1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-05045
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant used marijuana frequently between 1983 and 2002. She also used
marijuana on one occasion in 2006 after she had been granted a security clearance.
Applicant deliberately omitted her drug use from her first security clearance application
in 2002, but disclosed her drug use in a 2011 clearance application. The reliability of her
statement of intent to abstain from illegal drug use is undermined by inconsistencies in
her testimony about her 2006 drug use, and by her continued association with persons
who use marijuana and the fact that she and her husband sometimes socialize where
they know illegal drugs will be present. Clearance denied.
Statement of the Case
On November 3, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (eQIP) to renew a security clearance required for her
employment with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of Applicant’s
background investigation, which included her responses to interrogatories issued by
adjudicators for the Department of Defense (DOD), it could not be determined that it is
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented on September 1, 2006. These guidelines were published in2
the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 
 A copy of Department Counsel’s letter forwarding the Government’s exhibits to Applicant in advance of3
hearing is included in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. Also, an index listing each exhibit is included in
the record as Hx. 2.
 An index listing Applicant’s exhibits is included as Hx. 3.4
2
clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s access to classified
information.  On March 27, 2014, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons1
(SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG)  for drug involvement (Guideline H) and personal conduct (Guideline E).2
Applicant timely answered the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on May 13, 2014, and I convened a hearing on June 19, 2014. The
parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel presented Government’s Exhibits
(Gx.) 1 - 3,  and Applicant presented Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A - N.  All exhibits were3 4
admitted without objection. Applicant also testified and presented four witnesses. DOHA
received a transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on June 26, 2014.
Findings of Fact
The Government alleged under Guideline H that Applicant used marijuana from
about 1983 until July 2006 (SOR 1.a); and that she used marijuana after being granted
a security clearance (SOR 1.b). Applicant admitted both allegations.
The Government alleged under Guideline E, that Applicant intentionally made a
false official statement when she omitted her use of drugs from a security clearance
application (SF 86) she submitted on March 1, 2002, by answering “no” to the following
question:
Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you
illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine,
crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.),
amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers,
etc.), hallucinogens (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs? (SOR 2.a). 
It was also alleged under Guideline E that Applicant intentionally made a false
official statement in a security clearance application (SF 86) she submitted on March 1,
2002, by answering “no” to the following question:
Have you EVER illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a
law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; while
possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly and
immediately affecting public safety? (SOR 2.b)
3
Applicant admitted, with explanation, SOR 2.a, but denied, with explanation,
SOR 2.b. At hearing, Department Counsel acknowledged that SOR 2.b could not be
supported because Applicant had not yet received a security clearance when she
submitted her March 2002 SF 86. Department Counsel moved to withdraw that
allegation and I granted the motion. (Tr. 6)
Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Having reviewed
the response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make the following additional
findings of fact.
Applicant is 56 years old and employed by a defense contractor in a software
configuration management job she has held since July 2008. From February 2002 until
July 2008, she worked for a different defense contractor performing the same work.
Applicant was married from July 1987 until September 2004, although she and her ex-
husband separated in 2003. Applicant remarried in May 2011. She has no children from
either marriage. In 1982, Applicant earned a bachelor’s degree in biology with a minor in
English. She first received a security clearance in April 2002. (Gx. 1)
Applicant first used marijuana in 1983, at age 25, when she started a relationship
with a boyfriend who used drugs. Her marijuana use continued when she married her
first husband, who she knew used illegal drugs when they met. Her illegal drug use
occurred at least weekly between 1983 and 2002. Applicant never bought or sold
marijuana and used it only when it was offered. Applicant’s first marriage ended when
her ex-husband’s drug use expanded to include cocaine and crack cocaine. She also
suspected he was manufacturing illegal drugs for sale. Applicant described their
marriage as “tumultuous” and claimed that she quit using drugs when she applied for a
clearance in 2002, even though she was still living with her first husband, who continued
to use drugs. (Answer; Ax. N; Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Tr. 20 - 28, 47 - 49)
Applicant’s second husband has also used marijuana, but not since 2006.
Applicant has known her current husband socially for about 20 years, but she testified
she was unsure when they married if he used marijuana. In July 2006, Applicant and
her second husband attended a weekend outdoor music festival where they camped out
and listened to several different bands from around the country. Applicant knows that
illegal drug use is not unusual at that event. At some point during the 2006 festival,
people in an adjoining tent offered to share a joint with Applicant, her husband and a
few other people. Applicant averred that they passed the joint around, and Applicant
took two puffs. She claimed she realized she had made a mistake in using drugs while
holding a clearance and removed herself from the situation. However, Applicant’s
husband testified that they, along with a few other people, smoked a joint while walking
around the concert grounds. According to him, Applicant remained with the group the
whole time and did not appear concerned that she had made a mistake in using illegal
drugs. (Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Tr. 28, 58 - 62, 65) 
Applicant and her second husband have returned to the same music festival
three times since 2006. They also participate in an annual rafting trip and attend a New
Years Eve event. They both know that marijuana is used by some participants at both
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
 Directive. 6.3.6
4
events, but they deny having used any drugs during those events since 2006. (Gx. 3;
Tr. 50 - 54)
Since August 2003, Applicant has been active in Al-Anon, a support group for
family members and others with close association with alcoholics and drug addicts. She
started attending to help her cope with the effects of her first husband’s drug use. After
attending meetings five times a week for about two years, she since has been attending
meetings about twice a week. Applicant claims that she used drugs because she was
not addicted to drugs or otherwise desired the drugs themselves; rather, she claims she
is drawn to or even addicted to men who use drugs. She attends Al-Anon because it
helps her understand the dynamics behind her drug use and helps her maintain her
vigilance against using drugs again. She submitted a signed statement of her intent to
abstain from future illegal drug use. (Answer; Ax. A; Tr. 30 - 33, 45 - 46, 54 - 56)
Applicant deliberately omitted from her first clearance application in 2002 the fact
that she had used illegal drugs. While she claimed that her omission was rooted in a
denial that she was engaging in improper conduct, she also acknowledged that she did
not disclose her drug use because she was afraid she would not be hired for her first
defense contractor job or that it would keep her from getting a clearance. Applicant was,
at all times, aware that using marijuana was against DOD policy and against the drug
policies of her current and previous employers. (Answer; Tr. 28 - 29, 37 - 38)
Applicant has an excellent reputation in the workplace. She has received awards
and other forms of recognition for her work, and her performance evaluations reflect a
solid work record. Testimony from her supervisor for the past three years extolled her
honesty, dedication, and reliability. However, the supervisor was not aware that
Applicant had intentionally falsified her 2002 security clearance application. Rather, he
was under the impression she had listed the wrong date for when she stopped using
marijuana or that she had failed to respond to a request from the DOD CAF. Also, a
family member and a friend of more than 20 years each testified that she has been a
much improved person, who is honest, caring, and happy, since she ended her first
marriage. The friend who testified was not aware that Applicant had used illegal drugs.
(Ax. B - M, Tr. 73 - 111)
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent  with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to5
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,  and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies6
in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).8
5
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  7
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.8
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Applicant began using marijuana in 1983, when she was 25 years old. She used
the drug with varying frequency for about 19 years. She stopped in 2002 because she
was applying for a defense contractor job which required she become eligible for a
security clearance. After receiving her clearance, she abstained until one occasion in
2006 when she and her second husband attended a music festival where they knew
illegal drugs might be used. Applicant still attends concerts, rafting trips, and other
social events where she knows other attendees may use marijuana. This information
raises a security concern articulated at AG ¶ 24 as follows:
6
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include: 
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed
in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and (2)
inhalants and other similar substances; 
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction. 
More specifically, information about Applicant’s drug use requires application of
the following AG ¶ 25 disqualifying conditions:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); and 
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance.
I also have considered the following AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions, which may be
pertinent to these facts and circumstances:
(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; 
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1)
dissociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or
avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate
period of abstinence; and (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation.
Applicant’s last known use of marijuana was eight years ago. Since 2003, she
has also been an active participant in Al-Anon, which she claims has helped her abstain
from using marijuana. However, the basis for her participation lies in her feeling that she
is addicted to men who use drugs. Nothing about her approach to sobriety indicated that
she herself was taking responsibility for her own actions and decisions. Further, her
statements and testimony about what happened at the music festival in 2006 conflict
with her husband’s, who was also there and used marijuana with her. Finally, despite
her responsibilities as a holder of a security clearance, she and her husband still place
themselves several times a year in circumstances where marijuana is present.
Questions remain about her judgment, and those questions undermine the reliability of
the statement of intent she submitted in Ax. A. On balance, I conclude that none of the
7
AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions apply and that Applicant has not mitigated the security
concerns about her past drug use.
Personal Conduct
Applicant first applied for a security clearance in 2002. To obtain that clearance,
she deliberately withheld from the Government the fact that she had used marijuana for
most of her adult life. This information is sufficient to raise a security concern about his
personal conduct, which is addressed at AG ¶ 15, as follows:
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.
Specifically, the record requires application of the following AG ¶ 16 disqualifying
condition:
(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.
Of the mitigating conditions listed under this guideline at AG ¶ 17, the following
are pertinent to these facts and circumstances: 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Applicant claimed she was “in denial” about her long-term drug use when she
omitted her drug use. However, she also acknowledged that she was worried that she
would not get the clearance required for her to work for a defense contractor. Applicant
is credited with disclosing her past drug use in a 2011 clearance application. However,
this does not constitute a prompt, good-faith correction of her earlier falsifications. She
has held a security clearance since 2002 based, in large measure on incomplete
information that may have adversely affected the Government’s ability to assess her
suitability for access. Falsification of such information is not a minor infraction,
particularly where it is the Applicant’s first opportunity to demonstrate willingness to
place the Government’s interests first.
8
I recognize that this act of deception by Applicant is 12 years old. In assessing
whether Applicant is now sufficiently credible and willing to be candid about adverse
information in her background, I have considered her statements to investigators and
her testimony at hearing regarding her 2006 use of marijuana. She claimed that she
took two puffs of a joint and then removed herself from the group that was using
marijuana. But her own husband testified that she stayed with the group the entire time
and did not show any concern about using marijuana while holding a security clearance.
I found Applicant’s testimony on this point to be less than credible. Based on these
facts, and along with all of the other adverse information in this record, I conclude that
none of the AG ¶ 17 mitigating conditions apply and that Applicant has failed to mitigate
the security concerns about her truthfulness.
Whole-Person Concept.
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines H and E. I have also reviewed the record before
me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 56 years
old and has established a good reputation at work for reliability and trustworthiness.
One of her witnesses at hearing, who testified that he knows her to be truthful and
straightforward, was not aware that she deliberately omitted her drug use when she first
applied for her clearance. Another supportive witness who has known Applicant for
more than 20 years, did not know that Applicant had ever used marijuana. 
Further, little in Applicant’s statements and testimony shows that she has taken
full responsibility for her decisions. Instead, she claims to be addicted to men who use
drugs and has been participating in Al-Anon for help in dealing with this perceived
problem. This approach is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Applicant still has not
changed her lifestyle so as to avoid situations where marijuana is being used. Finally,
this record leaves me with reasonable doubts about Applicant’s credibility. She
deliberately lied to the Government to get her clearance and a defense contractor job in
2002. She has not fully disclosed to her supervisor or to a long-time friend, both of
whom testified that she is of good character and judgment, the full scope of her
misconduct. Combined with conflicting versions of the details of her drug use in 2006,
her statements of intent to comply with Government policies and procedures in the
future cannot be given full weight.
In summary, a fair and commonsense assessment of all information bearing on
Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information shows continued reasonable
doubts about her judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. Because protection of the
national interest is the primary concern here, those doubts are resolved against
continuing Applicant’s security clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
9
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.b: Withdrawn
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
to continue Applicant’s access to classified information. Request for security clearance
is denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge