The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-01277
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On May 31, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). 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 an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM),
dated August 16, 2011.  Applicant received the FORM on August 22, 2011. He did not1
submit additional information. On October 6, 2011, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the
case for assignment to an administrative judge. I received the case assignment on
2
October 13, 2011. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find
Applicant did not meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security
clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the majority of the allegations
under Guideline F, with the exception of SOR ¶¶ 1.e-1.h and 1.j which he denies. He
admitted the allegations under Guideline H, SOR ¶ 2.a and 2.b.  
Applicant is 51 years old. He graduated from high school in May 1978. He is
married and has three children. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1979 until
1985. Applicant has been employed with his current employer since June 2008. (Item
4)
When Applicant left the military, he worked for one company from 1985 until
2006. After that he held a variety of positions. He was unemployed from approximately
July through October 2006. He has been consistently employed since 2006. His salary,
however, was reduced. 
The SOR lists 12 delinquent debts that total approximately $25,978. The credit
reports confirm them. (Items 6, 7and 8)  Applicant listed his delinquent accounts,
including student loans and credit cards on his recent security clearance application.
The debt in 1.l is resolved. The Government concedes that two debts 1.f and 1.g have
been paid.  The remaining debts are listed as delinquent on a recent credit report.
Applicant did not present any documentation to support his claims that he has paid
certain debts.
Applicant has been working with a debt consolidation company since January
2009, but there is no indication as to which accounts have been paid or settled.
Applicant reports that he pays $300 a month to the consolidation company so that they
can settle his delinquent debts. (Item 3)
When Applicant completed his June 2010 security clearance application, he
noted that he used marijuana in May 2010 with a friend on his birthday. He also
acknowledged that he used marijuana in March 2009 for the first time in “quite a few
years.”
Applicant noted in his DOHA interrogatories that he used marijuana in high
school and his early 20's. He used marijuana with friends or alone. He reports that he
stopped when he was 30 years old due to his family responsibilities. 
Applicant admitted that he tested positive for marijuana use in 1982. At that time
he was in the Marine Corps. He reports that he was having a party and some of his
guests were smoking marijuana. When he reported to reserve duty the following day,
he was selected for a drug test. He failed the test ‘because of the party.” He was
adamant that he did not use marijuana.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
 
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.
The United States 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 is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
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 a7
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 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-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 has delinquent debts amounting to $25,978. Although he denied some
debts in his answer to the SOR, he acknowledged others in his interview and his
security clearance application. 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’s debts are recent and ongoing. He intends to pay his bills but he has
not done so.  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)
5
applies. As noted, Applicant left a job in 2006, and was underemployed. However, he
has been working since 2006. He was unemployed for a period of time as well.
Certainly this exacerbated his financial difficulties. He did not present information to
show that he acted reasonably under the circumstances. I find that he did not act
reasonably under the circumstances. This mitigating condition does not apply fully.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. Applicant provided documentation that he
has resolved several debts listed in the SOR. He claims that other accounts have been
paid but did not produce any evidence to support his assertion. He did not present
evidence that he received financial counseling which obviates the applicability of FC
MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem.  I
do not find that  there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control).
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 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;
6
(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.
Applicant’s admitted use of marijuana in high school and on later occasions
implicates AG ¶ 25(a) and 25(b).  He used it with varying frequency as late as 2010. He
also tested positive while he was in the Marine Corps in 1982. Thus, AG ¶ 25(g) is also
a disqualifying condition that is applicable. 
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.
7
Applicant has not mitigated the security concern under the drug involvement
guideline. He admits that he used marijuana from around his teen years until age 30,
and then on his 50  birthday in 2010. He has not completed any drug rehabilitationth
program. He stated that he would not use drugs due to family concerns after age 30,
but he did use marijuana again in 2010. I find that none of the mitigating conditions
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 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. 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 51 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2008. He left a
long time position in 2006 and was unemployed and underemployed until late 2006.
However, since that time he has worked consistently. He had delinquent debts that are
still unresolved. He did pay some debts, but he did not produce documentation or
evidence that he has resolved the remaining debts. He has not sought financial
counseling.
Applicant admitted to using marijuana in high school and his early 20s. He stated
that he stopped when he was 30 years old, but he had another occasion of use when
he was 50 years old in 2010. He also tested positive for marijuana when he was in the
Marine Corps. Applicant disclosed his use of marijuana on his security clearance
application to his credit. However, he has not mitigated the security concerns under the
drug involvement guideline. 
Applicant submitted insufficient information or evidence to mitigate the security
concerns raised in his case. Clearance is denied. 
8
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a- 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f-1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.h-1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is  not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge