DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-03175
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
 Decision
______________
WESLEY, Roger C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that
Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding her use of drugs and personal
conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
History of Case
On August 28, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) Consolidated
Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing reasons
why DoD adjudicators could not make the affirmative determination of eligibility for a
security clearance, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine
whether a security clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines (AGs) implemented by DoD on
September 1, 2006.  
Applicant responded to the SOR on October 13, 2014, and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on February 5, 2015, and was scheduled for hearing on
2
March 24, 2015. At the hearing, the Government's case consisted of three exhibits (GE
1-3). Applicant relied on one witness (herself) and three exhibits (AEs A-C). The
transcript (Tr.) was received on April 2, 2015.  
Summary of Pleadings
Under Guideline H, Applicant allegedly (a) used marijuana from 2004 to at least
July 2012 and (b) used marijuana while holding a position of trust.  No further details are
provided.
Under Guideline E, applicant allegedly (a) falsified her public trust application of
August 2005 by answering “no” to her use of drugs within the past year; (b) falsified her
public trust application of August 2010 by answering “no” to her use of drugs within the
past year; and (c) used drugs while holding a position of trust. 
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted using drugs for several years,
but denied using drugs while holding a position of trust. She admitted to failing to list her
marijuana use in her 2005 public trust application based on her fear of losing her job
and on the advice of her manager. She claimed she has since matured as an individual
and professional and was proactive in volunteering her drug use when initially
questioned by an investigator who came to interview her. She denied falsifying her 2010
public trust application and claimed her omissions are not a reflection of her character.
She claimed she had excellent reviews from her peers who attest to her outstanding
professionalism and ethics and cited the position she holds on her employer’s
leadership board.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 31-year-old associate of a defense contractor who seeks a security
clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by Applicant are adopted
as relevant and material findings.  Additional findings follow.
Background
Applicant married in April 2010 and has two children, ages two years and six
months old. (GEs 1-3; Tr. 56) She earned a bachelor of science degree from a
respected university in May 2005. (GEs 1-3) While in college, she captained her
school’s gymnastics team. (Tr. 36 ) She claimed no military service. (GEs 1-3)
Drug history
Between 2004 and 2012, Applicant experimented with marijuana on six or seven
occasions during vacation visits to her older sister’s home in another state. (Tr. 57-59)
She assured she did not use marijuana in 2005 and 2010 while holding a public trust
position. She attributed her use of marijuana to immaturity and pressures from her older
sister. (Tr. 49) Her assurances regarding her limited drug use are credible and
accepted. 
3
Applicant was aware that her use of illegal drugs violated company policy. (Tr.
51-52)  She last used marijuana in Summer 2012 while on maternity leave with her
older sister. She has matured, is married with two children, and has no intention of ever
using illegal drugs again. (Tr.  51-53) Although Applicant still associates with her older
sister, her older sister has since married (in 2008) and no longer uses marijuana in
Applicant’s presence. (AE A; Tr. 55)
Drug use omissions in public trust applications
Asked to complete a public trust application in August 2005, Applicant omitted
her marijuana use within the previous year (i.e., between at least May 2004 and May
2005). (GE 3) She attributed her omissions to the advice she received from her
company manager, but acknowledged she falsified her application. (Tr. 46-47) In an
ensuing interview with an agent from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in
2005,  she volunteered her prior marijuana use without being confronted. (Tr.  47-49) 
Applicant was asked to complete another public trust application in August 2010.
(GE 2) In this application, she denied any drug use within the previous year. (Tr. 46) For
lack of any probative evidence to challenge her assertions, her explanations and
demonstrated overall honesty and trustworthiness entitle Applicant to favorable
inferences regarding her drug use denials.
When Applicant was afforded an opportunity to disclose her prior drug use within
the preceding seven years in a March 2013 security clearance application (e-QIP) she
completed, she truthfully acknowledged her prior marijuana use. (GE 1) Considering all
of the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s 2010 omissions, her explanations are
accepted.
Endorsements
Applicant is well-regarded by her managers and colleagues who have worked
with her on company projects over the past three years. They credit her with honesty
and integrity, and as a team member who consistently models ethical behavior and
adheres to their firm’s professional and individual core values. (AE A; Tr. 32-37)  
Friends who have known Applicant for a number of years also offer their strong
support of Applicant in her clearance application. (AE A) One of her friends (a co-
captain with Applicant on their college gymnastics team) credited Applicant with
adherence to the principles of confidentiality, trustworthiness, and honesty. (AE A) All
three of her friends described Applicants as dedicated, responsible, and a good mother
to her two boys. (AE A)  Applicant’s husband stressed her honesty and work ethic who
works to improve herself every day. He praised the integrity she has shown to himself
and their children in their marriage. (AE A)  
Applicant has earned excellent personnel evaluations. (AE B; Tr. 37-45) Her
evaluations reveal fully consistent ratings for core business values of client service,
entrepreneurship, excellence, teamwork, and diversity. (AE B) 
4
In her self-assessment, Applicant described herself as fully committed to her core
values of integrity, trustworthiness, dependability. (AE C; Tr. 41-43) She identified
business areas she excelled in, to include successful delivery of high quality products,
teamwork, entrepreneurship skills, and effective working with diverse sets of team
members.  (AE C)
Policies          
The AGs list guidelines to be used by administrative judges in the decision-
making process covering security clearance cases. These guidelines take into account
factors that could create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as
well as considerations that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and
ability to protect classified information. The AGs include "[c]onditions that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying” (disqualifying conditions), if any, and many
of the "[c]onditions that could mitigate security concerns.” They must be considered
before deciding whether or not a security clearance should be granted, continued, or
denied. The guidelines do not require administrative judges to place exclusive reliance
on the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the guidelines in arriving at
a decision. Each of the guidelines is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person
in accordance with AG ¶ 2(c).
In addition to the relevant AGs, administrative judges must take into account the
pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)
of the revised AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and
impartial commonsense decision based upon a careful consideration of the pertinent
guidelines within the context of the whole person. 
The adjudicative process is designed to examine a sufficient period of an
applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be made about whether the applicant is
an acceptable security risk. The following AG ¶ 2(a) factors are pertinent: (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 chances; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following adjudication
policy factors are pertinent herein:
Drug Involvement
The Concern: 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  AG ¶ 24.
5
Personal Conduct
The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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 ¶ 15.
Burden of Proof
By virtue of the principles and policies framed by the AGs, a decision to grant or
continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding
that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.  Because the Directive
requires administrative judges to make a commonsense appraisal of the evidence
accumulated in the record, the ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a
security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and materiality of that
evidence. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509-511 (1995).  As with all
adversarial proceedings, the judge may draw only those inferences which have a
reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of record.  Conversely, the judge cannot
draw factual inferences that are grounded on speculation or conjecture.
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) it must prove by substantial
evidence any controverted facts alleged in the SOR, and (2) it must demonstrate that the
facts proven have a material bearing to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or maintain a
security clearance. The required materiality showing, however, does not require the
Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has actually mishandled or
abused classified information before it can deny or revoke a security clearance. Rather,
the judge must consider and weigh the cognizable risks that an applicant may
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted or
controverted facts, the evidentiary burden shifts to the applicant for the purpose of
establishing his or her security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation, or
mitigation.  Based on the requirement of  Exec. Or. 10865 that all security clearances be
clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has the ultimate burden of
demonstrating his or her clearance eligibility. “[S]ecurity-clearance determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 531 (1988). 
Analysis  
Security concerns are raised about Applicant’s use of marijuana over a period of
several years and her omissions of her marijuana use in the public trust applications she
completed in 2005 and 2010.
6
Drug use concerns
On the strength of the evidence presented, two disqualifying conditions (DC) of
the AGs for drug abuse are applicable: DC ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” and DC ¶ 25(c),
“illegal possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.” Judgment concerns exist over
Applicant’s past drug use. She has some recurrent history of marijuana use on a limited
scale and less than three years of demonstrated abstinence.
Considering the isolated nature of Applicant’s most recent marijuana use (2012),
enough time has elapsed to facilitate safe predictable judgments that she will not return
to illegal drug use in the foreseeable future.  Pertinent mitigating conditions (MC)
covered by AG ¶ 24 are available to Applicant. MC ¶ 24(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,” and MC ¶ 24(b), “a demonstrated intent not to use any drugs in the
future, such as (3) an appropriate period of abstinence,” apply to Applicant’s limited use
of marijuana.
Prior to her isolated use of marijuana in Summer 2012, Applicant had not used
marijuana since experimenting with the drug while visiting her sister during vacations.
With so little recurrent history of marijuana use, and with so much time that has elapsed
since her last use in 2012 (i.e., almost three years), it is unlikely that she will resume her
use of the substance in the foreseeable future. 
Applicant is credited with good judgment and reliability by her manager and
colleagues who have worked closely with Applicant for a number of years. She has
exhibited increased maturity in her work and personal life. Moreover, Applicant’s older
sister, with whom she shared marijuana on family vacations, has since married and no
longer uses marijuana in Applicant’s presence.  Safe predictable judgments, accordingly,
can be made about Applicant’s ability to avoid recurrent drug involvement. 
From a whole-person perspective, Applicant has established independent
probative evidence of her limited use of marijuana and unlikelihood of ever resuming her
use of the substance. She has provided endorsements from her supervisors and
colleagues (past and present), close friends, and her husband to soften or mitigate any
of the drug and judgment concerns associated with her past use of marijuana.
Applicant’s own acknowledgment of poor judgment and disassociation of contacts with
persons who used marijuana in her presence help to reinforce favorable conclusions
about her overall judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s
isolated drug use and judgment lapse, Applicant mitigates security concerns related to
her drug use. Favorable conclusions are warranted with respect to the allegations
covered by subparagraphs 1.a-1.b of Guideline H.
7
Personal conduct concerns
In the process of completing a public trust application in August 2005, Applicant
omitted her experimental use of marijuana between May 2004 and May 2005.
Applicant’s “no” answer was intentional and was based on the advice she received from
her company manager. She answered “no” to any past use of marijuana within the
previous year again when she completed a public trust application in August 2010.
Because of her uncertainty over whether she used marijuana during the 2009-2010 time
period, she attributed this omission to inadvertence and oversight. For lack of evidence
of whether Applicant used marijuana in 2009-2010, no reasonable conclusions of
intentional omission can be drawn against Applicant. To her credit, she fully disclosed
her past marijuana use in 2012 when completing her recent e-QIP in March 2013.
Security concerns over Applicant’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness are
raised under Guideline E as the result of her alleged omissions of her marijuana use in
the public trust applications she completed in 2005 and 2010. By her statements and
actions, Applicant placed in issue her judgment and fiducial commitment to safeguarding
classified information entrusted to her.    
One of the disqualifying conditions covered by Guideline E are applicable.  DC ¶
16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts to 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.”  DC ¶ 16(a) may be considered in evaluating Applicant’s 2005 and 2010
public trust applications, her ensuing OPM statements, her drug-use disclosures in the e-
QIP she completed in 2013, and her hearing testimony.
Applicant’s “no” answer in her 2005 public trust application regarding her
experimental use of marijuana on several occasions, while intentional, was based on the
errant advice of her company manager. Due diligence on her part should have prompted
her to inquire further whether the question required an affirmative response, given her
understanding at the time of her company’s policy on the use of illegal drugs. Certainly,
Applicant’s negative response, lacked any due diligence research or investigation on her
part. This, she freely admitted and expressed profound regrets for not being truthful
when first asked about her past drug use.
Mitigation is available to Applicant to correct any judgment lapses associated with
her negative responses made in her 2005 public trust application when questioned about
her past use of illegal drugs. Applicant’s volunteered corrections meet the prompt, good-
faith requirements of MC ¶ 17(a), “the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to
correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the
facts,” as well as the infrequent, unique circumstances requirements of MC ¶ 17(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.” Both MC ¶ 17(a)
and  MC ¶ 17(c) of Guideline E apply to Applicant’s situation. 
8
In evaluating all of the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s withholding of
material information about her past use of marijuana in the public trust application she
completed in 2005 and her corrections and clarifications in her ensuing OPM interview
and hearing testimony, her explanations and timing of her corrections are sufficient to
convincingly mitigate the deliberate falsification allegations. Questionable judgment, lack
of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, are each
core policy concerns of the personal conduct guideline (AG ¶ 15).
Addressing the alleged omissions of Applicant’s past drug use in her 2010 public
trust application, Applicant denied any falsification of her application when she answered
“no” to the question inquiring about any prior drug use within the previous year. She was
vehement about not using marijuana the previous year. Absent any probative evidence
to credibly challenge her assurances, no inferences could be drawn of her withholding
information about her drug use in this 2010 application. Applicant’s explanations under
the circumstances are entitled to acceptance. 
From a whole-person standpoint, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that
Applicant has mounted responsible, good-faith efforts to provide accurate background
information to the Government in her OPM interview and ensuing public trust and
security clearance applications she completed. Any judgment lapses demonstrated in
her completion of her 2005 public trust application are more than off-set by the positive
judgment impressions she has forged with her managers, colleagues, and friends.
Applicant’s strong employment relationships she has developed with her employer
have been very productive and rewarding for her and were instrumental in demonstrating
her overall honesty, reliability and trustworthiness necessary to meet security eligibility
requirements. She has forged solid impressions on her manager and colleagues for her
exhibited honesty and trustworthiness and adherence to her company’s core values.
In making a whole-person assessment, careful consideration was given to the
respective burdens of proof established in Egan (supra), the AGs, and the facts and
circumstances of this case in the context of the whole person. Favorable conclusions
warrant with respect to the allegations covered by subparagraphs 2.a-2.c.
Formal Findings
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached in the
context of the findings of fact, conclusions, conditions, and the factors listed above, I
make the following formal findings:
GUIDELINE H: (DRUG INVOLVEMENT):         FOR APPLICANT
   
Sub-paras. 1.a-1.b:           For Applicant
GUIDELINE E (PERSONAL CONDUCT):         FOR APPLICANT
Sub-paras. 2.a-2.c:           For Applicant
9
Conclusions
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                          
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge 
                                        
10