1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-01652
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nichole Noel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I grant
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) version of a security clearance application (SF-86) on October 9, 2008. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR)  on July 6, 2010 detailing security concerns under Guideline J, Criminal
Conduct, 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) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Given his trial testimony, Applicant admitted  the omission of the facts set forth in SOR ¶ 2.a, but he did not1
admit intentional falsification.
GE 1; Tr. 15-16.2
Id.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on July 19, 2010. He answered the
SOR in writing on July 20, 2010 and requested a hearing before an administrative
judge. DOHA received the request on July 23, 2010, and Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on September 28, 2010. I received the case assignment on
October 4, 2010. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on October 26, 2010, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on November 17, 2010. The Government offered
government exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, which were received and admitted into evidence
without objection. Applicant and two witnesses testified. He did not submit any exhibits.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on December 2, 2010. I held the
record open until December 1, 2010, for Applicant to submit an additional document.
Applicant requested an additional 10 days to obtain the requested document, and the
Government did not object. By order dated December 6, 2010, I granted Applicant’s
request, giving him until December 16, 2010 to submit the documentation. Applicant has
not provided the requested document. The record closed on December 16, 2010.
Procedural Ruling
Applicant received the hearing notice less than 15 days before the hearing. (Tr.
8.) I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice
before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to 15 days notice. (Id.) 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in the SOR.1
His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following additional findings of
fact.  
Applicant, who is 36 years old, works as an engineering technician for a
Department of Defense contractor. He began this employment in November 2005. His
job requires him to travel. He works part time for his father’s contractor business and
has done so since 2000.2
Applicant graduated from high school and later attended a technical school,
where he received training in drafting design and architecture. He is married. He has a
daughter, who is nine years old, and a son, who is three years old. In his spare time,
Applicant, who is a also musician, plays drums for local churches.3
GE 2; GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 16-17.4
Under State law this means no adjudication of guilt. GE 5.5
Response to SOR; GE 5; Tr. 18-20.6
3
On August 1, 2000, Applicant traveled from his state of residence to a state
1,000 miles away with a friend. The sole purpose of their trip was to obtain marijuana,
which they intended to take home and sell for profit. They received the drugs and
returned to the airport for their trip home. Applicant checked two large suitcases
containing the  marijuana. As he walked through the airport, local police observed his
behavior, which they found suspicious. After the suitcases had been checked with the
airline, police canines detected drugs. The police detained Applicant, who gave them
permission to inspect the suitcases. The police found nine vacuum sealed packages
containing marijuana with an approximate weight of 106 pounds. The police arrested
and charged him the same day. The grand jury issued an indictment against Applicant
on August 24, 2000.  4
Applicant appeared in court on September 11, 2000 with his legal counsel. He
plead guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana weighing more than 50 pounds,
but less than 2000 pounds. After hearing the evidence, the court concluded the
evidence substantiated the defendant’s (Applicant’s) guilt. With Applicant’s consent, the
court deferred adjudication,  as permitted by the state criminal code. The court declined5
to enter a finding of guilt, placed Applicant on community supervision for 10 years, fined
him $750, plus other costs and fees, and ordered that he perform 350 hours of
community service, attend drug education classes, and participate in treatment
alternatives to incarceration programs. His community supervision program imposed
numerous other conditions on him. The court also transferred his supervision to his
home state. Applicant completed the requirements of his community supervision. On
July 30, 2007, the adjudicating court discharged Applicant from further community
supervision and dismissed the proceedings against Applicant. The court did not enter a
finding of guilty against Applicant. He has accepted full responsibility for his conduct.6
On May 15, 2003, Applicant flew from his hometown to a major city about 250
miles away, intending to drive to a small city another 180 miles distant to attend a
cookout and to pick up his brother for the return trip home. Mr. H, a friend whom he had
known casually for four or five years and saw once or twice a year, drove to the major
city airport. Applicant drove Mr. H’s car to the smaller city. On the way, the police
stopped him for failure to maintain lanes. During the stop, the police accused him of
driving on a suspended license, and driving after drinking. Neither of the accusations
were true. The police also told him they smelled marijuana and searched the car with
drug detection dogs. No drugs were found, although Mr. H told the police he had a small
amount of marijuana on his person. Applicant was aware of Mr. H’s possession of this
small amount. The search of the car also produced a firearm, belonging to Mr. H, who
had a license for the firearm. The police arrested and charged Applicant with driving on
a suspended license and arrested Mr. H for possession of less than one ounce of
GE 3; Tr. 20-23, 26-27, 41-42.7
GE 6.8
Id.; Tr. 25, 44-45.9
4
marijuana. While in the holding cell, Mr. H told Applicant that the police missed the
drugs in the cooler in the trunk of the car. After this conversation, Mr. H paid bail and the
police released him. In the meantime, a jailhouse informant told the police about their
conversation. The police searched the car again, and found 2.7 pounds of marijuana
and four stolen lottery tickets. The police filed charges against Applicant for possession
of marijuana and stolen lottery tickets. Applicant denied any knowledge of the lottery
tickets and of the marijuana in the cooler prior to his conversation with Mr. H in the
holding cell.7
After the grand jury issued an indictment against Applicant and Mr. H, on May 19,
2003, the local sheriff served Applicant with four criminal arrest warrants, charging him
with possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a felony; with possession of a
firearm within arms reach, a felony; theft by receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor;
and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, a felony. Applicant
obtained an attorney to represent him in this matter.8
Applicant appeared in court on February 23, 2004. Prior to his court appearance,
Applicant and his attorney discussed the charges against Applicant. They weighed the
problems Applicant faced because Mr. H was not accepting responsibility for his
conduct related to the lottery ticket and marijuana in the cooler. His attorney advised
him that this was a “he said, he said” case and that Mr. H was trying to shift his conduct
onto Applicant because of Applicant’s previous arrest and ongoing probation. Applicant
understood that he faced the possibility of some jail time. Upon the advice of his
attorney, Applicant agreed to plead guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with
the intent to sell, a felony. The prosecutor offered Applicant this plea along with a
recommendation for probation and a reduced fine. The prosecutor dismissed the
remaining charges, including the possession of stolen lottery tickets charge and the
firearms charges.  9
When Applicant appeared in court to enter his plea, the following colloquy took
place:
Prosecutor: Factual basis: On the date stated in the indictment, Deputy L
was sitting on the interstate. He noticed this car was weaving outside of its
lane, actually going down one lane, I think, riding the line for several
hundred feet, maybe even a mile. He initiated a traffic stop. He smelled
the odor of burnt marijuana, decided to inquire about his insurance. When
Deputy L inquired as to the status of [Applicant’s] license, dispatch told
him it was suspended. However, it actually wasn’t suspended
[emphasis supplied] but that was what Mr. L or Deputy L was told, that it
5
was. He therefore placed him under arrest, put him in the back of the
patrol car. He went over to the passenger to find out information on the
passenger. The passenger said he did have a valid driver’s license; it was
actually his car. Deputy L’s K-9 unit alerted on the vehicle. He then
searched the vehicle but didn’t find anything. Mr. H [passenger] said I
have a cigarette joint on me. He was placed under arrest. They were both
transferred to the jail. While in jail, a confidential informant overheard
some conversation they were having as to the marijuana that the officer
had missed. That informant then went and told Investigator R. that there
was some marijuana inside a cooler in the back trunk of the vehicle. The
officer went and got a search warrant and went to search the car. It had
been impounded since they were arrested. When they [police] went to go
do the search, they found 2.7 pounds of marijuana in an ice chest in the
trunk of their vehicle.
Your honor, those are the facts as far as to the charges, and the state is
recommending in this case to [Applicant] that he have seven years‘
probation, a fine not to exceed $5,000. And even though there was
possession of a firearm, there was a firearm, even though – as to those
charges, even though they are being nolle prossed, [Applicant] will waive
any rights he has to a firearm as part of the plea offer.
The Court: Is part of the plea that he testify truthfully?
Prosecutor: I’d like to ask him those questions now.
The Court: Has he been placed under oath?
Prosecutor: [Applicant], you’ve already pled guilty to the charge of
marijuana, and it was your vehicle you were driving in; is that right?
[Applicant]: No, it was Mr. H.’s
Prosecutor: You were driving the vehicle, right?
[Applicant]: Yes, sir.
Prosecutor: You knew there was marijuana in the cooler in the back of the
vehicle, did you not?
[Applicant]: Yes, sir.
Prosecutor: Did also Mr. H.?
[Applicant]: Yes sir, he did.
Applicant denied that the gun in the car belonged to him. At his sentencing, he acknowledged to the court10
that he was giving up a right to make any future claims that the gun was actually his. Given his denial of
ownership, it would be no problem for Applicant to give up this right. GE 6E, p. 3, 12. 
6
Prosecutor: Okay. Where did you get the marijuana?
[Applicant]: The marijuana – I didn’t get the marijuana, Mr. H. did.
Prosecutor: Mr. H. got the marijuana. Was it his idea?
[Applicant]: Yes, it was.
Prosecutor: Did you see him put it in the cooler?
[Applicant]: No, I didn’t.
Prosecutor: But you knew it was back there inside the cooler?
[Applicant]: Yes.
Prosecutor: Did he tell you he did it?
[Applicant]: I knew it because I knew he did it. He had it in the cooler.
Prosecutor: Where were you transporting it to?
[Applicant]: He was taking it to [city name].
Prosecutor: And you were going with him?
[Applicant]: Yeah. I was going to pick up my brother and go back.
Prosecutor: You were going to share the proceeds?
[Applicant]: No.
GE 6.
After this, the court found that Applicant’s guilty plea was freely and voluntarily
entered, that because of his plea, he could not own a firearm or be near a firearm, that
Applicant waived his constitutional rights, and that he gave up his right to claim that Mr.
H’s firearm was actually Applicant’s firearm.  The court said it would follow the10
recommendation of the state on the plea. Applicant testified to earning $350 to $400 a
week, to living with his parents, to paying for his daughter’s day care, the light bill, and
the phone bill at home. He did not own a house or car, and he filed his 2003 taxes,
which reflect an income of $15,000. On February 23, 2004, the court noted that it
The court did not inquire as to whether Applicant’s knowledge of marijuana in the car related to the small11
amount of marijuana on his friend or the marijuana in the cooler. At the hearing on his plea, Applicant testified
that he did not observe Mr. H placing the marijuana in the cooler. GE 6.
Id. at p. 4, 12.12
 GE 3, p. 4; Tr. 16, 45-46.13
GE 3.14
7
appreciated applicant’s honesty and frankness, which the court stated was worth a lot.
The court also asked him if he knew when he got in the car he had marijuana and
Applicant answered “yes”.  The court then fined him $3,500 and placed him on seven11
years of probation, which ended on February 23, 2011. The prosecutor nolle prossed
the remaining charges against Applicant. The court did not sentence him as a first
offender, as Applicant’s home state would not accept a first offender status probation,
but would accept an individual in probation status. The second arrest and sentencing
did not impact Applicant’s probation for his arrest in 2000.12
Since the day of his arrest in May 2003, Applicant has not seen or associated
with his casual friend, Mr. H. He may have seen him in court in 2003 or 2004, but
Applicant is not sure. Applicant has not been involved with drugs or the police since
2003. He works regularly and spends time with his family or playing music at his church.
He works for his father’s business when needed, and when he is available.13
When he completed his e-QIP, Applicant listed his two marijuana arrests and
probation as the action taken. He also stated that he did not know that the illegal drugs
were in the car when the police stopped the car for a traffic violation in 2003 as the car
belonged to his passenger (Mr. H), the owner of the car, who had not made him aware
of the marijuana in the car. When he met with the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) investigator, he reviewed the facts of his 2003 arrest. He outlined the
circumstances surrounding his arrest, which correlate with the facts previously
discussed in this decision. He told the investigator that the car was searched by the
police, who found a gun. He denied any knowledge of the gun prior to its discovery. He
acknowledged both he and Mr. H were arrested and taken into custody. He did not have
any knowledge about the reasons for the release of Mr. H and the charges against Mr.
H. He appeared at a court hearing the day after his arrest, where the court informed him
that he was being charged with possession of marijuana and stolen lottery tickets.
Applicant advised the OPM investigator that he was shocked by the charges for
marijuana and stolen lottery tickets as he had no knowledge of these items being in the
car. He further advised that the police asked him to contact Mr. H, but that he did not
have any means to contact Mr. H. He described additional facts concerning what he
knew about the discovery of the marijuana and lottery tickets and the results of his case.
He told the OPM investigator that he plead guilty to possession of marijuana and that
the remaining charges were dropped.14
Tr. 34-36. 15
Id. at 36-39; GE 3.16
GE 2; Tr. 39-42, 46-47. 17
Tr. 49-66.18
8
On cross-examination, Applicant admitted pleading guilty to possession with
intent to distribute as a result of his 2003 arrest, understanding that he was not pleading
guilty to simple possession, and answering the questions of the court truthfully. When
Department Counsel reviewed his answers to the prosecutor’s questions about his
knowledge, Applicant again stated that at the time of the traffic stop, he did not know
there was marijuana in the car. He also admitted that he did not specifically say to the
court that he learned about the marijuana in the holding cell. After Department Counsel
read Applicant his answers to the court and pointed out to him that his court testimony
sounded as if he had known the marijuana was in the car, Applicant stated “now I see
what you’re saying.” He again stated that he did not know the marijuana was in the
cooler until he and Mr. H talked in the holding cell.15
Concerning his interview with the OPM investigator and his statement that he did
not know about the marijuana, Applicant testified, on cross-examination, that he was
thinking about when the police stopped him and asked him if there was marijuana in the
car. He misunderstood the focus of the investigator’s question, as he was thinking about
when he was stopped. He did not know about the marijuana at the time of the stop, but
he did learn about it after the fact. He plead guilty to the charge based on his after the
fact knowledge. Applicant affirmed that the statement of the investigator was correct.16
In his answer to interrogatories dated April 3, 2009, Applicant indicated that he
last possessed marijuana in August 2000, but that he plead guilty to a marijuana charge
in 2003. At the hearing, Applicant explained that he answered in this format because he
had already plead guilty to the charge. Again, Applicant stated that he plead guilty to
this charge, but that he did not possess the marijuana that was in the car and that he
was denying responsibility for the underlying crime. He knew that Mr. H used marijuana,
which was illegal, and that Mr. H sold marijuana. He knew about Mr. H’s conduct
because Mr. H told him. Mr. H never smoked marijuana in Applicant’s presence, as Mr.
H knew Applicant did not use marijuana. Mr. H never sold marijuana to Applicant.17
Applicant’s father, a church bishop, and a friend testified on Applicant’s behalf.
Both know about his criminal arrests in the past. Both consider Applicant trustworthy.
His friend described him as honest, dependable and reliable. Applicant is married and
takes responsibility for his family. He has proven himself to them through his conduct
and behavior. Applicant told his friend that he was wrong in committing crimes with
drugs and has learned from his mistakes.   18
Applicant deeply regrets his actions. His decision to purchase and sell marijuana
in 2000 was out of character. He realized that his decision impacted others as well as
GE 2; Tr. 16-17, 24.19
Under the Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1, the Appeal Board is required to give deference to the credibility20
determinations of an administrative judge. ISCR Case No. 04-05712 (App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2006)
9
himself. He expressed regret for his actions and has taken steps to keep himself out of
trouble with the police since 2003. He spends time with his family and plays drums for
his church music group. He works hard.  Throughout the hearing, Applicant testified19
credibly about the facts of this case.20
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for 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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
10
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 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
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct: “Criminal
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 ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and the
following may be disqualifying in this case:
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.
In 2000, Applicant flew 1,000 miles from his home with the specific intent to
purchase marijuana for resale. The police arrested him and he plead guilty to
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute charges in 2000. In 2003, the police
arrested and charged him with a number of criminal acts after a traffic stop. Applicant
plead guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. Based on its
allegation of falsification, the Government provided substantial evidence for its
allegation of falsification in SOR ¶ 1.c. AG ¶¶ 31(a) and 31 (c) apply.
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) 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; 
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
11
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
Applicant’s first arrest occurred more than 10 years ago, and his second and last
arrest occurred nearly eight years ago. Applicant has not been arrested by the police or
involved with the police since 2003. He is married and spends his free time with his
wife, daughter, and son. He has worked steadily since November 2005, not only at his
full-time job, but he also works part time for his father’s construction business. He
supports his family and pays his bills. He plays drums for his church music group;
otherwise he focuses his time on work and family. He realizes the harm he caused
himself and his family by his past behavior. He deeply regrets his decision in 2000. He
no longer associates with people involved in criminal activity or drugs. He never used
marijuana or any other illegal drug. Applicant has rehabilitated his past criminal conduct;
thus he has mitigated the security concerns raised in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b under AG ¶¶
32(a) and 32(b).
Given that I found that Applicant did not falsify his statement to the OPM
investigator, SOR ¶ 1.c is found in favor of Applicant.
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. 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.
AG ¶ 16(b) describes a condition that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant
facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical
authority, or other official government representative;
For AG ¶ 16(b) to apply, Applicant’s false or misleading information to the OPM
investigator must be deliberate. Proof of a false statement, standing alone, does not
establish that it is deliberate. See ISCR Case No. 07–00196 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 09-07551 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2011) In evaluating whether the
Government has presented substantial evidence regarding the deliberate nature of a
false statement or an omission, the Judge must examine the statement or omission in
light of the record as a whole. Id. In making this determination, the administrative judge
must determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313321
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
12
applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred.  When he met with21
the OPM investigator, Applicant denied the underlying conduct to which he plead guilty
in court in February 2004. In his answer to the SOR, he admitted the allegation in SOR
paragraph ¶ 2.a. However, in his e-QIP, in his response to interrogatories, in his
statement to the investigator, and through his hearing testimony, he consistently stated
that he plead guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, but denied that
he actually possessed the marijuana with an intent to distribute at the time the police
stopped Mr. H’s vehicle for a traffic violation. He learned about the marijuana while in
the holding cell and because of this knowledge, he plead guilty to knowledge that the
marijuana was in the car. He denied at his court proceeding purchasing the marijuana
or placing the marijuana in the cooler in the car. However, he made an ambiguious
statement during the providence inquiry about knowing the marijuana was in the
vehicle’s trunk.
The Appeal Board has generally held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel
applies in DOHA proceedings. Under this doctrine, an applicant is precluded from
contending they did not engage in criminal acts for which they were convicted. See
ISCR Case No. 04-05712 (App. Bd. Oct. 31, 2006) This concept is based upon the
premise that an individual’s right to administrative due process does not give him or her
the right to litigate a second time matters properly adjudicated in an earlier proceeding.
Id. In this case, Applicant plead guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to
distribute, and the court found him guilty of this criminal act in 2004, which is a
conclusive finding that cannot be relitigated in this case.
In deciding whether Applicant intentionally provided false or misleading
information during his interview, I must look at his state of mind when he met with the
OPM investigator. Applicant, who graduated from high school and has received
technical training, is not a licensed lawyer. He does not have the education or skills to
understand the nuances of law, which in this case, by pleading guilty in court, he
acknowledged that he committed the underlying criminal acts. Id. Throughout his
security clearance process, Applicant readily and openly acknowledged that he was
arrested in 2000 and 2003; that he plead guilty in court in both cases; and that he
received probation in both cases. He also accepted full responsibility for his criminal
conduct and actions in 2000. While he admitted that he plead guilty to possession of
marijuana with intent to distribute in 2003, he consistently denied the actual conduct.
When he completed his e-QIP and when he met with the OPM investigator, he denied
any knowledge of the marijuana in the cooler at the time of his traffic stop and
subsequent arrest for driving on a suspended license. Applicant’s statement to the
investigator does not reflect that he was providing information based on his knowledge
at the time of his arrest. Rather, he talks in general terms about his understanding of the
events which took place. He denied any knowledge of the drugs in the car, and he did
not mention learning about the drugs in the holding cell. Applicant also told the
investigator that he was “shocked” by the charges for possession of marijuana and
13
stolen lottery tickets. Given his statement that he learned about the marijuana while in
the holding cell, he did not provide truthful and accurate information to the OPM
investigator about the circumstances surrounding his arrest in 2003.  The Government
has established its case under Guideline E.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following
mitigating conditions are relevant in this case:
(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;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; and,
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules
and regulations.
After his arrest almost eight years, Applicant has changed his behavior and
friends. He stays away from individuals engaged in criminal activity, particularly
individuals who are involved with drugs. He focuses his energy on his family and his
work. For more than six years, he has worked successfully with the same company. In
his spare time, he plays drums at his church. He actively made a decision to stay away
from his earlier acquaintances, which has changed the direction of his life. This decision
shows maturity, good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. AG ¶¶ 17(e) and 17(g)
apply. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of 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. 
14
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. More than 10
years ago, Applicant made a bad decision when he decided to purchase a substantial
quantity of marijuana to sell. When the police stopped him, he cooperated with their
requests to search his suitcases, knowing that drugs would be found during their
search. He appeared in court less than two months after his arrest and pleaded guilty to
the criminal charges. He paid his fine. He recognized that his conduct was wrong and
harmful to him and his family. Since this time, he has never purchased such large
quantities of marijuana for any reason, including with the intent to sell.
In 2003, he accepted a ride with a casual friend to a cookout, not knowing the
major problems which would result from this decision. A traffic stop resulted in new
criminal charges for a multitude of criminal offenses stemming from actions taken by his
friend. Recognizing the dilemma in which his decision placed him, Applicant relied upon
the advice of his attorney and plead guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with
an intent to distribute. Since his sentencing in 2004, he has not been involved in drugs
or any other criminal activity. He no longer associates with this friend. 
Throughout the security clearance process, Applicant has been honest and
forthcoming about his two arrests and the results of these arrests. He has not made any
attempt to hide his past criminal conduct, although he failed to be completely forthright
with the OPM investigator about all the facts surrounding his arrest and plea.
Applicant focuses his time on his family and church. He works hard. He has held
his current job for more than five years, and he has worked part-time for his father for
over 10 years. He learned from his past mistakes. As a result, he changed his behavior.
He is dependable and reliable. Most importantly, he recognizes that he made a serious
mistake when he decided to purchase marijuana for resale in 2000 and when he chose
Mr. H as a friend. For the last eight years, he has worked hard to change his attitude
and behavior with great success. He has no need to be involved with criminal activity or
persons involved in criminal activity.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
15
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his personal and
criminal 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge