1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 14-01443
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se
February 17, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On July 3, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines J, H, and E  for
Applicant. The action was taken under 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) (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On August 7, 2014, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to this
Administrative Judge on September 15, 2014.The Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on September 16, 2014, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on October 8, 2014. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 4,
which were received without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf and
submitted Exhibit A, which was also admitted without objection. Two additional witnesses
also testified on Applicant’s behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on
2
October 21, 2014. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and all the testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record discussed
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 50 years old. She has never been married, and she has three
children. She is a high school graduate.  Applicant is employed by a defense contractor,
and she seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with her employment in the
defense sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct) 
The Government alleges that Applicant has engaged in criminal conduct, which
create doubt about a person’s judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
1.a.-1.ac. The SOR includes 29 specific allegations under Guideline J, taking
place over approximately eighteen years, from August 8, 1991, through August 6, 2009.
The allegations include: Criminal Damage to Property, Possession of Narcotic Controlled
Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Resisting Arrest, Obstructing Justice,
Criminal Trespass, Receiving/Possessing/Selling a Stolen Vehicle, Felony Violation of a
Parole, Failure to Appear Afer Written Promise, and Selling Liquor to a Minor. In her
RSOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations under Guideline J. 
She testified that as a result of these arrests and convictions, she served four
different periods in prison or jail, including a four month term, a five month term and eight
months of a 16 month sentence.  (Tr at 28-33.) 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline H - Drug Involvement) 
The Government alleges that Applicant has had a history of long-term serious
drug involvement, which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness. The SOR lists four allegations (1.a. through 1.d.) under Adjudicative
Guideline H. 
2.a. The SOR alleges, and Applicant admitted in her RSOR, that prior to her
becoming sober in approximately December 2009, Applicant was addicted to illegal
drugs, including crack cocaine. 
2.b. The SOR alleges, and Applicant admitted in her RSOR, that she has
purchased illegal drugs. 
2.c. The SOR alleges, and Applicant admitted in her RSOR, that since
approximately December 2009 Applicant has lived in a sober living house, and that she
3
has participated in a 12-step program and group rehabilitation sessions, including
Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous.
2.d. The SOR alleges that the previous allegations, incorrectly listed on the SOR,
as 2. b., c., e., h., j., k., l., m., o., p., r., v., w., and aa., but which have should have been
listed as 1. b., c., e., h., j., k., l., m., o., p., r., v., w., and aa., show Drug Involvement
under Guideline H. As reviewed above, Applicant admitted the underlying allegations on
her RSOR. 
Applicant testified that she began using and became addicted to crack cocaine
(crack) in 1991. She admitted that she first used crack because of peer pressure as
everyone in her neighborhood was using it. Applicant testified that as a result of the pain
in her life from molestation by her uncle when she was young, the death of her daughter
at 10 months of age, and the mental illness of her mother, she used alcohol and drugs to
help her feel better. She used crack and was addicted to it for 18 years. She went to
eight treatment centers, but finally on December 15, 2009, when she went to a sober
living house, she “was ready to hear the message of recovery.” Applicant testified and
wrote on her RSOR that since December 15, 2009, she has been clean and sober. She
now goes to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Cocaine Anonymous (CA), or Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) meetings five to seven days a week. (Tr at 35-43.) 
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E- Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance
because she engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement, unreliability,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and untrustworthiness.
3.a.  Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA) on October 4,
2013. (Exhibit 1.) The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to
the questions under “Section 11 - Where You have Lived,” by falsely alleging that she
lived in a location from January 2004 to December 2009, when in fact she was homeless
for those years due to her addiction to crack cocaine. Applicant admitted this allegation
in her RSOR. At the hearing Applicant testified that she was ashamed to answer
accurately and truthfully that she was homeless. (Tr at 45.) 
3.b. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to an
authorized Government investigator on November 19, 2013, by falsely alleging that she
lived in a location from January 2004 to December 2009, when in fact she was homeless
for those years due to her addiction to crack cocaine. Applicant admitted this allegation
in her RSOR.
3.c. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to the
questions under “Section 13 A - Employment Activities,” of the 2013 SCA by falsely
alleging that she had been employed by a company from October 2004 to the present,
when in fact she was employed since approximately December 15, 2009. Applicant
wrote in her RSOR that she worked for this company “off & on” since 2004, when she
needed money. At the hearing Applicant testified that she knew she was furnishing the
4
Government with false information about her job history, but she was hoping to keep her
job.  (Tr at 46-47.)    
3.d. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to the
questions under “Section 22 - Police Record,” of the 2013 SCA by falsely alleging that in
the last seven years she had never been issued a summons, arrested, charged,
convicted or sentenced for any offense or specifically with any drug or alcohol related
offense, when in fact she failed to disclose the information listed on the SOR as 1.a.
through 1.ac. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR. At the hearing Applicant
testified that she knew she was furnishing the Government with false information about
her police record, but she was hoping to keep her job. (Tr at 48-49.) 
3.e. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to an
authorized Government investigator on November 19, 2013, by falsely disclosing only
one arrest in 1998 or 1999 for Possession of a Controlled Substance. It was only when
she was confronted by the investigator’s information about all her criminal conduct as
listed in 1.a. through 1.ac., above, that she conceded her conduct. She admitted that she
furnished false information because she was afraid if she had been honest she would not
have been able to obtain employment.  Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR.   
3.f. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to the
questions under “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs,” of the 2013 SCA by falsely alleging
that in the last seven years she had never been involved in the illegal use, purchase, or
sale of illegal drugs, when in fact she failed to disclose the information listed on the SOR
as 2.a and 2.b. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR.
3.g. The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in response to the
questions under “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs . . . Voluntary Treatment,” of the 2013
SCA by failing to disclose her drug counseling and treatment, as set forth in 2.c., above.
Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR.
Mitigation
As stated above, two additional witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant. The first
witness is a retired police officer, who knows Applicant as her supervisor when she is
performing security guard work. He described Applicant as someone who does
something because it is the right thing to do. (Tr at 60-70.) The second witness has been
Applicant’s sponsor in AA for the last four years and some months. She described
Applicant as someone with a good heart, who has been reborn in sobriety and also
someone who sets a good example for other recovering addicts.  (Tr at 73-81.)
Finally, Applicant submitted seven laudatory character letters. (Exhibit A.) She
was described as someone with “a positive character [who] is dependable, honest, and
hard-working.” Her sister wrote, “ For approximately 20 years or better, [Applicant] was
unable to see herself as sober and clean and setting goals. Today I am happy to see that
she has made staying sober a priority working the program.” 
5
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 over-arching
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
contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere
speculation or conjecture.
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 as to obtaining 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
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 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).  
6
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government has established that Applicant engaged in criminal conduct that
includes 29 specific allegations under Guideline J, taking place over approximately
eighteen years, from August 8, 1991, through August 6, 2009. As a result of the
subsequent arrests and convictions, Applicant served periods of time in prison or jail on
four different occasions. Among the disqualifying conditions, I find that ¶ 31(a), “a single
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,” applies in this case. ¶ 31(c), “allegations or
admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged,”
is also applicable to this case. 
Applicant’s remorse appears sincere, and she has made excellent progress in
rehabilitating her life, resolving her criminal conduct issues, and establishing a good
employment record. Therefore, ¶ 32(d), could be argued to apply as a mitigating
condition. However, because of the extraordinary duration and seriousness of the
criminal conduct, and because Applicant was not honest in 2013 on her SCA and to a
Government investigator about her criminal conduct, I cannot find that this or any other
mitigating conditions under ¶ 32 are applicable. I find Paragraph 1 Guideline J, Criminal
Conduct, against Applicant.
Paragraph 2 Guideline H - Drug Involvement 
With respect to Guideline H, the Government has established its case. Applicant's
improper and illegal drug abuse, specifically the use and purchase of crack over the
course of many years, from 1991 to at least 2009, is of great concern, especially in light
of her desire to have access to the nation's secrets. Applicant's overall conduct
pertaining to her illegal substance abuse clearly falls within Drug Involvement ¶ 25(a)
“any drug abuse,” (c) “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution.”
Applicant did testify that she has been drug free since December 2009, and that
she intends to abstain from drug usage in the future. However, in 2013, Applicant failed
to reveal her drug usage and the resulting arrests on a security clearance application
and when she subsequently spoke to a Government investigator. Because of Applicant’s
lack of credibility about her drug usage, I cannot conclude that any mitigating condition is
applicable under ¶ 26.
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving that Applicant
has used and purchased illegal drugs for many years under Guideline H. Applicant, on
the other hand, has failed to introduce any persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation,
or mitigation, which could overcome the Government's case against her.  Accordingly,
Guideline H of the SOR is concluded against Applicant.
7
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
With respect to Personal Conduct, the Government relies heavily on the honesty
and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation’s secrets. If such an individual
intentionally falsifies material facts or fails to furnish relevant information to the
Government, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses
the judgment, and honesty necessary for an individual given a clearance.
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance
because she engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement, unreliability,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and untrustworthiness.  
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Because Applicant knowingly and wilfully provided to
the Government false and untruthful relevant information requested on a security
clearance questionnaire, and to an authorized Government investigator, I find that
Applicant’s conduct supports disqualifying conditions ¶ 16(a), 16(b), and 16(d)
respectively; “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 . . . determine security
clearance eligibility or trustworthiness . . .,” “deliberately providing false or misleading
information concerning relevant facts to an employer, [or] investigator . . .,” and “a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of
candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.” I do not find any mitigating
condition under ¶ 17 is applicable.  I, therefore, resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
 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 the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above
8
as to why the disqualifying conditions are applicable and why the mitigating conditions do
not apply under the Guidelines alleged, I find that the record evidence leaves me with
significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept. 
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 J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.-1ac.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.-2.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a.-3g.: 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 Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
        
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge