1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 12-03914 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant is on probation under an accelerated pretrial rehabilitation program until 
April 26, 2013, for felonious drug-related criminal conduct, including cultivation of marijuana 
in 2010. She reported her arrest on her November 2011 security clearance application, but 
she falsely claimed that her boyfriend (current fiancé) had been growing marijuana without 
her knowledge. Her belated admission to being an active participant in the cultivation is not 
enough to overcome the drug involvement, criminal conduct, and personal conduct 
concerns. Clearance denied. 
 
 Statement of the Case  
 
On September 21, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline H (Drug 
Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and 
explaining why it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant her a security clearance. The DOD took action under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
 
 
 2 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective 
within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted a notarized Answer to the SOR allegations on November 27, 
2012. She requested a decision on the written record without a hearing. On December 19, 
2012, the Government asked for a hearing pursuant to ¶ E3.1.7 of the Directive. On 
February 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 March 25, 2013. 
 
At the hearing, four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) were admitted without objection. 
Applicant testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on April 4, 2013. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleged under Guideline H (SOR 1.a), and cross-alleged under Guideline J 
(SOR 3.a), that Applicant pleaded guilty and was placed on probation until April 2013 on 
September 2010 drug charges:   sale of a controlled substance (felony), possession of a 
hallucinogen (felony), use of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor), and 
production/preparation of a controlled substance without a license.
1
 The SOR also alleged 
under Guideline H that Applicant’s cohabitant cultivated marijuana plants in her residence 
with her knowledge (SOR 1.b). Under Guideline E, Applicant allegedly falsified a November 
2011 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) when she indicated 
that her boyfriend had been growing cannabis without her knowledge (SOR 2.a). Applicant 
admitted the allegations without explanation. Her admissions are incorporated as findings 
of fact. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
additional findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 43-year-old plant protection officer (security guard), who has worked 
for her present employer, a defense contractor, for about nine years. (GE 1; Tr. 23, 26-27.) 
She seeks her first security clearance. (GE 1; Tr. 44-45.) 
 
 In August 1999, Applicant bought a home, which she still owns. She moved into her 
current residence sometime after November 2011. (GE 1.) She works long hours, around 
80 per week, to afford her two mortgages. Applicant is hoping to sell her previous 
residence in the near future. (Tr. 23-24.) 
   
 In April 2009, Applicant and her then boyfriend (now fiancé) began cohabiting. (GE 
4.) Around late spring 2010, Applicant obtained marijuana seeds from a friend, and she 
and her fiancé began growing about 12 marijuana plants in the basement of their 
residence. (Tr. 28-29.) Applicant took an active role in cultivating the marijuana by watering 
the plants and ensuring that the grow lights were on. (Tr. 32.) Applicant claims that neither 
                                                 
1 
The SOR did not allege whether the production/preparation of a controlled substance without a license was a 
misdemeanor or a felony. Available information indicates it is a felony offense. (GEs 1, 3.) 
 
 
 3 
she nor her fiancé used or sold marijuana. (Tr. 24, 29, 32.) Because buying marijuana was 
too expensive, she suggested to her fiancé that they cultivate marijuana for her mother, 
who was suffering from cancer. (Tr. 24-25, 30.) Applicant’s mother died in 2010, before the 
plants matured. (Tr. 24, 29, 32.) Applicant and her fiancé kept the plants after her mother’s 
death.
2
 
 
 In August 2010, the police came to Applicant’s home with an arrest warrant for her 
fiancé, allegedly on a child support issue. (GE 4; Tr. 30.) The police smelled marijuana and 
confiscated about 12 marijuana plants, some smoking pipes, and a small scale from the 
home.
3
 (GE 4.) They also seized $800 cash and two guns from Applicant.
4
 (Tr. 22.) 
Applicant and her fiancé were both arrested on drug charges.
5
 On September 10, 2010, 
Applicant was charged with three felony offenses: sale of a controlled substance; 
possession of a hallucinogen—over four ounces of marijuana; and production/preparation 
of a controlled substance without a license. She was also charged with misdemeanor use 
of drug paraphernalia. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 27.) Around April 2011, Applicant was granted 
accelerated pretrial rehabilitation and placed on probation under the supervised custody of 
the court support services division for two years. (Tr. 22.) 
 
 On November 22, 2011, Applicant completed and certified an e-QIP for a security 
clearance. In response to section 22 concerning any police record, Applicant listed her 
arrest in August 2010 “for growing cannabis,” and she disclosed the September 2010 drug 
charges. Applicant added that she was “sent to Accelerated Rehab because [her] boyfriend 
had been growing the cannabis without [her] knowledge,” and that “the charges were 
dropped upon completion of the Accelerated Rehabilitation program.” (GE 1.)  
 
 On March 13, 2012, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about her arrest. Applicant explained the police 
smelled the marijuana in her basement from the door of her residence when they came to 
serve a warrant on her fiancé for child support. The police found about 12 marijuana 
plants, some smoking pipes, and a small scale during a search, and she and her boyfriend 
were both arrested.  Applicant added that in court around September 2010, she pleaded 
guilty and was placed on two years of probation. Regarding the accelerated rehabilitation 
reported on her e-QIP, Applicant indicated that she was referring to a required drug 
                                                 
2 
When asked why they kept the plants if their sole reason was to grow marijuana for her mother, Applicant 
initially responded, “I never even thought about it.” (Tr. 30.) She denied that she continued to cultivate the 
plants, claiming that “they were done.” (Tr. 31.) Later, when confronted about her plan for the plants if neither 
she nor her fiancé intended to smoke the drug or sell it, Applicant testified,  “See how they came out, I guess. I 
never grew it before. It was my first time ever—just curiosity to see how they came out. I’ll never do it again. 
It’s a lot of work—too much time.” (Tr. 43.) 
 
3 
According to Applicant, the police smelled marijuana even though no one had smoked marijuana in the home 
(“It was just the smell from the plants . . . The plants smell.”). Her fiancé was not home at the time. (Tr. 31.) 
 
4 
Applicant testified that the guns were seized because her fiancé has a felony conviction. She is hoping to get 
her guns returned to her at her upcoming court date on April 26, 2013. (Tr. 22-23.) 
 
5 
The evidentiary record does not include the specific drug charges filed against her fiancé. Applicant testified 
that her fiancé was on probation when he was arrested for growing marijuana in 2010. (Tr. 36.) 
 
 4 
evaluation to determine whether she needed treatment, and treatment was not required. 
Applicant denied any use of marijuana or sales. She claimed she was not involved in the 
cultivation of marijuana, but she admitted knowing that the plants were in her basement. 
(GE 4.) 
 
 At her March 25, 2013, hearing, Applicant admitted to the Government that she 
knew her fiancé had been growing marijuana in their basement, and that she had taken an 
active role in the cultivation. Asked about why she denied knowing about the cultivation 
when she completed her e-QIP, Applicant initially responded that she misunderstood and 
was confused. She thought she had indicated on her e-QIP that she knew about the 
marijuana in her basement. (Tr. 33-34.) Applicant later acknowledged that she lied on her 
e-QIP when she claimed to have had no knowledge of the cultivation. (Tr. 34.) 
 
 Applicant is still cohabiting with her fiancé, although as of March 25, 2013, he was 
incarcerated. He has been jailed for the last five months on drunk driving charges as well 
as the 2010 drug charges. (Tr. 34-35.) Applicant has no ongoing contact with the friend 
who gave her the marijuana seeds because he moved to another state. (Tr. 38.) 
 
 Applicant has not informed anyone at work about her drug arrest in 2010.  Applicant 
denies that she is concerned about anyone at work finding out about the drug charges 
because the off-duty drug involvement had nothing to do with her job. She reports to work 
on time and works long hours. (Tr. 39-40.) She has received automatic raises at work but 
no promotions. (Tr. 40.) 
  
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 
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 
 
 5 
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 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),
6
 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.” 
 
                                                 
6
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, as referred to in the Controlled Substances Act, are contained in 21 U.S.C. § 
812(c). 
 
 6 
Applicant and her fiancé were caught growing marijuana in their home around 
August 2010. Applicant denies that she, her fiancé, or anyone else, had smoked marijuana 
in the home. She would have the Government believe that she and her fiancé grew 
marijuana, at her suggestion, solely for her mother, who was dying of cancer. The 
evidentiary record suggests drug involvement by Applicant, or her fiancé, or both, more 
extensive than cultivation solely for palliative purposes. Two months after her mother’s 
death, Applicant and her fiancé still had the marijuana plants. When asked why she kept 
them, Applicant testified she “never even thought about it.” She denied any effort to 
continue to water and heat the plants after her mother died (“they were done”). Yet, when 
then asked whether she ever gave marijuana to her mother, Applicant responded, “No. It 
wasn’t ready.” (Tr. 31-32.) Furthermore, when the police came to her residence, they 
smelled marijuana. According to Applicant, the plants in the basement emanated enough 
of an odor to give the police at her door probable cause to search her home. It is more 
likely that Applicant, or her spouse (who she testified was not home at the time), or 
someone else, had recently smoked marijuana. Whether the odor came from the plants or 
from burning marijuana, or a combination, the plants were not “done.” Moreover, the police 
found a scale, which tends to suggest drug sales in the absence of any reasonable 
alternative explanation. The evidence falls short of establishing AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug 
abuse,” by Applicant, but AG ¶ 25(c), “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, 
processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug 
paraphernalia,” clearly applies. Applicant was actively engaged in the cultivation of 
marijuana, if not also complicit in other drug activity at the residence (e.g., sales). Applicant 
bears a heavy burden to overcome the Guideline H security concerns, given it was her idea 
to grow marijuana, and she obtained the seeds. 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. 
 
Apparently because Applicant had no prior convictions, she was placed in an 
accelerated rehabilitation program for two years. Her probationary period had not expired 
as of her March 25, 2013 hearing. Under those circumstances, 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 denies any intent to grow marijuana in the future. 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. 
 
AG ¶ 26(b) addresses drug use specifically, but it is logically extended to illegal drug 
possession and cultivation. Applicant may have no ongoing contact with the friend who 
 
 7 
provided her with the marijuana seeds, but she and her fiancé are still together. They 
cohabit when he is not incarcerated. Irrespective of whether he smoked marijuana, he 
knowingly cultivated it. AG  26(b)(1) is not satisfied. Similarly, AG ¶ 26(b)(2), which requires 
a change in environment, is not pertinent. As for an appropriate period of abstinence under 
AG ¶ 26(b)(3), 2.5 years have passed since Applicant’s arrest with no evidence of 
recurrence of drug involvement. Applicant benefits from the passage of time under AG ¶ 
26(b)(3), but she has not yet fulfilled her accelerated rehabilitation. Furthermore, given her 
lack of complete candor about her drug involvement (see Guideline E, infra), which 
includes her patently unbelievable and contradictory explanations for why she failed to 
discard the plants after her mother’s death, her case for mitigation under AG ¶ 26(b)(3) 
falls considerably short.  In addition, AG ¶ 26(b)(4) is not implicated in the absence of a 
signed statement to foreswear any drug involvement in the future. 
 
AG ¶ 26(c) applies to the abuse of prescription drugs and is factually inapplicable. 
Applicant has not received any drug treatment, although apparently she underwent an 
evaluation for her accelerated rehabilitation program and no treatment was ordered. To the 
extent that the evaluation can be considered a favorable prognosis, Applicant has not had 
any drug treatment that would justify application of AG ¶ 26(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.” 
 
Applicant’s expressed motivation for not growing any illegal drug in the future is that 
it was too much trouble. She showed little insight into the illegality of her drug involvement, 
despite the seriousness of the criminal drug charges, or the incompatibility of her drug 
cultivation with her responsibilities to her defense contractor employer. Applicant denies 
any vulnerability to coercion or pressure should anyone at work find out about her 
marijuana cultivation because she does not see where it affects her work. The drug 
involvement concerns are not fully mitigated, despite Applicant’s compliance with the terms 
of her accelerated rehabilitation. 
 
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. 
 
Although Applicant listed the September 2010 drug charges on her November 2011 
e-QIP, she falsely stated that she had no knowledge that her fiancé was cultivating 
marijuana plants in their home. Applicant also claimed that the charges had been dropped 
on her completion of an accelerated rehabilitation program. The evidence shows that 
 
 8 
Applicant not only knew that marijuana was being grown in her home, but also that she 
was the instigator and an active participant in its cultivation. Moreover, she is still on 
probation until at least April 26, 2013. When Department Counsel asked her about her 
response to the police record inquiries on the e-QIP, Applicant initially claimed that she 
was confused and thought she had indicated on the form that she knew about the 
cultivation. She subsequently admitted that she had lied on her e-QIP when she claimed to 
have had no knowledge of the marijuana cultivation. Applicant’s deliberate 
misrepresentation on her e-QIP raises personal conduct concerns under AG ¶ 16(a): 
 
(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. 
 
Furthermore, her active concealment raises vulnerability concerns under AG ¶ 16(e): 
 
(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. 
 
 Mitigating condition AG ¶ 17(a), “the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to 
correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts,” 
cannot fully apply. Although Applicant discussed her arrest during her OPM interview in 
March 2012, and she admitted to the OPM investigator that she knew about the marijuana 
that was in her basement, she denied any involvement in growing it. Her claim of a passive 
role in the cultivation of marijuana could have been alleged as disqualifying in its own right 
under AG ¶ 16(b), “deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or 
other official government representative.”  
 
 Applicant falsely certified that all of her statements on the e-QIP were true, 
complete, and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief, despite being advised of the 
criminal penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Her decision to conceal her active drug 
involvement has negative implications for her judgment and reliability. This intentional false 
statement is too serious to qualify for mitigation under 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 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” She deliberately falsified her e-QIP less than 
two years ago, and there are concerns about her credibility generally. In addition to her 
denial during her OPM interview of any personal participation in the cultivation of 
marijuana, Applicant did not appear to be fully forthcoming at the hearing about her motive 
for keeping the marijuana plants after her mother’s death.  
 
 
 9 
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,” applies to the extent that Applicant now 
admits her culpability in suggesting to her fiancé that they cultivate marijuana, in obtaining 
the seeds, and then in helping to grow the plants. However, Applicant has not been upfront 
about her motives in possessing marijuana after her mother’s death or in concealing her 
active cultivation of marijuana when she applied for a security clearance. Common sense 
would lead one to believe that Applicant did not want the Government or her employer to 
know about her illegal drug involvement because it could adversely affect her job or 
security clearance eligibility or both.  Applicant denies any concern should someone at 
work find out about the serious drug charges, but she has made no effort to inform even 
her security officer about the drug charges. Consequently, her employer is continuing to 
sponsor her for a security clearance without knowing of adverse information that could 
potentially affect her security eligibility. AG ¶ 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps 
to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress,” also does not 
apply. 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
The security concern about criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30: 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
  As a first offender, Applicant was granted accelerated pretrial rehabilitation following 
her guilty plea to three felony drug offenses and one misdemeanor.
7
 Her drug-related 
criminal conduct establishes disqualifying concerns under AG ¶ 31(a), “a single serious 
crime or multiple lesser offenses,” and ¶ 31(c), “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, 
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.” 
The felonious nature of her misconduct is clear, even though the state granted her 
accelerated pretrial rehabilitation permitted under law when the charges are not considered 
serious. 
 
                                                 
7 
Under § 54-56e of the state’s criminal procedure statutes, accelerated pretrial rehabilitation may be granted 
by the court at its discretion for persons accused of a crime or crimes or a motor vehicle violation or violations 
for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment may be imposed if the crimes or violations are not of a serious 
nature. Accelerated pretrial rehabilitation may be invoked on motion of the defendant or state in cases 
involving defendants, whom the court believes will probably not reoffend, have no previous criminal conviction, 
and whom have not been previously granted accelerated pretrial rehabilitation. Once accepted into the 
program, the defendant is required to pay a participation fee of $100 and to agree to a tolling of the statute of 
limitations with respect to the crime and waiver of the right to a speedy trial. Under conditions ordered by the 
court, the defendant is released to the custody of the court support services division. If the defendant violates 
the court’s conditions, the case shall be brought to trial. The period of probation, or supervision, or both shall 
not exceed two years. If the defendant released to the custody of the court support services satisfactorily 
completes his or her probation, the defendant may apply for dismissal of the charges. 
 
 10 
 Concerning AG ¶ 31(d), “individual is currently on parole or probation,” Applicant 
testified that she was placed on two years of probation. The only court record available (GE 
3.) shows that she is on accelerated pretrial rehabilitation awaiting final disposition of the 
charges. While the state’s accelerated pretrial rehabilitation is distinguishable from a 
probationary sentence following a criminal conviction, any violation of her probation under 
the accelerated rehabilitation would result in her case being brought to trial. AG ¶ 31(d) 
applies in that Applicant is under court supervision through at least her next court date of 
April 26, 2013. 
 
 Concerning factors in possible mitigation, AG ¶ 32(a), “so much time has elapsed 
since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances 
that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot reasonably be satisfied. Applicant is still under 
the court’s supervision. AG ¶ 32(b), “the person was pressured or coerced into committing 
the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person’s life,” is not established 
because it was Applicant’s idea to grow marijuana. AG ¶ 32(c), “evidence that the person 
did not commit the offense,” clearly is not pertinent in light of Applicant’s active role in the 
cultivation of marijuana, even assuming that she was not complicit in other drug activity. 
Applicant has been employed in her position for the past nine years. While her 
performance has been unremarkable in terms of special recognition, she works long hours. 
A good work record is some evidence of successful rehabilitation under AG ¶ 32(d), “there 
is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time 
without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.” Applicant 
denies any intent of future illegal drug involvement, but her reform is incomplete without an 
appropriate expression of remorse or meaningful acknowledgement of its illegality. The 
criminal conduct concerns are not fully mitigated by a promise not to grow marijuana again 
because it is too much work and takes too much time. 
  
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 her 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 illegality of marijuana possession and cultivation 
when she suggested to her fiancé that they grow marijuana. She and her fiancé kept the 
plants after her mother’s death. Among the drug paraphernalia seized from her home in 
2010 was a small scale, which would be consistent with drug sales or at least the intent to 
                                                 
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. 
 
 11 
sell marijuana. Despite such incriminating evidence, Applicant continues to maintain that 
her drug involvement was well-intentioned.  Her  concealment of her active participation in 
the cultivation of marijuana on her e-QIP continues to raise doubts about her judgment, 
reliability, and trustworthiness.  Based on the circumstances, I cannot conclude that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her security clearance eligibility at this 
time. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline H:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:  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