1 
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE  
                  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:                                              ) 
        ) 
             )  ISCR Case No. 10-07259  
        ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance                    ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel 
 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
________________ 
 
Decision 
________________ 
 
 
O’BRIEN, Rita C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under the guidelines for 
Drug Involvement and Personal Conduct. His request for a security clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP), signed on February 23, 2010, to request a security clearance required as part 
of his employment with a defense contractor (Item 5). On May 2, 2012, the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) (Item 
1), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within 
Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
implemented by the DoD on September 1, 2006. The SOR listed security concerns 
addressed in the Directive under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E 
(Personal Conduct). In his Answer to the SOR, dated May 20, 2012, Applicant admitted 
 
 
 
2 
all ten SOR allegations under Guideline H, and the three of the five allegations under 
Guideline E. He also requested a decision without a hearing.  
 
Department Counsel submitted a file of relevant materials (FORM)1 dated July 
6, 2012, which was forwarded to Applicant. It included nine documents, identified as 
Items 1 through 9. Applicant received the FORM on July 18, 2012, and was given 30 
days to respond; his response was due by August 17, 2012. DOHA did not receive a 
response. The case was assigned to me on September 7, 2012. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations listed in the SOR are incorporated as 
findings of fact. After reviewing the pleadings and the FORM, I make the following 
additional findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 38 years old. He married in 2003, and has two daughters, two and 
five years of age; a third child was due in summer 2012. He earned a bachelor’s degree 
in 1997 in electrical engineering, and a master’s degree in electrical and computer 
engineering in 2006. Applicant obtained his first security clearance in 1997. It appears 
from Applicant's Answer (though not listed in his security clearance application), that he 
worked for a federal contractor in the late 1990s, after receiving his first security 
clearance. From August 2005 to October 2007, he worked as an engineer for the same 
defense contractor. In that position, he was granted an interim security clearance in 
April 2005 and a secret security clearance in February 2007. In June 2008, he began 
his current employment with a defense contractor as an engineer. (Items 4, 5, 7, 9)  
 
Applicant used marijuana daily from January 1994 to December 2009, when he 
was 20 to 35 years old. During his security interview of April 2010, he admitted that he 
smoked about one-quarter of a marijuana cigarette per day, purchasing it from dealers 
or acquaintances. Applicant used marijuana because he liked the way it made him feel. 
He grew two marijuana plants in 2008, but destroyed them before they reached 
maturity. He denied selling marijuana. He used marijuana with friends and a coworker. 
When he moved to another state in November 2007, he no longer maintained regular 
contact with the friends with whom he used marijuana. Applicant's wife and several 
friends are aware of his marijuana use. (Items 5, 7, 8) 
 
Between 1997 and 2003, Applicant used several other illegal substances. He 
used psilocybin (psychoactive mushrooms) six times between 1998 and December 
2003. He also grew psychoactive mushrooms, but denies selling them. He purchased 
both marijuana and LSD. He used LSD three times between 1997 and 2001, and opium 
once in December 1999. He also used the prescription drug Valium, without a 
prescription, twice in 2001. His use of these substances occurred at the end of his 
college career and while he was employed, before starting his master’s program. He 
                                                 
1
 See Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7.  
 
 
 
3 
was between 23 and 29 years of age. He has never participated in a drug treatment or 
rehabilitation program. (Items 5, 7, 8) 
 
During his 2010 security interview, Applicant stated his marijuana use was a 
“huge mistake.” He no longer uses marijuana, has “moved on” in life, has no desire or 
intention to use illegal drugs, and is willing to submit to drug testing to show he no 
longer uses illegal drugs. He changed his conduct because of the need to provide for 
his family and be a model for his children. (Items 7, 8) 
 
In September 2006, Applicant completed a security clearance application. When 
asked if he had illegally used any controlled substances within the previous seven 
years -- including marijuana, LSD, or prescription drugs -- he answered “No.” He also 
answered “No” when asked if he had EVER (emphasis in original) illegally used 
controlled substances while holding a security clearance. (Item 6) 
 
When Applicant completed his February 2010 security clearance application, he 
was asked if he had illegally used any controlled substances within the previous seven 
years; engaged in illegal production of any controlled substances within the previous 
seven years; or EVER (emphasis in original) used controlled substances while holding 
a security clearance. In response to each of these questions, Applicant answered 
“Yes.” He listed marijuana use from January 1994 to January 2008. He did not disclose 
growing marijuana or psychoactive mushrooms. He also failed to disclose that he used 
psychoactive mushrooms during the previous seven years. In his Answer, he stated 
that he did not disclose his illegal drug use between 1999 and 2003 because he 
thought his security clearance was not active during that time. (Items 4, 5)  
 
During his 2010 security interview, Applicant admitted to the investigator that he 
did not disclose his illegal drug use during his 2006 investigation. He also discussed 
his marijuana use, but failed to disclose that he grew psychoactive mushrooms, or that 
he used any other illegal substances. The security investigator’s report does not show 
that Applicant revealed his marijuana cultivation. However, Applicant states that he did 
disclose it, and the investigator failed to report his disclosure. Applicant was provided 
with the opportunity to review the report, but did not correct it to state that the 
investigator had not listed this disclosure. Applicant notes in his Answer that “any 
information regarding my drug use has been voluntarily submitted by me, and not 
discovered through investigation.” (Items 1, 4, 5, 8) 
 
In his 2010 investigation, Applicant gave two different dates for his most recent 
marijuana use, which he described in his Answer as “’fudging’ the date of my last 
marijuana usage on my EQIP [security clearance application]…” In his 2010 security 
clearance application, he listed it as January 2008, but in his security interview and 
interrogatory response, he stated his last use was December 2009, about two years 
later. He provided two reasons for the date discrepancy. In his interrogatory response, 
he explained that his intent on the application was to state his last purchase was in 
 
 
4 
January 2008, but in his interview he was disclosing that his last use of marijuana was 
December 2009. (Items 4, 5, 7, 8) 
 
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant provided a different explanation for these 
discrepant dates:  
 
I lied about the dates of my marijuana usage on my current EQIP [2010 
security clearance application], because I was concerned that my FSO 
(and immediate supervisor) would see the applications and discover that I 
was a recent user. I did have a frank conversation with my FSO at the 
time about my prior drug use, but implied that the period of my usage was 
farther in the past. (Item 4) 
 
In his Answer, Applicant states, “I do admit to enjoying smoking marijuana and to 
hiding my use of it from employers in the past. . . . I realize what a huge mistake it was 
to lie about my drug use. At the time, I was scared of losing my job, losing respect, 
losing my life. Now, a greater sense of perspective helps keep me honest in all facets 
of my life.” The FORM does not include information about the extent or timing of 
Applicant's disclosure of his illegal drug use to his current employer. (Items 4, 5, 8) 
 
Policies 
 
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information, 
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the AG.2 Decisions 
must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the Guidelines, 
commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept. The presence or absence of a 
disqualifying or mitigating condition does not determine a conclusion for or against an 
applicant. However, specific applicable guidelines are followed when a case can be 
measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or 
denial of access to classified information. In this case, the evidence requires 
consideration of the security concerns and adjudicative factors addressed under 
Guideline H and Guideline E.  
 
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest3 for an applicant to either receive or continue to 
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of 
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or 
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be 
able to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its 
burden, it then falls to applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case. 
                                                 
2
 Directive, 6.3. 
 
3
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 
 
 
 
5 
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a 
heavy burden of persuasion.4 A person who has access to classified information enters 
into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. 
Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant 
possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will 
protect the national interests as her or her own. The “clearly consistent with the 
national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an 
applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.5 
 
Analysis 
 
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. 
 
 Of the eight disqualifying conditions listed at AG ¶ 25, the following apply:  
 
(a) any drug abuse;6 
 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, 
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession 
of drug paraphernalia; and 
 
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security 
clearance.  
 
 Applicant illegally used marijuana between 1994 and 2009, and several other 
illegal drugs between 1997 and 2003. He purchased marijuana and LSD, and 
                                                 
4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531. 
 
5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b). 
 
6
 ¶ 24(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. 
 
 
6 
cultivated psychoactive mushrooms and marijuana. He received his first security 
clearance in 1997. Applicant admits that he “used illegal drugs on multiple occasions 
while possessing a security clearance.” AG ¶ 25 (a), (c), and (g) apply. 
 
The following mitigating conditions are relevant under 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 
 
(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;  
 
 (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic 
revocation of clearance for any violation. 
 
` Applicant’s last use of illegal drugs in December 2009 is not recent. However, 
his daily use was both frequent and long-standing, because it continued for 15 years. 
During this period, he displayed maturity in some ways -- he married, became a father, 
and held professional positions. Yet he displayed poor judgment and untrustworthiness 
by continuing to use a drug he knew to be illegal. Moreover, Applicant's use of illegal 
drugs while holding a security clearance casts serious doubts on his trustworthiness, 
reliability, and good judgment. AG ¶ 26(a) does not apply. 
 
 Some mitigation is available to Applicant under AG ¶ 26(b) because he has 
abstained from marijuana use for more than two years. He moved to another state in 
2007, claiming that he moved away from friends with whom he used illegal drugs. 
However, mitigation under ¶26(b)(1) is limited because he continued to use marijuana 
for two years after moving away from his drug-using associates. Applicant states he 
has no intention to use illegal drugs in the future, although the file does not include a 
signed statement to that effect. Only partial mitigation is available under AG ¶ 26(b). 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
 AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern about personal conduct: 
 
 
 
7 
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. 
 
The following disqualifying conditions are relevant under 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 
  
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information 
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, 
security official, competent medical authority, or other official 
government representative. 
 
AG ¶ 16(a) applies where an applicant engages in deliberate falsification of 
documents. On his 2006 security clearance application, Applicant knowingly failed to 
disclose his illegal drug use and his use of illegal drugs while holding a security 
clearance. When he completed his 2010 security clearance application, Applicant 
admitted his marijuana use, but provided a false date that indicated he ended his use 
in January 2008, two years earlier than his actual end date of December 2009. In 2010, 
when he was interviewed by a security investigator, Applicant disclosed only his 
marijuana use, and did not disclose his use of several other illegal substances or his 
use of a prescription drug without a prescription. Applicant also deliberately provided 
false information to his FSO when he led the FSO to believe he had stopped using 
illegal drugs earlier than he had.7 AG ¶ 16(a) and 16(b) apply.  
 
                                                 
7
 Applicant's falsification to his FSO is not alleged in the SOR, and I do not rely on it to reach my 
conclusions. I limit my consideration of this falsification to the following limited purposes, described by 
the Appeal Board in ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006): 
Conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered: (a) to assess an applicant's credibility; (b) to 
evaluate an applicant's evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to 
consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether 
a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for 
whole person analysis under Directive Section 6.3. Id.; ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. 
Oct. 24, 2003. See also, ISCR Case No. 08-09232 at 2-3 (App. Bd. June 14, 2010). 
 
 
8 
 The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 are relevant: 
 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and 
 
(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; 
 
The record contains no evidence that Applicant informed any authorized 
government official that he wished to correct the answers on his security clearance 
applications. Although he discussed his illegal drug use during his 2010 interview, the 
Appeal Board has held that subsequent honesty at an interview does not negate the 
security implications of initial dishonesty on security clearance applications.8 AG ¶ 
17(a) does not apply. Applicant’s conduct cannot be considered minor because he 
concealed material and relevant information from the Government. He intentionally hid 
all of his illegal drug use in the 2006 investigation, and gave incomplete and misleading 
information in the 2010 investigation. Applicant's conduct casts serious doubts on his 
judgment and trustworthiness. AG ¶ 17(c) cannot be applied.  
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
  
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate the 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of an applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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. 
 
AG ¶ 2(c) requires that the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. Under the cited 
guidelines, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of 
all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  
                                                 
8
 ISCR Case No.02-23073 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar 20, 2004). 
 
 
9 
 Applicant has demonstrated mitigating behaviors, including his positive 
employment history and his stable family life. His abstinence from marijuana use for 
more than two years, and his intent not to use marijuana in the future, are also positive 
steps. However, they are outweighed by his negative conduct: He last used an illegal 
drug when he was a mature adult of 35 years; he knowingly violated the law by using 
an illegal drug for an extensive period of 15 years; he used illegal drugs while he held a 
security clearance, and he falsified information he provided the Government. 
 
 In evaluating the facts, I considered the entirety of Applicant’s illegal drug use 
extending back to 1994. Although he was granted security clearances in 1997, 2005, 
and 2007, previous favorable security clearance adjudications do not preclude a 
subsequent unfavorable decision. Each adjudication encompasses review of an 
applicant's complete history, especially if new information comes to light following the 
previous adjudication.9 Applicant's history includes purchasing and cultivation of 
marijuana, use of several other illegal substances, and use of a prescription drug 
without a prescription. Each decision to use marijuana was a decision to engage in an 
illegal act, and he made that decision daily for 15 years. He continued to use marijuana 
despite knowing it was illegal, and that it placed his livelihood and security clearance in 
jeopardy. He violated the Government’s trust by providing false information about his 
drug use since 2006. His falsifications over the past several years undermine his 
credibility and his claim of rehabilitation. Applicant used illegal drugs and falsified 
information, as a mature adult, demonstrating that he is willing to place his own needs 
before the Government’s and is unwilling to abide by rules and regulations. 
 
 A fair and commonsense assessment of the available information shows 
Applicant has not satisfied the doubts raised about his suitability for a security 
clearance. For these reasons, I conclude he has not mitigated the security concerns 
arising from the cited adjudicative guidelines. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section 
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are as follows: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline H:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.j  Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
9
 See ISCR Case No. 01-24504 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 11, 2003), “The government is not estopped from 
making an adverse clearance decision when there have been prior favorable adjudications. This is 
especially true when the most recent adjudication takes into account facts and circumstances that were 
not necessarily present or as significant at the time of an earlier investigation.” 
 
 
10 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E   AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.e   Against Applicant  
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to allow Applicant access to 
classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
RITA C. O’BRIEN 
Administrative Judge