1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-06591
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Phillip J. Katauskas, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s 11-year-history of drug use and his deliberate attempts to conceal some,
most, or all of his drug history on several occasions has not been mitigated. Eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On November 3, 2011, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
security concerns under drug involvement (Guideline H). 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. 
2
Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR on December 1, 2011. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on January 17, 2012, for a hearing on February 8, 2012. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the `hearing, four exhibits (GE 1 through GE 4) were
admitted in evidence without objection in support of the Government’s case. Applicant
testified. Two exhibits, character references and recognition certificates, were entered in
the record in Applicant’s behalf. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on February 13, 2012.
The record closed on February 13, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
On March 28, 2006, Applicant was interviewed about his illegal drug use by an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He completed and certified
his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP)(GE 1) on March 2, 2011.
He was interviewed a second time on March 29, 2011. Summaries of his March 2006 and
March 2011 interviews appear in Applicant’s interrogatory answers dated August 11, 2011.
(GE 4) In response to question No. 3 of GE 4 asking whether the summaries were correct,
and question No. 4 recommending changes or modifications be made, Applicant indicated
that the interview summary was not correct and provided corrections. In response to
question No. 6 of GE 4, asking whether the interview summaries were correct with the
changes and modifications, and whether the summaries could be used at a hearing to
determines Applicant’s security suitability, Applicant indicated “yes.”
The SOR alleges security concerns under the drug involvement and personal
conduct guidelines. Applicant admitted the four allegations under the drug involvement
guideline. He admitted using marijuana from 1995 to 2008, and contributing to the purchase
of marijuana. He admitted using marijuana after he was granted a secret security clearance
in 1997, and an interim top secret clearance in July 2005. He was not certain how to
answer SOR ¶ 2(a), but he admitted SOR ¶ 2(b). Regarding SOR ¶ 2.c, he denied he
intentionally falsified his responses on the July 2005 security clearance application (SCA),
explaining that he did not know why he incorrectly answered question No. 27. He claimed
he misinterpreted question No. 28, explaining that he has never been in a public safety
position while holding a security clearance. 
Applicant is 36 years old and single. He received his bachelor’s degree in December
1998. He has been employed as a software engineer since October 2007. Before he began
his current employment, he was employed as a software engineer with two other defense
contractors. He has held a security clearance since August 1997. (Answer to SOR)
When he was a senior in college in May 1997, Applicant filled out an security
clearance application (SCA) three days after he was hired by a defense contractor. (GE 3)
In response to the question 27, requiring information about drug use, Applicant indicated
“yes” that he had used marijuana once in June 1994. He completed a second SCA in July
3
2005. He responded “no” to question #27, requiring disclosure of drug use since age 16 or
in the last 7 years. He also answered “no” to question #28, requiring information about
using drugs while holding a security clearance. (GE 2) 
In his interview with an OPM investigator in March 2006, Applicant indicated he had
used marijuana from 1995 to approximately February 2004. (GE 4) His frequency of use
in the period was about 15 times a month. He contributed to the purchase of marijuana with
friends. After considering that continued drug use could jeopardize his job, life, and career,
he stopped drug use. Drug use never had an impact on his personality or ability to keep
friends. His marijuana use never negatively impacted his job performance. (Id.)
Applicant was interviewed on March 29, 2011. He admitted smoking marijuana until
he was 30 years old. He admitted using the drug while possessing a security clearance,
but he never smoked at work nor was he under the influence of marijuana while at work.
He stopped smoking because he was older and wanted to be more responsible. He stated
that he never purchased the drug. (Id.)
At the hearing on February 8, 2012, Applicant explained he first began using
marijuana in college. Around the time he received his first security clearance, he used
marijuana about ten times. He recalled his heaviest use was after college when he was
using the drug once or twice a day for about five or six years. He estimated the heaviest
drug use occurred between 1999 to 2004, with reduced marijuana use of once or twice a
week until January 2008. (Tr. 22-24) When pressed on the date when he stopped, he
opined he may have used the drug one more time in May 2008 or a little thereafter. (Tr. 39)
Applicant had no explanation for using marijuana while holding a security clearance.
He knew he was violating the law, but did not think of himself as a criminal because he
never tried to sell the drug or do anything illegal with the drug. (Tr. 35) He only engaged in
personal drug use. (Tr. 21-22, 35) Regarding his incorrect answers to the drug question in
his 1997 SCA, he explained that he was very scared and did not know what to do. (Tr. 37)
Regarding his incorrect answers appearing in the 2005 SCA, he did not know why he
answered “no” to question 27 (drug use question). As he indicated in his answer to the
SOR, he misinterpreted question No. 28 to apply to public safety officials using drugs while
holding a security clearance. (Tr. 30-32)
Character Evidence
Applicant provided seven character endorsements from former or current persons
in his chain of command. The test director of a past project indicated in May 2004 that
because of his diligence and proficiency, Applicant was a valuable contributor to a project’s
success. In another character reference dated April 2003, a member of Applicant’s
command commended Applicant’s contributions to a project resulting in improved war
4
fighting capability. Another command official and chief test engineer officially cited Applicant
for his important work in creating a high quality weapon system. In February 2001,
Applicant received recognition for his job accomplishments and professionalism. (Id.)
Applicant’s current director of engineering praised Applicant’s professional ethics and work
habits. Applicant’s coworker since March 2009 has never seen him under the influence of
drugs. (Id.)
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 considered to the extent they apply 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 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 entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
about 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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances and include:
5
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified
and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 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.
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security
concerns. The disqualifying conditions that are applicable are: AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug
abuse); 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).
AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(c), and 25(g) apply to this case because Applicant used marijuana
from 1995 to 2008. When the drug was not given to him, he contributed money toward
purchase of the drug. The most troublesome aspect of Applicant’s marijuana use is that he
used the drug after he had been granted a secret security clearance in 1997. He continued
to use the drug after being granted a interim top secret clearance in 2005. During a 14-
year-period of his security investigation, he provided inconsistent accounts of his drug use
on two security application forms and two interviews. 
The two 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); and 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 (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation). 
AG ¶ 26(a) may apply when the drug use was not recent. There is no automatic
litmus test that determines recency. According to ISCR Case No. 02–2442 at 6 (App. Bd.
Aug. 4, 2004), the Appeal board found that recency should be based on “the totality of the
record within the parameters set by the directive.” Where a significant period of time has
passed since the adverse conduct, then a determination must be made that shows
“changed circumstances or conduct sufficient to warrant a finding of reform or
rehabilitation.” (ISCR Case No. 98-0608 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 1997))
Applicant claims he stopped using marijuana by May 2008 or a short time thereafter.
6
However, in his interview summary dated March 2011, he claimed he used marijuana until
he was 30 years old. The calendar year would have been 2005, not 2008, on Applicant’s
30  birthday. In his March 2011 statement, Applicant contended he never purchasedth
marijuana. He admitted purchasing the drug in his answer to the SOR. At the hearing,
Applicant testified he stopped using marijuana because he had matured. He made this
same claim in earlier OPM interviews while he was actively using marijuana. Applicant’s
marijuana use lasted from 1997 to 2008, and involved heavy use for about five years
ending in 2004. He provided no independent evidence demonstrating that he ended his
drug in May 2008. The observations of Applicant’s coworker are not probative because they
appear to be based on Applicant’s conduct at work. Applicant has not met his burden under
AG ¶ 26(a) that his drug will not recur. 
Applicant failed to meet the elements of AG ¶ 26(b) in establishing an intent to
forego drug use in the future. He did not establish that he severed his ties with drug users
or that he changed or avoided the environment where drugs are used. He did not produce
a signed statement of intent to abstain from any drug use with automatic revocation for any
violation. 
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth in AG ¶ 15:
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 three 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); AG ¶
16(b) (deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to
a . . . an investigator); and, AG ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse information in several adjudicative
areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline,
but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the may not
properly safeguard classified information). 
7
Applicant’s purchase and use of marijuana while holding a security clearance for 11
years represent rule violations of the government policy against drug use and supports a
whole-person assessment of poor judgment, untrustworthiness, and a lack of candor that
has not been mitigated by Applicant’s character evidence.
Based on the pattern of inaccurate disclosures of his drug history over an 11-year
period, I find that Applicant deliberately omitted material information about his drug use
from 1995 to May 2008. When he listed on his May 1997 SCA a one-time use in June
1994, that was false. When he answered “no” on his July 2005 SCA to the drug use
question and the drug use while holding a security clearance question, those responses
were false. AG ¶ 16(a) applies. 
Applicant deliberately provided false information about his marijuana use in two
interviews. Though he was actively using marijuana at the time of his March 2006 interview,
he untruthfully claimed he stopped using marijuana in February 2004. In his March 2011
interview, he claimed that he stopped smoking marijuana at age 30, which would have
been in 2005, not 2008. Unlike his March 2006 interview, he claimed in the March 2011
interview that the marijuana was always supplied by others. AG ¶ 16(b) applies.
There are two conditions under AG ¶ 17 that may mitigate Applicant’s poor judgment
under AG ¶¶ 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c); AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith
efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with
the facts); and, 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). AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply because Applicant did not provide accurate
information about his drug use until confronted with the facts. AG ¶ 17(d) does not apply
because Applicant did not furnish evidence demonstrating positive changes in his lifestyle
that reduce the chances of illegal drug use recurring in his future. 
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the financial guideline. 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
8
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.
The ultimate decision of whether the granting or continuing eligibility for a security
clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be a judgment
based on common sense after a careful review of the guidelines, which are to be evaluated
in the context of the whole-person concept. (AG ¶ 2(c))
Applicant is 36 years old and has been employed as a software engineer since
1997. The character endorsements of seven former and current coworkers and supervisors
demonstrate that his job performance is highly respected. He received a certificate in 2001
recognizing his job accomplishments and professionalism.
The disqualifying evidence compels a finding against the granting of Applicant’s
security clearance. First, he used marijuana consistently for 11 years while employed for
defense contractors. Second, he used marijuana while holding a secret security clearance
and interim top secret clearance. (1997-2008) He claims he terminated marijuana use in
May 2008 because he matured. Significantly, that same explanation can be found in his two
interviews in March 2006 and March 2011, when he deliberately provided inconsistent or
misleading information about the history, scope, and circumstances of his marijuana use.
Based on a review of the record as a whole, Applicant’s character evidence does not
mitigate his drug involvement and personal conduct. 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge