1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-13885 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant smoked marijuana on multiple occasions while he held a Department of 
Defense (DOD) security clearance. He ceased his illegal drug abuse following an April 
2011 driving under the influence (DUI) offense, but drug involvement and personal conduct 
concerns persist. Clearance denied. 
  
 Statement of the Case  
 
On October 5, 2012, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, 
detailing the security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H 
(Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and explained why it was unable 
to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue his security 
clearance. The DOD took action under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
 
 
 2 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR allegations on October 23, 2012. He requested a 
decision on the written record without a hearing. On November 24, 2012, the Government 
asked for a hearing pursuant to ¶ E3.1.7 of the Directive. On January 7, 2013, the case 
was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine whether it is clearly consistent with 
the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. I scheduled a 
hearing for January 24, 2013. 
 
At the hearing, three Government exhibits (GEs 1-3) and one Applicant exhibit (AE 
A) were admitted without objection. The Government called Applicant to testify, as reflected 
in a transcript (Tr.) received on February 1, 2013. On the Government’s motion and without 
objection from Applicant, at the close of the evidence, SOR 3.b was amended to allege that 
Applicant falsified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated 
September 9, 2010 (instead of March 16, 2010). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleged under Guideline G that Applicant pleaded guilty in August 2011 to 
a May 2011 DUI charge (SOR 1.a) and that he was convicted of a June 1979 driving while 
intoxicated (DWI) offense. Under Guideline H, Applicant allegedly used marijuana on 
multiple occasions between about August 2010 and at least May 2011 (SOR 2.a), 
purchased marijuana on multiple occasions (SOR 2.b), and used illegal drugs on multiple 
occasions while possessing a security clearance granted to him around August 2000 (SOR 
2.c). Applicant’s 1979 DWI and his uses and purchases of marijuana were cross-alleged 
under Guideline E (SOR 3.c). In the SOR as amended, Applicant also allegedly falsified his 
September 9, 2010 security clearance application
1
 by denying any illicit drug abuse in the 
last seven years (SOR 3.a) and any use ever of an illegal drug while possessing a security 
clearance (SOR 3.b). 
 
When he answered the SOR, Applicant admitted the drunk-driving incidents. He 
also admitted that he used and purchased marijuana while he held a security clearance, 
although he indicated that the start date of August 2010 may be inaccurate. He denied that 
he intentionally falsified his September 2010 e-QIP when he responded “No” to the drug 
inquiries. Applicant’s admissions to the two drunk-driving offenses, and to using and 
purchasing marijuana on multiple occasions while he held a DOD security clearance, are 
incorporated as findings of fact. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I 
make the following additional findings of fact. 
 
  Applicant is a 62-year-old assembly machinist, who started with his defense 
contractor employer around 1969 as an outside machinist. He left his employment in 1974 
to work for a beverage company. In July 1974, he married, and he and his spouse moved 
                                                 
1 
The National Agency Questionnaire (SOR 3.a) is incorporated within the e-QIP (SOR 3.b, as amended), and 
is not a separate security clearance application. 
 
 3 
out of state. On their return to the area, Applicant resumed his employment with the 
defense contractor in March 1976. (GE 1; Tr. 22-23.) 
 
 Around June 1979, Applicant consumed approximately five to six mixed drinks while 
socializing at a bar with friends. En route to pick up his spouse from work, Applicant 
crashed his vehicle into a guard rail and telephone pole. He was charged with DWI in the 
hospital. A few months later, he pleaded guilty to the charge. (GE 2; AE A; Tr. 24.) 
Applicant was sentenced to a fine and suspension of his driver’s license for a period now 
not recalled. Applicant, who began drinking at age 18, continued to drink in his usual 
pattern of two beers at home, once or twice weekly, to relax. About four times a year, he 
drank five to six beers or rum and cokes when out at a bar. (GE 2.) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse had a son in June 1986 and a daughter in May 1988. (GE 
1.) He abstained from alcohol for the next 20 years while his children were growing up, to 
set a good example for them. (GE 2.) 
 
 After almost 34 years of marriage, Applicant and his spouse divorced around June 
2009 due to her infidelity. (GE 2; AE A; Tr. 29.) Applicant was awarded the home in the 
divorce, and his children stayed with him. (GE 1; Tr. 55.) The stress of household bills, 
including attorney fees from the divorce, led Applicant to resume drinking within a few 
months following his divorce. (Tr. 36-37.) He drank alcohol on the weekends, although not 
every weekend, usually in quantity of three or four beers. (Tr. 49-50.)  
 
 On September 9, 2010, Applicant completed and certified an e-QIP to renew the 
secret-level security clearance that he had held since August 2000. In response to whether 
he had ever been charged with any offense related to alcohol or drugs, Applicant listed his 
June 1979 DWI. He disclosed no other issues of potential security concern. (GE 1.) 
 
 While at a bar one Friday night around late 2010, Applicant accepted an offer of 
marijuana from a stranger. He purchased two “joints” for $15, and smoked one of them in 
the bar’s parking lot. Applicant knew using marijuana was illegal, and that it was prohibited 
by the DOD, but he gave no thought to his security clearance at the time. He had 
consumed several drinks before he smoked the marijuana, although he knew what he was 
doing.
2
 (Tr. 31-33, 53.) Applicant took the other joint home and smoked it within a month. 
Twice more over the next few months, Applicant bought marijuana, two joints each time, 
from the same person at the bar. He smoked marijuana once more at the bar, but 
otherwise used it at home to relax. He estimates that he smoked marijuana on more than 
six but fewer than 20 times in total. (Tr. 33-35, 39.)  Applicant did not think that he was 
hurting anyone by using marijuana. (Tr. 54.) On occasion, he shared his marijuana with a 
lifelong female friend. Applicant now claims not to remember when he first smoked 
                                                 
2 
When asked by Department Counsel whether he was intoxicated when he was first offered marijuana, 
Applicant responded, “Yes.” (Tr. 31.) When I inquired about his reason for using marijuana, Applicant testified, 
“The best thing I can say is because I was under the influence already.” (Tr. 48.) He later testified that he was 
not sure if he drank two or three beers, but he knew what he was doing when he chose to smoke marijuana. 
(Tr. 53.)  
 
 4 
marijuana other than it was after he completed his e-QIP. (Tr. 42.) Nor does he recall when 
he last smoked marijuana (“It’s been a long time now; it’s been quite some time.”). (Tr. 34.) 
 
  On April 23, 2011, Applicant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the 
influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) en route home from the bar, where he had consumed 
approximately five to six rum and coke mixed drinks over a couple of hours. (Tr. 51.) In 
August 2011, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail (execution 
suspended after two days), a $500 fine, $68 in fees, $15 in costs, and one year of 
probation. (GEs 2, 3; AE A.) His driver’s license was also suspended for nine months. To 
regain his operating privileges, Applicant was required to attend two Alcoholics Anonymous 
(AA) meetings a week for eight weeks and complete an eight-week alcohol education 
class. (GE 2; AE A.) Applicant reported his April 2011 DUI to his security office shortly after 
his arrest. (AE A.) 
 
 On August 23, 2011, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). While reviewing his e-QIP with the investigator, 
Applicant discussed his listed DWI in 1979 and volunteered that he had been recently 
arrested for DUI around April or May 2011. While he made a poor decision to drive after 
drinking, he asserted it was isolated behavior and not likely to be repeated. About his 
recent drinking pattern, Applicant admitted that he drank five to six beers or rum and cokes 
at a bar four times a year. Otherwise, he consumed about two beers once or twice weekly 
at home to relax. He claimed it took eight or more beers or mixed drinks for him to become 
intoxicated. Applicant indicated that he had abstained from alcohol since June 2011. He 
began attending AA and the alcohol education class to regain his driving privileges and he 
felt like a hypocrite drinking while going to AA meetings. Applicant indicated he did not 
know how long he would continue to abstain from alcohol. When asked about any illegal 
drug use, Applicant responded that he had used marijuana while possessing a security 
clearance, about six to eight times in the past year (exact dates not recalled). He used 
marijuana last around April or May 2011. Applicant admitted that he had purchased the 
marijuana, which he used at home alone or with a female friend, from an acquaintance at a 
local bar. Concerning the omission of any illegal drug involvement from his e-QIP, 
Applicant explained that his use began after he completed his paperwork. Applicant denied 
any intent to use marijuana in the future or any knowing association with persons involved 
with illegal drugs. He denied his marijuana involvement could be used to blackmail or 
coerce him because his friends know about it. (GE 2; AE A.) 
 
 At Applicant’s hearing in January 2013, Department Counsel asked several 
questions of Applicant in an attempt to refresh his recollection about when he started using 
marijuana. Applicant expressed his belief that he smoked marijuana over the course of “a 
few months.” He denied using marijuana before he completed his September 2010 e-QIP 
or after his April 2011 DUI. He did not intend to use marijuana in the future. (Tr. 41-42, 44.) 
 
 Applicant has told some close friends at work that he used marijuana, and he also 
“mentioned” his marijuana use to his son. Other family members are unaware of his drug 
abuse. (Tr. 38.) He has not told his supervisor or his security officer at work about his 
 
 5 
marijuana involvement. (Tr. 37-38.) Applicant is concerned that his involvement with 
marijuana could cost him his employment. (Tr. 38.) 
 
 Applicant completed the requirements of his probation for the April 2011 DUI. (Tr. 
27.)  Applicant was last intoxicated on the occasion of his arrest for DUI. His consumption 
has not exceeded three or four beers or a couple of glasses of wine since his DUI. (Tr. 49.) 
The offense cost him money in fines and attorney fees, and lost time at work because of 
court appearances. Two days in jail was also “not fun.” (Tr. 26-27.) Most recently, Applicant 
consumed alcohol over this past New Year’s, when he drank two glasses of wine. (Tr. 27.) 
He has never been diagnosed with having an alcohol problem, but believes it is better for 
him not to drink alcohol. (Tr. 27-28, 43.) He intends to limit any future consumption to 
holidays, such as July 4
th
, Thanksgiving, or New Year’s Eve. (Tr. 43.) From his alcohol 
education class, he learned that he can safely consume no more than one beer an hour. 
He no longer goes to the bar because it is easier for him to consume more alcohol there 
than he would otherwise drink. He is not driving after drinking alcohol. (Tr. 56.) After 
consuming the wine over New Year’s, he stayed at a friend’s house overnight. (Tr. 57.) 
 
 Applicant has had his present girlfriend for one year. He met her through an online 
dating service. To Applicant’s knowledge, she does not use marijuana. Applicant testified 
that she learned “just through talking” that he had smoked marijuana, although he does not 
remember how the subject arose. (Tr. 44-46.) Applicant denies he currently associates with 
any known drug users. He has not seen his supplier since his DUI in 2011. The female 
friend with whom he smoked marijuana invited him to her house for Christmas Eve in 
December 2012. Applicant declined the invitation, but he still considers her a “good friend.” 
He doesn’t see her very often, “probably not as much as [he] should.” (Tr. 34.)  
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 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 
 
 6 
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. 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 ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about 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 applicant concerned.” See also EO 
12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive 
information). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
 The security concern for alcohol consumption is set out in AG ¶ 21: “Excessive 
alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to 
control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and 
trustworthiness.” Applicant abused alcohol to the point of negative impact on his judgment, 
as evidenced by his drunk-driving offenses committed in June 1979 and April 2011. 
Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as 
driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or 
other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol 
abuser or alcohol dependent,” applies. AG ¶ 22(c), “habitual or binge consumption of 
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed 
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” is also established in that Applicant drank five 
to six mixed drinks over a couple hours at the bar before his drunk-driving offenses.
3
 
 
 Although Applicant’s April 2011 DUI is relatively recent, his binge drinking was 
infrequent. Almost 32 years passed between his two drunk-driving offenses, and he drank 
more on those occasions than he would normally. AG ¶ 23(a), “so much time has passed, 
                                                 
3
Although the term “binge” drinking is not defined in the Directive, the generally accepted definition of binge 
drinking for males is the consumption of five or more drinks in about two hours. This definition of binge 
drinking was approved by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) National Advisory 
Council in February 2004. See U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, NIAAA Newsletter 3 (Winter 2004 
No. 3), http://www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Newsletter/ winter2004/NewsletterNumber3.pdf.   
 
 7 
or the behavior was so infrequent, or it 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,” applies. The case for AG ¶ 23(b), “the individual 
acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of 
actions taken to overcome the problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if 
alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser),” is satisfied. Applicant readily 
admitted his intoxication on the occasions of his arrest for drunk driving. He accepted 
responsibility in court and completed his sentences. To minimize the risk of any future 
alcohol abuse, he no longer goes to the bar because he recognizes the tendency for him to 
drink more in that setting than he would otherwise. There is no evidence that he has 
consumed alcohol to excess since his April 2011 DUI, and he does not intend to abuse 
alcohol in the future. The alcohol consumption concerns are sufficiently mitigated. 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The security concern for drug involvement is set out in AG ¶ 24: 
 
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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 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),
4
 and 
 
(2) inhalants and other similar substances. 
 
Under AG ¶ 24(b), drug abuse is defined as “the illegal use of a drug or use of a 
legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.” Potentially 
disqualifying conditions 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,” apply. On three separate occasions between the fall of 2010 and 
April 2011, Applicant purchased two joints of marijuana from an acquaintance at a bar. He 
smoked the marijuana twice at the bar and otherwise at home, sharing a joint on occasion 
with a lifelong friend. He estimates that he enjoyed the drug’s relaxing effects on more than 
six but fewer than 20 occasions. 
 
                                                 
4
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, as referred to in the Controlled Substances Act, are contained in 21 U.S.C. § 
812(c). 
 
 8 
Applicant bears a heavy burden to overcome the security concerns raised by his 
illegal drug involvement while he held a security clearance. Marijuana is a Schedule I 
controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 812). Under 
federal law, Schedule I controlled substances are those drugs or substances which have a 
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United 
States, and lack accepted safety for using the drug under medical supervision. Mitigating 
condition 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,” is not satisfied. 
Applicant’s drug use went beyond experimentation. While he may have been approached 
by his drug supplier the first time, Applicant sought out the drug on two other occasions. 
Applicant’s abuse of marijuana, while he held a secret clearance, raises serious doubts 
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. 
 
Applicant denies any intent to abuse drugs, including marijuana, in the future. Under 
AG ¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future,” can be shown by 
“(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the 
environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period of abstinence; or (4) a 
signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.” 
Applicant denies any current association with known drug users. He apparently has not 
seen his drug supplier since April 2011. Even so, Applicant did not know his supplier when 
he accepted the initial offer to purchase marijuana. So, while avoiding this individual is 
some evidence in reform, it does not guarantee against recurrence of future drug 
involvement. Then, too, Applicant still considers the female friend, with whom he smoked 
marijuana on occasion between 2010 and 2011, a “good friend,” so AG ¶ 26(b)(1) is 
difficult to satisfy. AG ¶ 26(b)(2) is implicated in that Applicant no longer frequents the bar 
where he bought his marijuana and used it twice. However, the guideline does not address 
the security concerns raised by Applicant’s use of marijuana in the privacy of his own 
residence. The evidence shows that Applicant sought out marijuana and brought it home, 
to use while socializing with his female friend or to relax when alone. 
 
Applicant has not executed a statement of intent to abstain from illegal drugs with 
automatic revocation of his clearance for any violation. However, during his interview and 
at his hearing, he expressed his intent not to use any marijuana in the future. Applicant 
volunteered to the OPM investigator that he had used marijuana, and that disclosure is 
viewed favorably in determining the credibility of his future intent. At the same time, some 
concerns exist about whether Applicant has been fully forthcoming about the details of his 
drug use. Applicant told the OPM investigator in August 2011 that he smoked marijuana 
approximately six to eight times in the past year, using it last around April or May 2011. 
Despite several probing questions by Department Counsel at the hearing, Applicant 
claimed not to recall the dates of his marijuana use other than he started smoking 
marijuana after he completed his September 2010 e-QIP, and he stopped around his April 
2011 DUI. Applicant was somewhat vague about the extent of his marijuana use.
5
 He 
testified that it occurred within a span of a couple of months. (Tr. 34-35.)  
                                                 
5 
As shown in the following exchange between Department Counsel and Applicant, Applicant offered little 
detail about his marijuana abuse (Tr. 34-35.): 
 
 9 
While he acknowledged that he may have smoked marijuana more than six times because 
he did not smoke full joints, he suggested that six was “a pretty close figure,” because his 
female friend was with him “several times.” (Tr. 47.) He still considers her a close friend. 
Also, Applicant continues to conceal his marijuana use from his employer. His claimed 
abstention of 20 months is uncorroborated. Applicant enjoyed the drug’s relaxing effects. 
While he submits that his life is less stressful now, more in reform is required for me to 
conclude that his drug use is safely in the past. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in 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. 
 
The DOD alleges, and Applicant denies, that he falsified his September 2010 e-QIP 
by responding “No” to any illegal drug use within the preceding seven years and any illegal 
drug use ever while holding a security clearance. While Applicant admitted to an OPM 
investigator in August 2011 that he had used marijuana approximately six times in the past 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
Q.  And do you recall the last time you used marijuana? 
A.  The last time? 
Q.  Yes, sir. 
A. It’s been a long time now; it’s been quite some time. I don’t remember exactly, no. 
Q. Well you purchased it three times, do you recall how many times you smoked 
marijuana total? 
A. A few times. 
Q. Okay. 
A. Well— 
Q. Did you—I’m sorry. Did you buy two joints each of the three times? 
A. I did. 
Q. And did you finish the joint each of the six times or did you— 
A. No. 
Q. Okay. Did you save it and then use the same joint more than once? 
A. Yes. 
Q. So it was at least six times you used marijuana over that stretch, is that right? 
A. I would say yes, that’s correct. 
Q. Would you say it was less than 20? 
A. Less than 20 times? 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. Yes. 
Q. Okay, all right, and how long—would you say this was over one year? Would you say 
it was over six months? How long was this period of time? 
A.  A few months. 
 
 
 
 10 
year, Applicant also explained at the time that he had not listed his marijuana involvement 
on his e-QIP because his abuse began after he completed his case papers. Clearly, the 
past year was meant as a general time frame and not intended as an admission to 
beginning marijuana use in August 2010. When Applicant answered the SOR, he 
questioned the accuracy of the August 2010 date, and at his hearing, he denied any use of 
marijuana before he completed his e-QIP. The evidence does not prove that Applicant ever 
used any marijuana before he completed his e-QIP, so the concerns underlying AG ¶ 16(a) 
are not established.
6
 
 
The DOD also alleged as raising personal conduct concerns Applicant’s June 1979 
DWI and his use and purchases of marijuana.
7
 Applicant’s DWI and his marijuana 
involvement are amply covered under Guideline G and Guideline H, respectively. At the 
same time, the DOHA Appeal Board has held that security-related conduct can be alleged 
under more than one guideline, and, in an appropriate case, be given independent weight 
under each. See ISCR 11-06672 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012). AG ¶ 16(c) provides as follows: 
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue 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 person may not properly safeguard protected information. 
 
Applicant exercised extremely poor judgment when he drove a vehicle while intoxicated by 
alcohol. Furthermore, Applicant knew when he smoked marijuana that his conduct was 
illegal, and his disregard of the law implicates AG ¶ 16(c). The DOD did not allege under 
Guideline E Applicant’s violation of DOD policy by using marijuana while he held a security 
clearance. Nonetheless, I cannot ignore that he held a security clearance when he smoked 
marijuana or that he knew the DOD prohibited such conduct. It is no excuse that Applicant 
thought he was doing no harm. Furthermore, AG ¶ 16(e), “personal conduct, or 
concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, 
manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging in activities, which, if known, may affect the 
person’s personal, professional, or community standing,” is implicated because Applicant 
has not informed his employer, including his facility security officer, about his marijuana 
use. Family members other than his son are also unaware. 
 
 Mitigating condition AG ¶ 17(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, 
                                                 
6
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,” is not established. 
 
7 
There was no explanation as to why this conduct was alleged under Guideline E and not the more recent 
drunk-driving offense in 2011 or his use of marijuana while he held a security clearance. 
 
 11 
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” applies to the drunk driving, which was infrequent and 
is not likely to reoccur. Applicant’s poor judgment in using and purchasing marijuana was 
too repeated and recent to satisfy AG ¶ 17(c).  
 
 Applicant told the Government about his illegal drug involvement. At the same time, 
it is difficult to believe that he cannot recall whether he smoked marijuana six times or up to 
20 times, or even the season(s) involved in his drug use. While he has taken a positive 
step by avoiding the bar where he bought marijuana in the past, Applicant showed little 
appreciation for the importance of his obligation to comply with the law and also DOD 
requirements. While Applicant apparently informed his employer about his April 2011 DUI, 
he has not been forthcoming about his drug involvement. It is difficult to fully mitigate the 
judgment concerns under AG ¶ 17(d), “the individual has acknowledged the behavior and 
obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other 
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur,” or the vulnerability concerns 
under AG ¶ 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.” 
 
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 his conduct and 
all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 
2(a).
8
 Applicant gave no thought to the fiduciary obligations associated with his clearance 
eligibility when he smoked marijuana. He offered no explanation for his illicit substance 
abuse, other than he was under stress and enjoyed marijuana’s effects at the time. Even if 
Applicant never uses an illegal drug again, his repeated marijuana use while holding a 
security clearance, knowing it was illegal and prohibited by the DOD, raises considerable 
doubts about his personal judgment, reflects blatant disregard for the law, and violates the 
trust imbued in him while holding a security clearance. Applicant’s report of his April 2011 
DUI to his employer is viewed favorably, as is his disclosure of his marijuana use to the 
OPM investigator. But such candor is expected of those persons holding security clearance 
and they do not excuse or minimize the doubts about his marijuana involvement when he 
was 61 years old and a longtime clearance holder. Based on the evidence before me, I 
cannot conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue his 
security clearance eligibility at this time. 
                                                 
8
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 12 
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 G:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:  For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:  For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline H:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:  For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.b:  For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.c:  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 or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge