Exhibit A for Appellant was not submitted during the hearing.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02696
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan Edmunds, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On August 19, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline H (Drug Involvement),
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge. A notice of hearing was sent on March 11, 2014, scheduling the
hearing for April 14, 2015. The Government submitted five exhibits (GX 1-5), which
were admitted into the record. Applicant submitted 11 exhibits (B-L), which were
admitted into the record.  Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits,1
On that first application Applicant disclosed some prior drug use that ended in 2001.      2
2
I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised.
Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and denied the two allegations under Guideline E
(Personal Conduct).
Applicant is a 33-year-old senior consultant with a defense contractor. He
received his undergraduate degree in 2004, and his master’s in 2010. (AX F and G)
Applicant is married and has one daughter. Applicant has worked in the defense field
since 2005. He has worked for his current employer since April 2012. Applicant has
held a security clearance since 2005.  (Tr. 47) He completed his most recent security2
clearance application (SCA) on February 26, 2014.
Drug Involvement
Applicant used marijuana on several occasions between approximately March
2011 and April 2011. During that time, he held a security clearance. Applicant admitted
that while he was attending approximately four engagement parties before his wedding
he used marijuana. (Tr. 48) He acknowledged that there was “a lot of alcohol involved
and it was an error in judgment.” (Tr. 66) He noted that the social gatherings left him
vulnerable to peer pressure. Applicant stated that the people attending the party were
friends of friends and that he does not associate with them. (Tr. 85)  
On February 15, and 27, 2015, Applicant submitted to drug screening tests
which reported negative drug results. (AX B). Applicant signed a Letter of Intent, dated
February 13, 2015, stating that he has no intent to use illegal drugs in the future, and if
should there be a violation with regard to illegal drug use, Applicant would consent to an
automatic revocation of his security clearance. (AX C)
He also submitted a psychological evaluation. (AX D) The  evaluation report,
dated February 26, 2015, reflects Applicant’s explanation concerning the omission of
his 2011 marijuana use. He explained that he had a lot going on and that his wife was
pregnant. He was convinced that due to his elevated stress level he did not give the
completion of the security application the attention it deserved.  Applicant stated that
after the birth he was able to focus on the details of the SF 86 and resubmit his
questionnaire. Applicant completed an addiction severity index that noted that he has
not received any outpatient treatment for any drug or alcohol problems. He has never
been arrested for any illegal drug use. This report noted that Applicant minimized and
justified his cannabis-using behaviors. (AX E) The report in the record contains four of
eight pages. 
3
Personal Conduct
Applicant completed a security clearance application dated March 25, 2013. In
response to Section 23, Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity, Applicant answered “No,”
to the question asking whether he had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances
within the last seven years. He omitted the information concerning the 2011 incidents of
marijuana use and the fact that he used illegal drugs while he held a security clearance
in another section of the application. (GX 2 )Applicant did not disclose the above
information about marijuana use when he was interviewed in 2013 in connection with
the security application submitted in March 2013.
Applicant submitted another security clearance application for another agency,
dated February 26, 2014. In that application Applicant disclosed the use of marijuana in
2011 at dinner parties. He notes that it happened two or three times at engagement
parties. He also said that he has no intention of using any illegal drugs in the future
because it is not healthy; he does enjoy it; and he does not want to be that kind of
influence for his daughter. (GX 1)
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant denied deliberately omitting information
because he filled out the paperwork in haste from an older copy of the SF 86. He stated
that this made it  easy to not pay attention to the details. (Tr. 89)  Applicant stated that
this was because he had to complete the application by hand. (Tr. 52) He noted that he
corrected the mistake in the 2014 SCA.
He continued to omit the same information about illegal drug use in the 2013
interview. When his security clearance application was reviewed in April 2014, it was
found that he listed drug use while having access to classified information. (GX 4) The
incident report explains that this caused the security office to check Applicant’s SCA.
Applicant affirmed that he did not report any drug usage on the 2013 SCA. He also did
not disclose the information during the 2013 investigation with the interviewer. (GX 4)
When an incident report was filed, Applicant was questioned by the security
office. It was then that he admitted  he omitted the drug use because he just had a
baby and could not sleep. The reasons that Applicant has given for omitting the drug
use in 2011 have changed several times. (GX 4) 
Applicant did not acknowledge the omission to the Government until he filled out
another security application almost a year later. In his 2013 security clearance
application, Applicant denied any drug use within the preceding seven year period, and
denied drug use while holding a security clearance.  He falsified his security clearance
application and misled the Government. He was less than candid when he stated that
he sent a corrected version to the FSO, when he realized he made a mistake of
omission. According to the incident report, the security office reviewed the SCA and
then spoke to Applicant.
Applicant’s witnesses testified that Applicant is ethical, methodical and
professional. (Tr. 18-29) They know about the marijuana use and feel that Applicant is
There was discussion in the record concerning a “passed” polygraph given by another agency in 2013.      3
I give this assertion little weight as to relevance in this case.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      4
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      5
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
4
worthy of a security clearance. (Tr. 22) His team leader stated that Applicant told him
that he corrected his mistake of omission, but he had no details. (Tr. 27) One witness
testified that Applicant told him recently that “he went back into the system and fixed the
error.” (Tr. 23; 27) They have never seen Applicant use illegal drugs. 
A third witness who works for another agency has recently worked with
Applicant. He was shown the SOR recently and vouches for Applicant’s trustworthiness.
He also stated that Applicant can learn from his mistakes. (Tr. 36) He has never seen
Applicant use drugs. 3
    Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a4
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  5 6
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      7
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      8
 Id.      9
5
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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance7
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt8
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a9
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
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.
6
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;
(e) evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical
social worker who, is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment
program;
(f) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed
by a duly qualified medical professional;
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance; and
(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.
Applicant admitted his use of illegal drugs (marijuana) between March 2011 and
April 2011. He acknowledged that the use occurred at four different engagement
parties. He held a security clearance at the time.   AG¶ 25(a) and (g) apply. 
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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) disassociation 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;
7
Applicant’s last use of marijuana was in 2011. He states that he has not used
any illegal drugs since that time. He signed a letter of intent. He states that he used the
drugs due to peer pressure. Despite his intentions to not use marijuana, I find his
judgment questionable. He has not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under AG ¶ 16(a), a disqualifying conditions exists when there is
“deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.” 
Applicant deliberately misled the government by not including any information
about his drug involvement in 2011 or the fact that he held a security clearance while
doing so in 2011. He did not reveal the information during a 2013 interview. When the
2014 security application for another clearance was reviewed, it was revealed that he
did not disclose the information on the 2013 application. He has given various reasons
for the initial omission as discussed above. I do not find him credible. His behavior and
personal conduct are disqualifying as they raise questions about his judgment,
reliability, truthfulness, and willingness to comply with the law. AG 16(a) applies.
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 17, I conclude that
none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct his
falsification or concealment until 2014. He provided no information that indicates he
was ill-advised. The incidents are too recent and serious to be mitigated by the passage
of time. I have serious doubts about his good judgment and reliability. He has not
provided information in this record to show that he has met his burden of proof to
mitigate the personal conduct concern.
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 an 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
8
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 33 years old. He has held a security clearance since 2005. He worked for
several companies in the defense field. He has excellent recommendations from his
employers. They attest to his character and dedication to work and family. He submitted
drug screens from 2014 as well as a psychological report. He was interviewed for an
addiction index. He has signed a Letter of Intent.
 Applicant used marijuana at four engagement parties in 2011. He fell to peer
pressure. He had a security clearance for a number of years. In addition, Applicant
falsified his March 2013 SCA by not disclosing the information about his 2011
marijuana use. He also stated that he corrected his mistake. The reason the information
came to light was another SCA for another agency in 2014. Applicant failed to submit
sufficient information or evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised in his case.
Applicant has not shown good judgment and honesty. He has disregarded the
prohibition against marijuana use, including while holding a security clearance.
Accordingly, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns.  
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: Against Applicant
9
   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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge