DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-02617 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: William T. O'Neil, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on 
October 1, 2007, to obtain a security clearance while on active duty with the United 
States Marine Corps. He was granted a security clearance. On October 7, 2009, 
Applicant submitted an e-QIP to maintain eligibility for access to classified information 
as part of his employment with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted 
by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued an interrogatory to Applicant to clarify or augment potentially 
disqualifying information in his background. After reviewing the results of the 
background investigation and Applicant's response to the interrogatory, DOHA could not 
make the preliminary affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. On 
October 28, 2010, DOHA issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
security concerns for 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 
1 
 
2 
 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 
5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987, as amended (Regulation); 
and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the Department of Defense on 
September 1, 2006.  
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant used marijuana three to five times weekly form 
about 2001 until 2006 (SOR 1.a), that he used psilocybin one or two times weekly from 
about June 2001 until August 2001 (SOR 1.b), and that he used marijuana three times 
in August 2009 subsequent to being granted a security clearance and while still on 
active duty in the Marine Corps. (SOR 1.c). The SOR also alleges under Guideline E 
that Applicant did not provide truthful information concerning his drug use on the 
October 1, 2007 e-QIP, and that he omitted drug involvement information in response to 
questions on an October 6, 2010 DOHA interrogatory. In his December 16, 2010 
response to the SOR, Applicant admitted using marijuana until June 2005 but not until 
2006. He admitted using psilocybin in 2001 and marijuana three times in August 2009. 
He admitted deliberately failing to disclose his drug use from June 2001 until 2005 on 
the October 1, 2007 e-QIP. He denied deliberately omitting his August 2009 marijuana 
use in response to the October 2010 interrogatory.  
 
 Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on January 27, 2011, and the 
case was assigned to me on February 22, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on 
April 18, 2011, scheduling a hearing for May 3, 2011. I convened the hearing as 
scheduled. The Government offered two exhibits which were marked and admitted into 
the record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 and 2. Applicant and 
one witness testified. He introduced seven documents which were marked and admitted 
into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through G. DOHA 
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on May 11, 2011. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant did not remember when he received the notice of hearing. Applicant is 
entitled to 15 days advance notice of a hearing (Directive E3.1.8.). Applicant and his 
counsel discussed with Department Counsel the hearing date of May 3, 2011, prior to 
the Notice of Hearing being mailed on April 18, 2011. Applicant and his counsel were 
ready to proceed and had sufficient time to prepare. Applicant, through counsel, 
affirmatively waived the 15-days notice requirement. (Tr. 5-6) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admissions and explanations to the SOR allegations under both 
Guideline H and Guideline E are included in my findings of fact. After a thorough review 
of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following essential findings of fact.   
 
 Applicant is a 28-year-old high school graduate who has been a systems analyst 
for a defense contractor since August 2009. After graduating from high school in 2001, 
he attended various community colleges and universities but did not receive a degree. 
During the time he attended school, he was also employed at various jobs in the 
3 
 
community. He joined the United States Marine Corps in August 2005 and served on 
active duty until August 2009 when he received an honorable discharge as a Lance 
Corporal (E-4). While on active duty, he made three deployments overseas with his unit 
and served an infantry tour in the Afghanistan combat zone. He received an award for 
his combat service. He has never married and has no children. Applicant served two 
tours as a civilian with the defense contractor in Afghanistan training Marines at forward 
bases in the use intelligence gathering software. (Tr. 25-26, 35-38; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, 
dated October 7, 2009; App. Ex. G, Award Recommendation, dated April 5, 2008)  
 
 Applicant admitted using marijuana from 2001 until June 2005 just prior to 
entering active duty with the Marines. When he started using marijuana he was 
approximately 18 years old. He stopped using when he was approximately 23 years old. 
He denied he used marijuana until June 2006. The information concerning marijuana 
use until June 2006 was from Applicant's response on the drug use question on the 
October 13, 2010 response to interrogatory. Applicant listed his marijuana use until 
"2005/06". His response was to show use until June 2005 not through 2006. I find that 
Applicant used marijuana three to five times weekly from 2001 until June 2005.  
 
 After graduating from high school, Applicant was living by himself or with friends. 
He was in his early twenties, attending school, and working at a casino or other 
businesses. He used marijuana mostly with the people he worked with at the casino and 
with his college friends, including his brother. He attributes his use of illegal drugs to 
pressure and being with the wrong people. Since he joined the Marine Corps in 2005, 
he has not had any contact with the people he previously used drugs with the exception 
of his brother. The friends live in different parts of the country and not where Applicant 
now lives. As noted below, he does stay in contact with his brother. Applicant executed 
a document that he does not intend to use illegal drugs in the future and that if he does 
he will lose his security clearance. He has not used marijuana since August 2009. (Tr. 
26-32, 38-43, 51-53; App. Ex. F, Document, dated March 31, 2011) 
 
 Applicant admits that he purchased over the internet a kit to grow psychedelic 
mushrooms (psilocybin). He was 19 years old at the time. Applicant admits he grew and 
used the mushrooms. He only used the drug a few times because of peer pressure and 
being with the wrong people. (Tr. 29-31, 40-44) 
 
 Applicant admits he used marijuana three times with his younger brother in 
August 2009. His brother is now 25 years old. At the time, he was on terminal leave 
from the Marine Corps for three weeks and was with his family before being formally 
released from active duty. He was not at a Marine installation. He had taken his brother 
to live with his grandparents and had been with his brother for about two weeks. He 
stayed too long and was pressured by his brother to use marijuana. In August 2009, he 
was still subject to drug testing by the Marines. He was seeking employment but had 
not been hired by a company. He did not know if he would have to undergo drug 
screening if he received a job. He now sees his brother less than once a year but is still 
in contact with him by phone. His brother still uses marijuana and he can expect that his 
brother will again ask him to use illegal drugs. He will not use marijuana again because 
of the effect his use will have on his access to classified information. (Tr. 30-32, 48-55) 
4 
 
 Applicant completed an e-QIP on October 1, 2007, to gain a security clearance 
for an active duty position as a company-level intelligence cell leader. In response to 
drug use questions, Applicant answered "no" to all the drug use questions including the 
question asking if he used any illegal drugs since the age of 16 or in the last seven 
years. He answered "no" to all other drug use questions. He was concerned and scared 
that if he disclosed his drug use he would be released from the Marine Corps. He 
admitted that he used marijuana from 2001 until 2005 and psilocybin from June 2001 
until August 2001, so he did use illegal drugs since the age of 16 or in the last seven 
years.  
 
 Applicant admitted that he intentionally did not include his drug use on this e-QIP. 
In 2005, his recruiter specifically told him not to list his drug use. In 2007, he again 
followed that deceptive advice when completing the form in 2007. After basic training, 
Applicant was screened by the Marine Corps for duty on a Presidential detail. He was 
questioned by an officer concerning his suitability for the position. He told the officer 
about his pre-Marine Corps drug use because he did not want the Presidential detail 
position. (Tr. 45-48) 
 
 On the e-QIP he submitted on October 7, 2009, Applicant listed his marijuana 
use from 2001 until 2005, his use of psilocybin in June through August 2001, and his 
marijuana use in August 2009. Subsequently, Applicant received an interrogatory from 
DOHA questioning him about his drug use and requesting that he complete a form 
listing his drug use. He responded to the interrogatory on October 13, 2011, and 
provided drug use information. He did not list his August 2009 use of marijuana. He 
listed his marijuana use from 2001 to 2005 and the 2001 use of psilocybin (psychedelic 
mushrooms). He denied that he deliberately failed to list the August 2009 drug use in 
the response to the interrogatory with the intent to deceive. He said his answer was a 
mistake. He thought the form only wanted him to list habitual drug use and not one time 
use. After submitting the form, he was questioned by a security investigator concerning 
his drug use and he informed him of the August 2009 marijuana use. (Tr. 27, 46-47, 55-
58; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated October 7, 2009) 
 
 Applicant's supervisor testified that Applicant worked for him for over two years. 
Part of Applicant's work is performed overseas and part of it is at the home station. He 
has observed Applicant at the home station and received reports about Applicant's 
overseas performance. He has no reservations about Applicant having access to 
classified information. Applicant's work performance is exemplary and he has high 
integrity. The reports he received concerning Applicant are exceptional and 
complementary. Applicant has been commended by his supervisors overseas and 
recommended by them for promotion. His supervisor is aware of the allegations 
pertaining to illegal drug use and personal conduct and has no reservations concerning 
Applicant. (Tr. 17-24) 
 
 Applicant presented letters of recommendation from superiors and co-workers. A 
Marine officer wrote that he worked with Applicant in combat situations when Applicant 
was a civilian supporting Marines. Applicant was reliable and extremely trustworthy in all 
5 
 
matters. He has no concerns about Applicant's loyalty or reliability. (App. Ex. A, Letter, 
dated March 15, 2011)  
 
 Another Marine Corps officer, serving as a Regimental Combat Team intelligence 
officer, wrote that he worked with Applicant when he was a civilian in combat situations 
for almost a year. Applicant was knowledgeable and dedicated to the mission of 
supporting Marines. He worked tirelessly to insure that the Marines received intelligence 
they needed, and would frequently make trips to remote dangerous areas to support 
Marines. This support exceeded the support he was required to provide under his 
contract. (App. Ex. B. Letter, dated March 15, 2011) 
 
 A coworker wrote that he worked with Applicant for two years. Applicant is 
motivated, dedicated, and determined. His work ethic is positive and unquestioned. 
Applicant is trustworthy, conscientious, motivated, and a valuable team member. (App. 
Ex. C, Letter, undated) 
 
 Applicant's former platoon sergeants wrote that Applicant was in his unit for over 
three years. Applicant deployed with the unit in a combat environment. Applicant 
performed professionally, and was trustworthy and dependable. He was always 
assigned duties above his pay grade and his performance was exemplary. He never 
had any disciplinary or other issues with Applicant. (App. Ex. D, Letter, dated December 
5, 2010) 
 
 A Marine Corps major, who Applicant worked with in a combat situation, wrote 
that Applicant's performance was highly proficient and showed dedication to supporting 
Marines. He has no questions concerning Applicant's integrity or trustworthiness. (App. 
Ex. E, Letter, undated) 
 
 Applicant also included letters of recommendation with his response to the SOR. 
Some of these letters were from the same individuals that provided letters as noted 
above. Other supervisors, friends, and coworkers wrote on Applicant's behalf. All of 
these individuals praised Applicant's work ethic and dedication to duty. They stated that 
Applicant was trustworthy and reliable. They had no reservations concerning his access 
to classified information. (See Applicant's Response to SOR, dated December 16, 2010) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised Administrative Guidelines. In addition to 
brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 
6 
 
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 burden of persuasion 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The use of an illegal drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and 
trustworthiness, because it may impair judgment and raises questions about a person’s 
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Drugs are mood and 
behavior altering substances, and include those listed in the Controlled Substances Act 
of 1970. Marijuana and psilocybin are listed in the Act. Drug abuse is the illegal use of a 
drug or the use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical 
direction (AG ¶ 24). Applicant admits marijuana use from 2001 until 2005, use of 
psilocybin (psychedelic mushrooms) in 2001 which he cultivated and grew himself, and 
marijuana again on three occasions in August 2009. Applicant's use of marijuana in 
August 2009 was after receiving a security clearance in 2007. Applicant's drug use 
raises Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug use); AG ¶ 25(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). 
7 
 
 The Government produced sufficient evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions as required in AG ¶¶ 25(c), 25(c), and 25(e). The burden shifted to Applicant 
to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns 
under drug involvement. An applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation 
or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never shifts to the 
Government. Applicant raised conditions that may mitigate the security concern 
 
 I considered Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 26(a) (the behavior 
happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such unusual 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); and AG ¶ 26(b) (a demonstrated 
intent not to abuse 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; (4) a signed statement of intent with 
automatic revocation of clearance for any violation). These mitigating conditions do not 
apply. While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or 
sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct 
affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful 
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of 
time has passed without evidence of drug involvement, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation.  
 
 Applicant admits using marijuana while in his early twenties from 2001 until 2005. 
He also admitted cultivating and using psilocybin or psychedelic mushrooms in a two 
month period in 2001. There were no unusual circumstances leading to the drug use. 
He was a young person who admits he used the illegal drugs based on peer pressure 
and being with the wrong people. While in the Marine Corps from 2005 until 2009, he 
did not use illegal drugs. However, he used marijuana in August 2009 while on terminal 
leave from the Marine Corps when it was offered to him by his younger brother. At the 
time, he was technically in the Marine Corps even though he would complete his active 
duty tour within a week. He has not used illegal drugs since August 2009 but he also 
spent time deployed overseas in support of Marines. Applicant's use of illegal drugs was 
willful and voluntary, and could recur at any time. The four years that he was on active 
duty may be sufficient time to show a changed circumstance. But the essence of why he 
had a changed circumstance was his active duty Marine tour and his devotion to the 
Corps and its values and principles. As soon as he was no longer under the tutelage of 
his leaders and the restrictions placed on him as a member of the Marine Corps, he 
succumbed to his brother's temptation to use marijuana. He did not use marijuana once 
but three times. He has not used illegal drugs in the last two years but most of that time 
was spent overseas in support of Marines.   
 
 Applicant no longer associates with his work and school friends that used 
marijuana with him and urged him to grow and use psychedelic mushrooms from 2001 
until 2005. Applicant no longer sees or associates with these friends because they live 
in a different part of the country than Applicant. However, he continues to see his 
brother, although infrequently. His brother still uses illegal drugs. Applicant has not 
8 
 
presented sufficient information to show that his brother or any other peers would not 
persuade him to use illegal drugs in the future. Applicant did complete a form showing 
his intent not to use illegal drugs in the future and the loss of his security clearance if he 
did so. Applicant previously pledged not to use drugs while he was in the Marine Corps. 
He had a security clearance at the time he used marijuana in August 2009 and was still 
a Marine. He broke that pledge as he was leaving the Marine Corps. He presented 
insufficient evident to show that he would not break his new pledge not to use drugs.  
 
 The passage of time and the period of abstinence until August 2009 are sufficient 
to find that his use of marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in 2001 to 2005 is no 
longer a security concern. However, his use of marijuana in August 2009 is a security 
concern. Peer pressure led him to use marijuana in August 2009 and peer pressure 
could again lead him to use illegal drugs. Applicant has not presented sufficient 
information that the passage of time or the period of abstinence since August 2009 are 
sufficient changes of circumstance to show he has reformed and will no longer use 
illegal drugs.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised for personal conduct based on Applicant's responses 
to questions on drug use on a security clearance application and in response to 
interrogatories. Personal conduct is a security concern because conduct involving 
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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 ¶ 15). Personal 
conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the person’s past conduct 
justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified 
information. The security clearance system depends on the individual providing correct 
and accurate information. If a person conceals or provides false information, the 
security clearance process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to 
classified information is in the best interest of the United States government.  
 
 In 2005, when Applicant joined the Marine Corps, he was not honest about his 
prior illegal drug use. This conduct can be attributed to an individual following his 
recruiter's advice. Two years later, Applicant completed a security clearance application 
on October 1, 2007 while still on active duty in the Marine Corps. He answered "no" to 
all drug use questions and did not list his use of illegal drugs from 2001 until 2005 
before joining the Marine Corps. In October 2010, when Applicant completed a drug use 
form in response to an interrogatory from DOHA, he listed his 2001 and 2005 illegal 
drug use but did not list his August 2009 use of marijuana. Applicant's inaccurate and 
incomplete answers to drug use questions raise a security concern under Personal 
Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission concealment, or 
falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, 
personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, to determine security 
eligibility or trustworthiness).  
9 
 
 Applicant admitted that the omission of his 2001 to 2005 drug use when he 
completed the October 2007 e-QIP was intentional. When he entered the Marine Corps, 
his recruiter told him not to list his prior drug use, and in 2007 he continued that 
deception. He was afraid to disclose his drug use because he had not done so in the 
past. He feared disclosing his drug use would compromise his Marine service. His fears 
fails to justify his conduct. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for his failure to 
provide full information on his October 2007 e-QIP. 
 
 Applicant denies he intentionally falsified his response to the interrogatory in 
October 2010 by failing to list his August 2009 marijuana use. While there is a security 
concern for an omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written 
document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security clearance, 
not every omission, concealment, or inaccurate statement is a falsification. A 
falsification must be deliberate and material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and 
willfully with intent to deceive. Applicant thought he was to list only habitual drug use in 
response to the questions asked on the interrogatory form. While this is an inaccurate 
reading of the question, Applicant had already disclosed his August 2009 drug use 
earlier when he completed an October 2009 e-QIP. Security investigators did not 
question him concerning his August 2009 marijuana use when they interviewed him in 
December 2009. Since Applicant had already disclosed his August 2009 drug use, there 
was no reason for him not to include the use on the interrogatory form. I find that 
Applicant's failure to list his August 2009 marijuana on the interrogatory was not a 
deliberate attempt to deceive. His incomplete answer to the October 2010 interrogatory 
is mitigated.  
 
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 the 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 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.       
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's four years 
10 
 
of honorable service as a Marine. I considered that he has willingly served as a civilian 
in war zones in support of United States Marines and has previously been granted 
eligibility for access to classified information. I also considered the very favorable 
comments made by Marine Corps officers and others with whom Applicant served. 
 
Applicant used marijuana from 2001 to 2005 and psychedelic mushrooms for two 
months in 2001. He stopped using drugs when he entered active duty with the Marine 
Corps in 2005 and did not use illegal drugs again until he was on terminal leave in 
August 2009. At that time, succumbing to peer pressure from his brother, he used 
marijuana three times. This was the last time he used illegal drugs. Since August 2009, 
he has been deployed for a part of the time overseas in support of Marines. Applicant 
pledged not to use illegal drugs when he entered the Marine Corps. He fulfilled this 
pledge until the last three weeks of his active duty tour. He executed a document 
indicating he does not intend to use drugs in the future. He violated a no-use pledge 
once when he received peer pressure from his brother to use illegal drugs. and 
presented insufficient information to establish he would not violate the no-use pledge 
again. 
 
Applicant has not presented sufficient information to establish changed 
circumstances or change in life style sufficient to establish he will not use illegal drugs in 
the future. In addition, he deliberately hid his illegal drug use from his Marine Corps 
superiors in 2007. This intentional failure to disclose is partially mitigated by the 
voluntary disclose of his August 2009 drug use. In essence, Applicant has failed to meet 
his burden showing his 2009 drug use in August 2009 and his 2007 failure to provide 
full and complete accurate information about drug use does not reflect adversely on his 
reliability, honesty, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His use of illegal drugs in 
August 2009 and his deliberate actions in choosing to provide inaccurate information 
raises a concern that he will not properly safeguard classified information. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns from illegal drug 
use in August 2009 and personal conduct. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with 
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Access 
to classified information is denied. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline H:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   Against Applicant 
 
 
11 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 2.b:   For 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge