tr. 66) Applicant denies that it was an “arrest” because he was
not placed in handcuffs. He was issued a ticket for the marijuana possession. He did
not pay his fine. He failed to appear in court in January 2003. Applicant states that he
did not receive any notice of an arrest warrant because he was in Japan. (Tr. 68) He
claims that he did not know anything about the arrest warrant until he received the
SOR. (Tr. 68)
Applicant acknowledged the illegal use of marijuana, mushrooms, and ecstasy in
his March 2010 DOHA interrogatories concerning drugs. He claims he did not use any
illegal drugs while in the Navy. However, he listed 2002 as a date “used” and he noted
that he was in the Navy reserves in 2002. Applicant notes the presence of marijuana
does not affect him. He has never sought counseling because he does not consider
himself a drug user and “never used marijuana as an addictive drug.” He also
acknowledged that he bought marijuana and ecstasy “around 2002-2003.” (GE 4)
Applicant signed a notarized statement of intent on June 25, 2010. (AE K) He
also submitted a negative drug test result for pre-employment from February 2009. (AE
J) He has never considered drug counseling because he does not believe he has a
problem. (Tr. 159)
3
Applicant’s wife testified that Applicant has never used illegal drugs in her
presence. (Tr. 35) She explained that if Applicant used any illegal drugs, she would not
stay in the marriage and she would take her children from him. She considers him to be
an honest man. Although she was not married to him until 2007, she has known him as
a friend since 1997.
Personal Conduct
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on June 9, 2003. He
did not disclose his use of marijuana. He answered “No” to Question 24 concerning his
police record. He states that he rushed through the SCA. (Tr. ) He also did not list his
2002 arrest because he did not believe he was arrested. (Tr. ) However, he did list his
1992 DUI. (GE ) Applicant responded “No” to Question 27 about any use of illegal drugs
and drug activity or illegal use while in a sensitive position. As to Question 29, Applicant
also answered “No” concerning any involvement with illegal drugs during the last seven
years. 
Applicant completed an SCA in March 2007. He did not disclose any illegal drug
use in response to Section 23. He also answered “No” to Section 23(d) concerning any
arrests or convictions related to drugs. He did not list the 2002 arrest for possession of
marijuana because he did not believe he was “arrested.” (Tr. 70) He claims that he
rushed through the application and that is why he answered “no” to the sections
concerning illegal drug use. (Tr. 71)
Applicant responded “No” to Section 24 concerning use of illegal drugs and drug
activity while holding a security clearance. He did not disclose his use of marijuana,
mushrooms or ecstasy and the fact that he held a security clearance during that period
of time.  
Financial
Applicant was unemployed on various occasions. After leaving the military in
2001, he was unemployed for several months. (Tr. 57) He lost his job in 2002 for
several months. (Tr. 119) Applicant was furloughed on several occasions during one
position. (AE H and I)  His civilian pay was less than his military pay. He reports that he
initially earned less than $13 an hour. (Tr. 121) In 2007, he married and his first child
was born in 2008. (Tr. 27) Applicant and his wife also have an infant daughter. (Tr. 29)
His wife works full-time and earns approximately $16 an hour.  
The SOR lists delinquent accounts totaling $16,000. The credit reports confirm
them. (GE 10-13) He disclosed his delinquent debts on his latest security clearance
application. Some of the debts are the result of tuition that he could not pay while
attending technical school. (Tr. 27) Applicant notes that he paid some small debts that
are not listed on the SOR. He had a wage garnishment for 2003 state and federal taxes
in 2007. (GE 9) Applicant believes the taxes are now paid. (Tr. 92) He believes he first
obtained a credit report in 2004 and his total debt was $22,000. (Tr. 123)
4
In 2007, Applicant acknowledged his debts to the investigator from OPM. He did
not recognize some of the accounts, but he waited until July 2010 to dispute them or
inquire about them. He stated that he did not have the “know how” to resolve his credit
issues. (Tr. 126) He did not wish to file bankruptcy. He also submitted documentation
that he paid the debt alleged in 1h. (AE Q-S)
Applicant intends to pay his debts. He is researching various debt consolidation
plans. In July 2010, he sent certified letters to several creditors to inquire about the
status of the debts. (AE L-N) He has not paid any other debts listed on the SOR. He
explained that several debts are no longer listed on his latest credit report. (Tr. 77 and
AE O)
Applicant’s 2009 monthly net income was $3,000. Applicant’s wife’s income is
approximately $ 1,780 a month. It would appear that there is a net remainder of $1,150
in disposable income. (I) He has not received any credit counseling. (Tr. 86) Applicant
has a budget. The week before the hearing, he contacted a credit solution company for
guidance. (Tr. 139)
Applicant explained that he and his wife try to save but at times a vehicle repair
or extra child care expenses occur. He is also paying on two student loans. (Tr. 136) He
and his wife own two vehicles, but one is paid. 
Applicant’s manager describes him as a hard-working individual who is very
punctual. (AE D) He is a reliable person. He is a devoted father and husband. (AE A-C).
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An 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.” An 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.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
5
The United States Government (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 Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is1
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion2
is on the applicant.  3
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to Drug Involvement:
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
6
because it raises questions about a person's ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical
compounds identified and listed in the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as
amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and
hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal
drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical
direction.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession
of drug paraphernalia;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse
or drug dependence;
(e) evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a
licensed clinical social worker who, is a staff member of a
recognized drug treatment program;
(f) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program
prescribed by a duly qualified medical professional;
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance; and,
(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to
clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.
7
Applicant used marijuana, ecstasy and mushrooms. He first used marijuana in
1989 and intermittently continued until 2007. He experimented with mushrooms and
ecstasy during the years 2002 to 2007, during which time he held a security clearance.
He never disclosed any information to his employer about the illegal drug use. AG ¶
25(a) and (g) apply.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
(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;
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or
prolonged illness during which these drugs were prescribed,
and abuse has since ended; and,
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment
program, including but not limited to rehabilitation and
aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a
favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Applicant’s last use of any illegal drug was in 2007. He signed a notarized
statement of intent in 2010. This occurred after his security clearance investigation. He
does not believe he has a problem with illegal drugs and has not sought any
counseling. Considering his history of illegal drug use, there is doubt about future use,
and not sufficient passage of time for rehabilitation. None of the above mitigating
conditions apply.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy
debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-
8
control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules
and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information.” It also states that “an individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant currently has delinquent debts in the amount of $16,000.
Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to
overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant was unemployed for several months in 2002-2003. He was also
unemployed for a short time in 2008 and 2009. After that he was steadily employed.
This may have exacerbated Applicant’s ability to meet his obligations, but he did not
address the delinquent debts when he learned about them in 2004. He provided no
information about his efforts to otherwise meet those obligations during that period.  He
has not provided documentation to show he has made any payments on his delinquent
accounts other than one account. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent,
or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not
apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances)
does not apply. As noted, Applicant had short periods of unemployment. He noted that
his initial financial problems stem from his entry into the civilian work world. These
events, no doubt, impacted his finances. However, there is no evidence that he acted
reasonably under the circumstances. He allowed the delinquent debts to remain
unpaid. There is no record of any attempts to resolve his debt until after he received the
SOR. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has not provided
evidence of any consistent payment plans. He asserts that he has contacted several
debt consolidation programs and has contacted his creditors by phone. He paid one
account. He intends to pay his debts and is now trying to seek information about
consolidation. However, at this time a concrete plan is still in the future. His failure to
provide information about financial counseling obviates the applicability of FC MC AG ¶
20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are
clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control).
9
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to Personal Conduct:
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 ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under AG ¶ 16(a), a disqualifying condition exists when there is
“deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.”
Under AG ¶ 16(b) a disqualifying condition exists when “deliberately providing false or
misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security
official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative.”
Applicant failed to disclose pertinent information on his 2003 and 2007 SCAs.
His explanation that he rushed through or did not believe that his 2002 possession was
an actual arrest are not credible. He took the time to list a 1992 DUI but did not list any
use of any illegal drugs.  His behavior and personal conduct are disqualifying as they
raise questions about his judgment, reliability, truthfulness, and willingness to comply
with the law.
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 17, I conclude that
none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct his
falsifications or concealments. He provided no information that indicates he was ill-
advised. The intentional omissions occurred in 2003 and 2007, and are too recent and
serious to be mitigated by the passage of time so far. I have serious doubts about his
good judgment and reliability. He has not provided information in this record to show
that he has met his burden of proof for his personal conduct.
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 an 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
10
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
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 39 years old. He served in the Navy from 1989 until 2001. He also
acknowledged that he was in the reserves in 2002 for almost one year. During that
time, he used marijuana. Moreover, Applicant experimented with mushrooms and
ecstasy while holding a security clearance. Applicant currently has unresolved financial
difficulties, despite his good intentions. Part of his financial difficulties stem from a time
when he admittedly was unemployed, but he has not acted reasonably under the
circumstances. Applicant’s claimed last illegal drug use was in 2007, but I have doubts
about his reliability. He did not disclose material facts concerning the arrest in 2002 for
possession of marijuana nor did he note at any time in 2003 or 2007, his illegal use of
other drugs. He has not met his burden in this case.
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 through 1.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2., Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.e: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline: F AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.n: Against Applicant
11
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.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge