1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-14178
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Kathryn MacKinnon, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems began in May 2008, when she took out a $12,000
debt consolidation loan that she could not afford. She compounded her financial difficulties
when she permitted a friend to take possession and assume the monthly installment
payments of her car. Though the consolidation loan has been in a charge off status since
July 2009, her sporadic repayment record, combined with the resolution of two other listed
debts, culminates in a finding for Applicant under the financial considerations guideline.
However, her pattern of deliberate falsifications over an eight-year period of Government
security applications and a 2011 interview results in a finding against her under the
personal conduct guideline. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), Government’s Exhibit (GE) 1, on January 3, 2011. She certified
additional security forms that will be discussed in Findings of Fact. She was interviewed by
an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on March 29, 2011, and
June 23, 2011. The interview summaries and Applicant’s interrogatory responses appear
in GE 8, dated January 13, 2013. In the space provided for corrections and modifications
to the summaries, Applicant corrected the last name of the person who attended an April
2008 event with her. She also indicated that a financial statement, an updated financial
statement, and a civil suit dismissal were attached to her responses. Financial statements
are not attached to GE 8. The civil suit dismissal appears in Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) Q.
Applicant agreed that the two summaries could be admitted into evidence at a hearing to
determine her security suitability. (GE 8)
On March 13, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F)
and personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken pursuant to Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1,
2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was notarized on April 3, 2013. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on May 14, 2013, for a hearing
on June 7, 2013. The hearing was held as scheduled. GE 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were
admitted in evidence without objection. GE 3 was admitted in evidence over Applicant’s
objection for reasons addressed below in Rulings on Procedure. Applicant’s 19 exhibits (AE
A-S) were admitted without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was received on June 19, 2013.
The record closed on June 19, 2013. 
Rulings on Procedure
Applicant objected to GE 3. She did not believe the document met the scope of the
investigation, which would have dated back seven years. The reason for her objection
relates to the weight that should be ascribed to the document, but the reason does not
preclude the admissibility of the document. (Tr. 20-24) The exhibit is relevant to SOR 2.d
of the SOR and is probative in assessing Applicant’s veracity during the security
investigation. 
3
Findings of Fact
The first paragraph of the SOR contains four allegations under the financial
considerations guideline. Applicant admitted SOR 1.a, and 1.c with explanations. She
denied SOR 1.b and 1.d as representing the same account which she satisfied in February
2013. (AE N) The second paragraph contains five allegations under the personal conduct
guideline. Applicant admitted SOR 2.a and 2.b. She denied SOR 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e,
explaining that she did not clearly recall the security form questions. During her
professional career, she has always been consistent in her explanations to the other
Government agencies (AGA) about her marijuana use in high school. She indicated the
drug information she provided to the OPM investigator in March 2011, were only estimates
of her marijuana use because her use was over 10 years ago. Applicant’s admissions will
be included in the following factual findings. 
Applicant is a 30-year-old single mother with a year-old child. She anticipates
marriage in the near future. She has been a senior program analyst with a defense
contractor since October 2012. Except for a period between September 2008 and
November 2008, Applicant has been continuously employed since 2002. She received a
bachelor’s degree from a university in June 2007. She also attended one semester of
graduate school that she did not disclose on her e-QIP because she did not feel it was
relevant to her not graduating. No additional information was provided. Applicant has held
a security clearance since August 2002. (GE 1 at 12-22, 32-34; GE 8 at 9; Tr. 103-104)
Financial Considerations
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant provided explanations for her financial
problems. She asserted that most of her debts arose during the nationwide recession of
2009 and 2010. She indicated that currently she has only three credit cards with low total
balances and a student loan debt that has never been delinquent. With the assistance of
financial counselors and a credit counseling service, she has successfully developed a debt
management plan that proves she is handling her financial obligations. The delinquent
debts will be discussed in the order they appear in the SOR. 
SOR 1.a, credit union delinquent debt, $12,000. The account was opened in May
2008 and became delinquent in December 2008. In her March 2011 interview, Applicant
explained that she took out the loan in the summer of 2008 to pay off other debts with one
low-interest monthly payment. She missed the first payment because of unemployment
from September to November 2008. She was unable to sustain payments under a revised
payment plan. In July 2009, she obtained a credit report and discovered the debt was
charged off. In the fall of 2009, she was advised by the creditor that when payments were
received on a 
4
a consistent basis, they would consider removing the account from a charged-off status.
Complicating her efforts to bring the account to a current status was an illness in October
2009 and surgery in October 2010. (GE 8 at 3-4)
Applicant provided a two-page ledger of sporadic payments to the credit union
between 2010 and April 25, 2013. After receiving a letter from Applicant about actions
taken to address the delinquent account, the credit union notified her in May 2013, that the
credit agencies would be advised about the status of the account on a monthly basis. The
credit union also indicated when the account was satisfied, the credit agencies would be
notified that “Account paid in full was a charge off.” Applicant indicated that the credit
counseling service documents also relate to SOR 1.a. I find the documents have limited
probative weight to the debt because there is no indication Applicant officially enrolled in
the plan. A list of delinquent debts was prepared and a proposed monthly payment of $503
was scheduled to begin in January 2012. However, Applicant never officially enrolled in the
plan. Accordingly, Applicant’s undocumented testimonial claim of having a previous
relationship with the counseling service between 2005 and 2008 has negligible probative
value. (GE 8 at 3; AE G, H, I, J, K, L, M; Tr. 106-107)
SOR 1.b, auto installment account, $2,057. The account was opened in June 2006
and became delinquent in December 2012. Applicant agreed to let her friend take her car
and assume the car payments in approximately November 2010. When the friend could not
maintain the payments, Applicant resumed the payments to restore the account to current
status, though her effort was hampered during her pregnancy leave in 2012. She was
notified by letter on February 19, 2013, that on February 4, 2013, the account was “paid
charge-off.” Five of the account numbers in the Government’s exhibit match the account
numbers in Applicant’s exhibit. The account is resolved in Applicant’s favor. SOR 1.d is a
duplicate entry of SOR 1.b. (GE 9; AE N; Tr. 88, 110)
SOR 1.c, installment auto account, past-due amount of $893, with a balance of
$18,000. The account was opened in November 2010, and became delinquent in June
2012. On May 21, 2013, Applicant verbally authorized the finance company to transfer
$533 from her bank account on May 31, 2013, and $523 on June 15, 2013. On June 4,
2013, her installment account balance was $16,679. The delinquency is resolved in her
favor. (GE 9; AE O, P); Tr. 112-114)
Personal Conduct
In an introductory paragraph to her answer under the personal conduct allegations
of the SOR, Applicant noted that because the drug use took place during her high school
years, it was outside the scope of her re-investigation in 2011 and therefore irrelevant. She
insisted that she had been truthful about the drug use. The allegations under paragraph 2
will be discussed in chronological order. 
 Page numbers in GE 3 appear at the bottom of the page. Question #1 and Applicant’s response appear at1
page 14 of GE 3. Applicant also answered “no” to the second question of whether she had used marijuana
more than 15 times. Though unalleged in SOR 2.d, Applicant’s false answer to the frequency of use question
has a negative impact on her general credibility.
5
SOR 2.e, Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86), executed by
Applicant on May 14, 2002. In response to Section 24 of the security form requiring
information of illegal drug use since the age or 16 or in the last 7 years, Applicant answered
“no.” She did not disclose her marijuana use from age 14 to 17, ending in November 2000.
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant indicated had no clear recollection of her “no”
answer on the May 2002 questionnaire but claimed she provided the information in
subsequent security evaluations and interviews. She provided truthful information about her
teenage drug use to the OPM investigator in March 2011. (SOR answer)
Applicant testified that the May 2002 security form was her first experience with this
kind of application form. She stated, “I was ignorant to all the facts and how this might
relate to me years down in the future, what I might be doing ten, fifteen years from the
point.” She checked “no” to Section 24 of the form because she was no longer using
marijuana, “so therefore to me it wasn’t relevant.” She pointed out that she supplied truthful
information about her marijuana use in the supplemental application form to AGA in
September 2003. (GE 5; Tr. 100-102)
SOR 2.d, application for employment by AGA, July 1, 2003. In response to question
#1 inquiring whether Applicant used marijuana during the last three years, Applicant
answered “no” rather than “yes.”  In her answer, Applicant furnished information similar to1
what she had already provided under SOR 2.e. She reiterated that she was consistent in
supplying the information to AGA as well as the OPM investigator in 2011. (SOR answer)
Applicant testified she was 20 years old in July 2003, when she completed the form.
She hastily checked “no” to the marijuana use question because she had never filled out
a form like this before. A lack of guidance contributed to her “no” answer because no one
told her that all information had to be disclosed. Since she was not using marijuana when
she filled out the form, she did not think the question was relevant. She explained that
before she was scheduled for the polygraph, she provided the truth about her drug use
because it was required for employment with AGA and not because of the threat of having
to take the polygraph. Though Applicant indicated in GE 5 that she used marijuana about
18 times between age 14 and 17, she declined to say her “no” answer to the frequency of
use question in GE 3 was false. (GE 3 at 14; GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 99-102, 137, 141)
SOR 2.c, Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86), executed by
Applicant on September 20, 2005. In response to Section 24 of the security form requiring
6
information of having used illegal drugs since the age or 16 or in the last 7 years, Applicant
answered “no.” She did not disclose her marijuana use from age 14 to 17, ending in
November 2000.
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant indicated no clear memory of her “no” answer
to the September 2005 question. As she had responded to SOR 2.d and 2.e, Applicant
claimed she subsequently disclosed all drug information with personnel at AGAs. She again
referred to the truthful information she provided to the OPM investigator in 2011. (SOR
answer; GE 2) 
Applicant testified that the “no” answer was entered on the September 2005 security
form because “at the time I had not experimented with drugs in any way [and] probably
being hasty and just checking through and not paying attention to the scope of the dates
and everything.” (GE 2; Tr. 95, 97-98, 134-139)
SOR 2.b, Applicant’s January 3, 2011 e-QIP, Section 22: Police Record. In the
explanatory section of the question, an applicant is required to report information regardless
of whether the charge was expunged, sealed, stricken from the record or dismissed.
Responses are for a 7-year or a 10-year time frame, depending on the type of investigation.
The applicant is directed to exclude any fines of less than $300 for traffic offenses that do
not involve alcohol or drugs. In her March 2011 interview, Applicant disclosed an April 2008
offense for open alcohol container, but not the driving, attempting to drive under the
influence of alcohol charge and three related charges that she was cited for in April 2009.
In her answer to the SOR, she indicated that the length and detail of the January
2011 e-QIP contributed to her misunderstanding of the Section 22 question. She
interpreted the question to apply to only criminal offenses. She maintained that she
provided full details of the April 2009 incident to the OPM investigator in the March 2011
interview, including the fact that she was not charged, fined, or otherwise affected except
by the civil judgment. She indicated she provided more details in the June 2011 interview.
(SOR answer, GE 8 at 7; Tr. 95)
Applicant testified that she did not include the April 2009 incident on the January
2011 e-QIP because she was not charged and she did not consider her citation a traffic
offense. No further information was provided. Applicant conceded that the explanatory
section to the question (Section 22) did not allow her to exclude traffic offenses that
involved alcohol. (Tr. 95, 119)
SOR 2.a, March 29, 2011 interview. In her March 2011 interview, Applicant told the
investigator that other than the April 2008 citation, she had not been issued a summons,
citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding. She did not disclose the
citations related to the four April 2009 charges. Instead, she explained she was involved
7
in an accident with a state government vehicle and was eventually notified to come to court
and pay a judgment. (GE 8 at 8)
In her answer to the SOR and at the hearing, Applicant stated she did not fully
understand the question asked by the investigator during the March 2011 interview or when
she read it on her January 2011 e-QIP. Applicant noted that she provided full details of the
April 2009 incident in the June 2011 interview and emphasized she was not trying to
misrepresent the facts. In addition, she did not disclose the April 2009 citation because she
was not found guilty, the charge was dismissed, and the charge was a traffic offense. At
the hearing, Applicant reiterated her position that she believed question #22 of the January
2011 e-QIP applied to criminal charges. She also noted that the four-hour long March 2011
interview, with the excessive time spent on drug use and dates of use, caused her to
become disengaged and irritated. (SOR answer; GE 8 at 1-2; Tr. 91-93, 95, 123-124)
Applicant testified she was surprised to be called for a second OPM interview in
June 2011. She then consulted her facility security officer (FSO) who apparently made no
distinction between a civil or criminal proceeding during their discussion. The FSO told
Applicant, “that if you feel as though it’s something that might come up and that you want
to be totally honest about, you need to go ahead and tell the truth.” Applicant indicated she
provided full details in the June 2011 interview about the April 2009 incident. She admitted
being charged with suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. (GE 8, June 2011
interview, at 1-2; Tr. 93-94, 125-127) 
At a subsequent point in the cross-examination of Applicant regarding the June 2011
interview, she was asked whether she told the OPM investigator about other citations
arising from the April 2009 incident. She admitted she did not disclose a charge of
attempting to elude a police officer. She did not reveal she was also charged with failure
to stop after an accident involving damage and a charge of failing to return and remain at
the scene of an accident. Applicant indicated that she told the June 2011 interviewer that
she voluntarily pulled her car over after the accident. She denied trying to elude a police
officer. Rather, she was trying not to impede the flow of traffic out of the parking lot as well
as on the street. She believed the police officer who cited her misinterpreted her actions.
Applicant restated that the charges were dismissed and she was not arrested or detained.
She indicated, “I wasn’t very specific in outlining each of these citations related to this one
incident in my second interview with [the OPM investigator].” (GE 7; GE 8, June 2011
interview at 1; Tr. 131-134)
Character Evidence
Witness 1 testified that she has known Applicant since 2010. She was the
Government leader of a mobility team at AGA with Applicant responsible for all
administrative duties. Witness 1 provided six verbal evaluations about Applicant to her
8
Government supervisor. She considered Applicant to be a very professional employee who
completed projects in a timely manner. Applicant was trustworthy in how she maintained
accountability and control in safeguarding documents. She properly handled and
inventoried millions of dollars of equipment without error. Occasionally, witness 1 socialized
with Applicant and found her to be responsible. (Tr. 32-41)
Witness 2 has known Applicant on a professional basis since 2010. She is a
supervisor at AGA. She was a coworker and became Applicant’s supervisor from 2011 to
2012. Witness 2 did not have an opportunity to evaluate Applicant because one had just
been conducted by her predecessor. As a program analyst, Applicant collected and
evaluated information for reports and maintained accountability over all project assets,
including servers, and other equipment with a value over 20 million dollars. Applicant
always maintained 100% accountability over the equipment. After the team encountered
budget cuts, Applicant’s value to the team increased based on her assignment and
completion of other projects outside her area of responsibility. Witness 1 does not believe
young job applicants receive the guidance they need to accurately fill out the application
forms ahead of the polygraph. The lack of guidance generally causes them to fail the
polygraph. (Tr. 13, 42-53)
Witness 3's daughters were in high school when she met Applicant in 1995. Witness
3 would trust Applicant with her bank account. A testament to Applicant’s honesty and
reliability is that she is godmother to two of witness 3's daughters. (Tr. 54-61)
Applicant submitted two character statements. Reference A provided two
statements. Applicant worked on Reference A’s team at AGA from 2010 through 2011. She
was trustworthy with classified materials and equipment. She was also a responsible team
player. (AE A, AE E) Reference B, chief operating officer at AGA, indicated that Applicant
handled a high volume of classified documents. Reference B was impressed with
Applicant’s overall attitude and compliance with regulations. (AE B)
Applicant’s performance evaluation for the period of June 2012 to March 2013 was
commendable. The appraiser noted in March 2013, that Applicant’s enrollment in graduate-
level project management courses. (AE C) Applicant’s performance evaluation for January
to December 2011, exceeded standards. The appraiser complimented Applicant on her
team player attitude. (AE D) In November 2009, Applicant received a certificate for
completing a five-day intelligence course. (AE F) 
On January 31, 2011, a civil action involving the April 2009 traffic offense was
dismissed. (AE Q) On April 22, 2013, Applicant filed a petition for expungement of the April
2009 charges. (AE R) On December 26, 2012, Applicant’s insurance company advised her
by letter that damage to the state government vehicle had been paid. (AE S)
9
Credibility Finding
Having weighed and balanced all the evidence, including Applicant’s demeanor and
conduct at the hearing, I find that her repeated claims of candor throughout the security
investigation are undermined by the false and contradictory information she provided during
the security investigation. Her inconsistent testimony imposes a negative impact on her
credibility. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the AG. These
conditions should be evaluated in the context of nine general factors known as the whole-
person concept to bring together all available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision regarding security clearance
eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant
may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to the potential,
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15., 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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness
to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an
individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive gambling is a concern
as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot
be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may
indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
10
The applicable disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 are: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
The Government has the responsibility of presenting sufficient information to support
all allegations under the financial considerations guideline. The Government case is
established by the credit report, Applicant’s interview summaries, and the record transcript.
Applicant’s financial difficulties began in May 2008 when she took out a debt consolidation
loan. She was unable to make the first payment. She could not maintain the revised
repayment plan. After she defaulted on the revised repayment plan, the account was
charged off in July 2009. In November 2010, Applicant exercised poor judgment by allowing
her friend take her car and car payments. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) are applicable.
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially pertinent: 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under
such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment; 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-
due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof
to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to
resolve the issue.
Applicant’s delinquent debt to the credit union has been in a charge-off status since
July 2009. Though she has taken corrective action to resolve or bring the other debts to a
current status, she still owes at least $12,000 to the credit union. AG ¶ 20(a) does not
apply.
11
While Applicant was making sporadic payments to the credit union, she incurred
unemployment from September to November 2008. In October 2009, she developed a
serious illness. In October 2010, she underwent surgery and was on pregnancy leave for
an unknown period in 2012. Because of Applicant’s success in eliminating the delinquent
status of two of the three debts, while making sporadic payments on the charged-off credit
union debt, she is entitled to some mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) for acting
responsibly and demonstrating a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.
Applicant provided documentation showing that she contacted a credit counseling
service in January 2012. Even though there is no evidence to demonstrate she enrolled in
the debt plan, she receives some mitigation for discussing her financial problems with
counseling service officials and at least establishing a plan for recovery. On the other hand,
Applicant’s prior affiliation with the counseling service between 2005 and 2008 is
unsupported by any independent evidence. She receives limited mitigation under AG ¶
20(c) for taking responsible action in July 2009 by reviewing her credit report to determine
the charged off status of the credit union debt. She also exercised good judgment by
resuming the car payments to return the installment loan to a current status. Overall,
Applicant is entitled to limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e) based on her review of credit
reports to determine that SOR 1.d was a duplicate entry of SOR 1.b. 
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth 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. 
AG ¶ 16 contains two disqualifying conditions that are potentially pertinent: 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personnel security statement, or similar
form to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits and 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.
12
Security concerns are immediately raised by an omission of information from a
Government security questionnaire or an interview. However, not every omission under the
personal conduct guideline should be construed as a falsification. Omissions can result
from haste, oversight, or misinterpretation of the questions in the security form or in the
interview. To fall within the scope of AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(b), the omission must be a
deliberate concealment or falsification of relevant facts used to determine whether a
security clearance should be granted or denied. An applicant’s drug and criminal record are
relevant if the information could affect an agency decision regarding an applicant’s security
suitability. Applicant was cognizant of her drug use, but deliberately omitted the information
in the three employment and security clearance applications in 2002, 2003 and 2005. She
deliberately omitted the April 2009 criminal charges in the e-QIP in January 2011 and the
interview in March 2011. AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(b) apply.
There are four mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 that are potentially pertinent to
the circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused
or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized
personnel or legal counsel admission or instructing the individual specifically
concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made aware of the
requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual
cooperated fully and truthfully.  
(c) the offense was so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior
is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and 
d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that
caused untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is
unlikely to recur.
The record discloses no evidence demonstrating that Applicant came forward to
correct the omissions of her drug history or her criminal record. She claimed she disclosed
her marijuana use in September 2003 as a part of the process to obtain employment and
not because of the threat of taking the polygraph. Her claim is not credible. Even after she
revealed her drug use in September 2003, she deliberately concealed the information again
on her security form in September 2005. Applicant never took action to correct her
13
omissions of her criminal/traffic record until she was confronted with the April 2009 charges
in June 2011. AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply.
Applicant’s claim of misunderstanding the section 22 question regarding her
criminal/traffic record in her January 2011 e-QIP and March 2011 interview is not credible.
The first important statement in the explanatory section of the e-QIP question is that
information should be reported regardless of whether the charge was dismissed. The
second statement defines the time frame in which the information is to be disclosed. The
third statement is that an applicant can exclude certain offenses that do not involve alcohol
or drugs. Applicant is an educated person who knew she had been charged with alcohol-
related offense less than two years before she completed the e-QIP and when she was
interviewed in March 2011.  
Neither AG ¶¶ 17(b), 17(c), nor 17(d) apply to Applicant’s deliberate omissions of
her illegal drug use from the application forms or the January 2011 e-QIP and the March
2011 interview. Applicant exercised some good judgment by consulting her FSO after she
was informed she had to return for a second OPM interview in June 2011. The FSO told
her to be honest. When she was confronted with the April 2009 incident, she disclosed she
had been cited for suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol. However, she
did not reveal the other three charges. The pattern of deliberate omissions was serious and
continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s judgment.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the personal conduct guideline. I have also weighed the circumstances within the context
of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an
individual's conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following factors:
AG ¶ 2(a) (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which the participation was voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for
the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;
and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
14
Applicant is 30 years old. She is single with one child. She anticipates marriage in
the near future. The three character witnesses consider her to be a very professional,
trustworthy person. Witness 3 would trust her with her bank account. The two character
references extol Applicant’s trustworthiness and compliance with regulations. Her
performance evaluations show she is a productive employee. 
The foregoing mitigating evidence cannot be viewed by itself. Rather, under the
Directive, it must be evaluated with all available information whether it is favorable or
unfavorable. In May 2002, Applicant deliberately provided false information about her illegal
drug use. She used some good judgment in divulging the drug use in September 2003
even though I conclude that a forthcoming polygraph was a motive for her revelations. I
have considered Applicant’s youthful age when she deliberately falsified the 2002 security
form. By September 2005 however, she had held a security clearance for three years and
should have been more familiar with the security clearance process. She knew or should
have known her drug use was an issue, and within seven years of the September 2005
security form. Unfortunately, she decided to conceal rather than disclose the use. 
Applicant exercised additional poor judgment in January and March 2011 by not
disclosing the April 2009 citations. After being advised by her FSO to be truthful in the
approaching June interview, she continued her display of poor judgment by not providing
a full account of the charges connected with the April 2009 incident. The fact that the
charges were dismissed, that Applicant’s insurance settled the civil judgment for the April
2009 incident, and that she has a pending action of expungement to remove the April 2009
incident from her record, does not eliminate her deliberate omissions of her January 2011
e-QIP and March 2011 interview. Considering the evidence as a whole, Applicant prevails
under the financial guideline. Conversely, she has failed to mitigate the security concerns
under the personal conduct guideline.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e: Against applicant.
15
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge