1
                                                           
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-00577
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant illegally used marijuana between 1998 and May 2009. He deliberately
omitted a major part of his marijuana use from his completed security form in January
2005. He continued to use marijuana after being granted special access and after the
special access was revoked. Applicant’s evidence in mitigation does not overcome the
adverse evidence under both guidelines. Eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP, Item 5) on August 24, 2009. He was interviewed by an investigator
from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on September 15, 2009. In his
interrogatory answers submitted to the Government on August 6, 2010, Applicant
indicated that the summary of the September 2009 interview did not accurately reflect
the information he provided the investigator. (Item 8, question 3) He provided
information for question 4 of Item 8 that corrects the statement summary. He provided
2
additional information under question 5 of Item 8 regarding matters discussed in the
interview. That information, which appears in a one-page attachment to Item 8, will be
addressed in the factual findings. With the corrections and modifications made to the
statement summary, Applicant acknowledged under question 6 of Item 8 that the
interview summary could be used in a security clearance hearing to determine his
security suitability. (Id.) On September 17, 2011, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) detailing security concerns under drug involvement (Guideline H) and personal
conduct (Guideline E). 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 by the Department of Defense on September
1, 2006. 
Applicant furnished his answer (Item 4) to the SOR on October 12, 2010. He
requested a decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the
Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government’s evidence in support
of the allegations of the SOR, was sent to Applicant on December 28, 2010. He
received the FORM on January 5, 2011. In an attachment to the FORM, he was advised
he could object to the information in the FORM or submit additional information in
explanation or extenuation. He submitted his response to the FORM on May 31, 2011.
The case file was assigned to me on June 14, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges drug involvement and personal conduct. Applicant admitted all
allegations. Applicant is 28 years old. He has been in a common law marriage since
August 2007. He has no children. In December 2004, Applicant received a bachelor’s
degree in engineering. Having completed the degree requirements, he will be awarded
a master’s degree in mechanical engineering in June 2011. He has been working as a
mechanical engineer since February 2005. He is now senior mechanical engineer. 
Drug Involvement
Applicant’s use of illegal drugs is based on his September 15, 2009, interview
with an OPM investigator, that is affixed to interrogatory questions that he answered
and notarized on August 6, 2010. (Item 8) Applicant began using marijuana in October
1998 at the age of 16. The location of use was at parties and concerts. Applicant’s
frequency of marijuana use between 1998 through 2004 (high school through college)
was weekly to once annually.
According to Applicant’s changes to his September 2009 interview, appearing
under question 4 of Item 8, he used marijuana on a monthly basis in high school, with
some periods of use of the drug occurring a couple times a week. There were also
periods where he did not use the drug for months. His use depended on school
commitments and work. Regarding his college use, his frequency of marijuana use was
 in the letter signed by Applicant, he acknowledged the Government’s concern about his drug use. The letter1
advised that a condition of access was no illegal drug use, and that future drug involvement could mean
revocation of access. 
3
sometimes multiple times a week to several months of non-use. Only Applicant’s
common law wife was involved in his decision to stop using marijuana. He spoke to a
few friends about his decision and not to offer or use it when he was present. (Item 8,
question 4, changes to September 2009 interview)
According to the summary of Applicant’s September 2009 interview, Applicant
used marijuana from March 2006 to May 2009. During the period, he used the drug in a
pipe or cigarette once or twice monthly at parties or social events. While he last used
the drug in a bong on the beach in May 2009, his use stopped six months earlier. Also,
in May 2009, he decided not to use marijuana anymore to conform with DoD policy. He
rarely purchased marijuana, and sold the drug on one occasion in 2001. (Id.) Applicant
used marijuana after being granted program access by another U.S. Government
agency in 2005,  and after signing a Code of Conduct letter in April 2005.  (Item 7,1
attachment) Applicant continued to use marijuana up to two times a month until May
2009, after his program access was revoked in May 2006. (Id.)
According to his September 2009 interview, he used mushrooms about 11 times
between November 2001 and September 2006.  He used hashish once in college. (Id.)
Personal Conduct
Applicant completed and certified an SF 86 on January 10, 2005. In response to
question 27 (Illegal Use of Drugs - Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, have you
ever used marijuana (and other drugs). He answered “yes,” and indicated he had used
marijuana less than 10 times between October 1998 and April 2002. (Item 6) 
Applicant was granted an interim clearance after agreeing to a Code of Conduct,
and consenting to a polygraph examination to qualify for a special access program by
another agency. During the examination process, Applicant voluntarily disclosed more
drug use than he revealed on the January 2005 security form and in an interview with a
background investigator on February 9, 2005. (Item 7, attachment) Also attached to
Item 7 is a copy of the AG displaying the disqualifying and mitigating conditions for drug
involvement and personal conduct. (Id.)
As a result of the omissions, Applicant’s access to another agency’s program
was revoked in May 2006 for illegal drug use, using drugs after being granted program
access, and failing to provide a complete account of illegal drug use during the
investigation. (Id.)
In response to Item 8, question 5 (additional information based on matters
discussed in September 2009 interview), Applicant noted he had no desire or
4
temptation to use drugs. He did not want to risk his career and family by resuming illegal
drug use in the future. 
In his response to the FORM dated, May 31, 2011, Applicant reiterated most of
the matters he addressed in Item 8. (Response to FORM) The omissions of his
complete drug history in January 2005 were due to having just graduated from school in
December 2004 with very little responsibilities. 
Applicant reiterated that he has used no drugs since May 2009. He severed ties
with all drug using friends. His network of support for a sober lifestyle includes his wife,
relatives and close friends. Applicant began therapy with a certified addictions counselor
in January 2011 and joined Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and admitted he had a
substance abuse problem. (Id.) 
In a statement dated May 26, 2011, the certified addictions counselor confirmed
that she began psychotherapy with Applicant on January 12, 2011. According to the
counselor, Applicant was desirous of being drug and alcohol free, and was committed to
reaching that goal through AA and the 12 Steps. The counselor did not provide detail on
Applicant’s “transformation in his attitude and behaviors.” (Id.)
Applicant’s sponsor since February 2011 indicated by letter dated May 29, 2011,
that he and Applicant attend daily AA meetings that begin at 6:30 A.M. During meetings
lasting about an hour once a week, Applicant and his sponsor work the 12 Steps and
study the Big Book. His sponsor stated that Applicant’s abstinence during this security
investigation is a good indicator that he will attain long-term sobriety. (Id.)
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no character evidence regarding his reputation for
trustworthiness, dependability, reliability, or judgment, on the job or away from the job. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be used to the extent they
are deemed necessary in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to classified
information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision
that is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a significant period of a person’s life with a number of variables known as
the "whole-person concept" that brings together all available, reliable information about
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions
5
entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of the potential, rather than
actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.l5., 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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern attached 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 because it raises questions about a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
The conditions that may be disqualifying are: AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug use); AG ¶
20(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia); and AG ¶ 25(g) (any illegal
drug use after being granted a security clearance). 
AG ¶¶ 25(a), (c), and (g) are applicable. Applicant illegally used marijuana
periodically from 1998 to May 2009. His illegal use of the drug during the period also
included possession and purchase. The most troubling aspect of his illegal drug use
was that he used the drug after being granted program access by another agency in
2005. Similarly, he used the drug after signing a Code of Conduct letter explaining
unequivocally the consequences of additional drug involvement. He continued (1)
working for the same employer who hired him in February 2005, and he continued (2)
using marijuana once or twice a month after his access was revoked from May 2006 to
May 2009. The Government has established a case under the drug involvement
guideline.
The three relevant mitigating conditions under the drug involvement guideline
are: AG ¶ 26(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); AG ¶ 26(b) (a
demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation
from drug-using associates and contacts, (2) changing or avoiding the environment
where drugs are used, (3) an appropriate period of abstinence, and a signed statement
of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation); and AG ¶ 26(d)
6
(satisfactory completion of a prescribed 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).
AG ¶ 26(a) does not apply due to recency of Applicant’s drug use, the frequency
of the drug use between 1998 and May 2009, his deliberate omission of a full
accounting his drug use, and his illegal drug use after being granted program access by
another agency of the U.S. Government. 
AG ¶ 26(b) has some application based on Applicant’s severance of ties with his
drug-using associates. Applicant receives additional mitigation for avoiding an
environment where drugs are used. Conversely, due to Applicant’s drug history of 11
years, the period of abstinence is not long enough. Lastly, the file does not contain a
signed statement of intent with revocation of clearance for any violation. 
AG ¶ 26(d) applies in part. While Applicant is undergoing therapy, the counselor’s
statement lacks sufficient detail for her sweeping conclusions. The conclusions and
prognosis seem to be based on simply interviews without testing. Having weighed and
balanced the record, Applicant has not met his heavy burden of persuasion  under the
drug involvement guideline. 
Personal Conduct
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. 
AG ¶ 16 contains two disqualifying conditions that may be applicable: 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); and AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that is not explicitly
covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability,
lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating the person may not properly safeguard protected information.
This includes but is not limited to consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable
behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information,
unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other government protected information;
(2) disruptive, violent, or other behavior in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or
7
rule violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of government or other employer’s
time or resources).
Omitting material information from an e-QIP raises security concerns under the
Directive. Material information is information that the Government has a right to know in
order to make an informed decision about a person’s security clearance suitability.
However, where a falsification or omission of material information results from oversight,
haste, or negligence, it is not deliberate, and it does not meet the elements of the
personal conduct guideline. Considering the evidence as a whole, I conclude that
Applicant’s omission was deliberate and intentional. He wanted to give the Government
the impression his marijuana use was little more than experimental and stopped in
2002. He admitted in his answer to the SOR that he deliberately omitted material
information about his drug use in response to question 27 of his SF 86 in January 2005.
Applicant’s deliberate omission of the full picture of his drug use meets the elements of
AG ¶ 16(a).
Applicant’s continued use of marijuana once or twice a month from March 2006
to May 2009, after being granted access to a special program in April 2005, then having
that access revoked in May 2006, and his violation of the Code of Conduct letter,
establish a pattern of rule violations within the meaning of AG ¶ 16(d). 
There are three mitigating conditions under the personal conduct guideline that
are potentially applicable to the circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: AG ¶
17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts); AG ¶ 17(c) (the
offense was 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); and AG ¶
17(d) (the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or
factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such
behavior is unlikely to recur).
AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply because Applicant did not disclose the missing drug
history until confronted by the polygraph in 2005. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply due to the
large difference between the information Appellant provided in his January 2005
security form and what he actually admitted to in subsequent interviews. AG ¶ 17(d) is
only partially applicable. While Applicant acknowledges his past marijuana use and is
receiving counseling, Applicant’s continued drug use after his clearance revocation in
May 2006 precludes him from receiving full credit under the mitigating condition. The
personal conduct guideline is resolved against Applicant. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the drug involvement and personal conduct
8
guidelines. I have also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables
known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's
conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following factors:
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 the participation was 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.
Applicant is 28 years old. Applicant completed his bachelor’s degree and
master’s degree. Applicant has been working for a defense contractor since February
2005. He is currently a senior mechanical engineer. 
Based on his informational responses submitted during the security investigation,
Applicant seems to be a mature person who has been involved in more than an
experimental use of marijuana over the years. In January 2005, he exercised poor
judgment by under reporting his illegal marijuana use. After being granted special
access in April 2005, he illegally used marijuana. After his special access was revoked
in May 2006, Appellant continued working for the employer that hired him in February
2005, and he continued to illegally use marijuana once or twice a month. Given
Applicant’s drug history, and his decision to continue to use marijuana, even though he
knew or should have known the Government’s drug policy for security clearances and
special access, he chose to defy the drug laws and the Government’s policy against
drug use. Applicant’s two-year period of abstinence and his treatment evidence is not
sufficient for findings in his favor under the drug involvement and personal conduct
guidelines. See AG ¶¶ 2(a)(1) through 2(a)(9). 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e; Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
9
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge