1 
 
  
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 14-02211 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Daniel Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny his eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. In 2003, Applicant was 
sentenced to 138 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine 
following his 2001 arrest. His probation ended in September 2014. In 2013, he was 
arrested and pleaded guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) alleges security concerns for criminal conduct, person conduct, drug 
involvement, and alcohol consumption. He has mitigated the security concerns. 
Clearance is granted.  
 
History of the Case 
 
 Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,1 on July 30, 2014, 
the DoD issued an SOR detailing criminal conduct, personal conduct, drug involvement, 
                                                          
1 Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
 
2 
 
and alcohol consumption security concerns. DoD adjudicators could not find that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security 
clearance. On December 12, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a 
hearing. On March 25, 2015, I was assigned the case. On April 29, 2015, the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing for the hearing 
convened on May 7, 2015.2 Government’s Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 5 and Applicant’s 
Exhibits A through C were admitted without objection. Applicant testified at the hearing 
as did his girlfriend. On May 15, 2015, DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, he admitted the criminal conduct allegations in 
the SOR, denied the falsification allegations under the personal conduct guideline, and 
neither admitted nor denied the drug involvement and alcohol consumption allegations 
that referenced the criminal conduct that he had admitted. His admissions are 
incorporated herein. After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I 
make the following additional findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is a 45-year-old salvage yard supervisor who has worked for a defense 
contractor since February 2013, and seeks to obtain a security clearance. He 
supervises 15 to 25 people, which pays $12 per hour. (Tr. 34) His parents were migrant 
workers/seasonal workers traveling through the Midwest, east coast, and south. (Tr. 37) 
His parents were struggling financially so, in 1985, he dropped out of school3 after 
completing the eighth grade to help them. (Tr. 37)  
 
Applicant’s supervisor, the manager of yard’s scrapping operations, states: 
Applicant is hard working, diligent, willing to accept responsibility, has been named 
employee of the month, and is one of the leaders at the company. (Ex. C) His 
supervisor was sufficiently supportive of Applicant’s security application that he lent 
Applicant $60 for gas money to be able to attend the hearing, which was 150 miles from 
Applicant’s work. (Tr. 68)  
 
 In 1997, Applicant was arrested twice. In January 1997, he was arrested and 
charged with Battery/Domestic Violence, Displaying a deadly Weapon, and Felony 
Burglary. This happened 18 years ago when Applicant was 27 years old. He pleaded 
guilty to the domestic violence charge. Applicant and his ex-wife were divorced in 1991, 
but had reconciled and were again living together. (Tr. 23) Things were not working out 
and he moved out of the residence. The residence was in his name and for which he 
had the keys. (Tr. 23) His ex-wife called and asked him to come by because she wanted 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD 
on September 1, 2006. 
 
2 Applicant was ready to proceed and stated he did not need additional time to prepare. (Tr. 5) 
 
3 While in prison, Applicant obtained his General Educational Development (GED) degree. (Tr. 38)  
 
3 
 
to get back together. An argument started that escalated. (Tr. 24) She tried to stab him 
with a kitchen knife and he called the police and left the residence.  
 
After the police arrived, Applicant’s ex-wife gave her version of the events. (Tr. 
38) She said he had burglarized the home and displayed a weapon. Applicant was 
arrested. (Tr. 24) It was his home for which he had the keys and he did not have a 
weapon. At the trial, his ex-wife admitted lying about the burglary and weapon, and 
those charges were dropped. (Tr. 39) If convicted, he was facing nine-and-a-half years 
so he chose to plead guilty to the domestic charge. He received probation and had to 
attend classes. (Tr. 39) He currently has contact with his ex-wife because all but one of 
his children are living with her. His oldest daughter is 27. 
 
In November 1997, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of 
marijuana. He was driving a friend’s car when stopped by the police. He gave 
permission for a search of the car which revealed a partially burned marijuana joint in 
the ashtray. (Tr. 26) In February 1998, the charge was dismissed. (Ex. 4) 
 
 In September 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with Felony Cocaine 
Trafficking. In April 2002, the state charges were dismissed when federal charges were 
brought. He was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five 
kilograms or more of cocaine and possession of firearm in furtherance of a drug 
trafficking crime. (Ex. 2) In February 2003, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 138 
months in federal prison and three years of supervised release, which ended in 
September 2014. (Tr. 28)  
 
 At the time, Applicant was unemployed and it seemed to be an easy way to make 
money. (Tr. 26) He drove his car to another state where he picked up 23 pounds of 
marijuana on one occasion and 13 pounds on another. (Tr. 39) On the last occasion, his 
car was loaded with cocaine. (Tr. 54) When returning from the trip, an informant’s tip led 
to his arrest. (Tr. 27) He was arrested at his home. When the house was searched, a 
rifle and shotgun were found in his closet. (Tr. 67) He said he used the shotgun for dove 
hunting and the rifle for hunting wild boar. The drug charge resulted in a prison 
sentence of six-and-a-half years. (Tr. 67) The discovery of the guns resulted in an 
additional five years in prison. (Tr. 67) His actions cost him ten years of his life. (Tr. 29) 
He missed his children growing up, their teenage years, their graduations, and missed 
out on a big part of their lives. (Tr. 29)  
 
 In September 2013, Applicant had given a friend a ride to buy groceries. On the 
way home, they stopped at a bar where he drank beer and a shot of tequila. (Tr. 30) He 
was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and spent the night in jail. (Ex. B, Tr. 
31) In January 2014, he pleaded guilty, was fined $500,4 sentenced to six months in 
county jail, required to perform 24 hours of community service, and placed on 12 
months probation. The jail sentence was suspended for 12 months, and he was placed 
                                                          
4 Applicant asserts the total cost of the DWI with court costs, surcharges, fees, and increase insurance 
was approximately $10,000. (Tr. 31) 
 
4 
 
under community supervision. (Ex. B) He attended classes and watched videos 
concerning the consequences of drinking and driving. (Tr. 65) In January 2015, he 
completed probation. (Ex. B)  
 In January 2014, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). (Ex. 1) In section 22, Police Record, he indicated he 
was guilty of possession of a controlled substance and firearms violation, a felony. He 
indicated he had been sentenced to 138 months in federal prison. He indicated he was 
incarcerated from September 2001 through September 2011 and placed on probation in 
September 2011. (Ex. 1)  
 
 Applicant’s e-QIP asks if he was “ever” convicted of an offense involving 
domestic violence and if he had “ever” been charged with an offense involving alcohol 
or drugs. The e-QIP does not list the 1997 domestic violence conviction or the 
September 2013 DWI. (Ex. 1) The e-QIP also indicates his parents were born in Mexico 
and were U.S. citizens. Applicant denies falsifying his e-QIP. (SOR Answer) In 
completing his e-QIP, he was assisted by a company employee. He talked with the 
employee who entered the material on the e-QIP. (Tr. 17) A week later, Applicant was 
told to come by and sign the form, which he did without closely reviewing it. (Tr. 17)  
 
 During their discussion, Applicant told the company employee that he had 
previous arrests, but could not remember the exact dates. The company employee then 
asked him for information about the last ten years. (Tr. 32) Applicant advised the 
company employee about the DWI and that he was waiting for a court date. (Tr. 17, 32) 
At that time, he did not know if he would receive a fine, probation, or if he needed to go 
to court. (SOR Answer) He told the company employee that Applicant’s parents lived in 
Florida and provided their address. He did not tell the company employee that his 
parents were U.S. citizens. In fact, he was unsure of his parent’s immigration status. 
(SOR Answer) His parents are permanent U.S. residents. (Ex. A, Tr. 33) 
 
 When questioned by an investigator, Applicant said the company employee had 
only inquired about his criminal conduct during the past ten years. He informed the 
investigator he had been arrested in 1997 on a domestic violence charge. He told the 
investigator about the 2013 DWI, and said he did not have a court date and did not 
know what the outcome would be. (SOR Answer) He told the investigator he never told 
the company employee that his parents were U.S. citizens. (Tr. 41) He told the 
investigator he did not know his parent’s immigration status.  
 
 Following Applicant’s release from prison, he decided to start fresh in a new 
state. (Tr. 41) He did not want to return to his prior location and the old friends still there. 
He stated he had changed his life around. He last drank alcohol at the time of his DWI. 
(Tr. 43) Even though he attended a wedding where alcohol was served, it was his 
choice not to drink. (Tr. 44, 66) He does not want to act irresponsibly by drinking and 
driving again. (Tr. 66) His girlfriend is against drinking and using drugs. (Tr. 33) His 
girlfriend works for a cleaning company. (Tr. 35) He had worked at the cleaning 
company but left because it paid minimum wage and there was no chance of 
advancement. (Tr. 36) He attends church, keeps to himself, and works around the 
 
5 
 
house. He pays $150 per week for child support. (Tr. 36) While in prison a sizable 
arrearage was incurred. (Tr. 37) 
 
 Applicant stated he has learned from his mistakes and wants to be a better 
person for himself, his children, his parents, and his girlfriend. (Tr. 44) He acknowledges 
he made “very, very poor” decisions in the past and regrets his past conduct. (Tr. 44, 
45) He is ashamed of his past conduct and has made changes for the better. (Tr. 46) 
His live-in girlfriend states that, Applicant is quiet, hard-working, responsible, kind and a 
good father. (Tr. 48) She says Applicant wants to learn and improve himself and has 
learned from his mistakes. (Tr. 49) He accepts responsibility for his past conduct and is 
trying to better himself. (Tr. 65)    
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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 overarching 
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.  
 
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 to obtain 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 
 
6 
 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
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 of the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct, “Criminal 
activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its 
very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, 
rules and regulations.”  
 
AG ¶ 31(a) states it may be disqualifying where there “a single serious crime or 
multiple lesser offenses.” Similarly, AG ¶ 31(c) provides “allegation or admission of 
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally 
prosecuted or convicted” may be disqualifying. In 2001, Applicant transported 13 
pounds on one occasion and 23 pounds of marijuana on another occasion across state 
lines without being caught, but was caught transporting more than five kilograms of 
cocaine. 
 
In 2003, Applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 
five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to 138 months in prison. He also 
pleaded guilty to a domestic violence charge in 1997 and a 2013 DWI for which his 
imposed sentence was suspended. AG ¶ 31(a) and 31(c) apply. 
 
 The passage of time since the events is a factor to be considered. However, the 
passage of time, in and of itself, is not the controlling factor. The nature and relevant 
circumstances surrounding the conduct must also be considered. Applicant took full 
responsibility for his conduct and pleaded guilty to the charges. He acknowledges he 
made “very, very poor” decisions in the past and regrets his past conduct. He 
understands the consequences and his actions and that his conduct cost him ten years 
of his life. He missed seeing his children grow up; he missed their teenage years, their 
graduations, and missed out on a big part of their lives. Illegal drug possession is 
inconsistent with his plans for the future. After leaving prison, he moved to a new state 
so that he no longer associated with individuals who are involved with illegal drugs.  
 
Security concerns raised by criminal conduct may be mitigated under certain 
circumstances. AG ¶ 32(a) provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns if 
“so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under 
 
7 
 
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the 
individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. 
 
Under AG ¶ 32(d), criminal conduct may be mitigated if “there is evidence of 
successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time without 
recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, 
good employment record, or constructive community involvement.” There is Aclear 
evidence of successful rehabilitation.  
 
The domestic violence charge occurred 17 years ago when Applicant was 27 
years old. He still communicated with his ex-wife, but there have been no other 
incidents of domestic violence. His arrest for transporting cocaine occurred more than 
13 years ago. He served his time and, in September 2014, completed his three years of 
supervised release. Following his release from prison, he moved to another state to 
avoid old friends. Since his release he has been gainfully employed. First working for 
cleaning company, then as a labor in a salvage yard, and now as a supervisor in that 
salvage yard. His supervisor states Applicant is hard working, diligent, willing to accept 
responsibility, has been named employee of the month, and is one of the leaders at the 
company. 
 
 In the past ten year, Applicant’s only criminal conduct and only alcohol-related 
conduct occurred in 2013. That conduct is unlikely to recur. He no longer drinks or uses 
illegal drugs. While in prison, he received his GED having dropped out of school 
following the eighth grade. He lives with a woman who supports his actions. He attends 
church, keeps to himself, and works around the house. He has learned from his 
mistakes and wants to be a better person for himself, his children, his parents, and his 
girlfriend. AG ¶ 32(a) and 32(d) apply.  
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption, 
“Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or 
the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability 
and trustworthiness.”  
 
AG ¶ 22 describes a condition that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying: 
 
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under 
the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or 
other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is 
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent. 
 
In September 2013, Applicant was arrest for DWI and in January 2014, he 
pleaded guilty to the charge. His sentence to jail was suspended. AG ¶ 22(a) applies.  
 
 
8 
 
AG ¶ 23 provides two conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption security 
concerns: 
 
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or 
does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, 
or good judgment; and 
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol 
abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and 
has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or 
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser). 
 
In September 2013, Applicant gave a friend a lift to buy groceries. They stopped 
at a bar on the way home, and Applicant had enough beer and a shot of tequila 
sufficient to place him over the legal limit. Even though the jail sentence was 
suspended, the DWI was very costly to Applicant in the form of court costs, surcharges, 
and other expenses. However, this is the only alcohol-related arrest of this 45-year-old 
individual. It has been more than a year and a half since his arrest. He no longer drinks. 
The conduct is unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 23(a) applies. 
 
Even though abstinence is required only for those alcohol dependent, Applicant 
has established a pattern of abstinence. In September 2013, Applicant stopped 
drinking. It has been almost two years since his last drink. There is no 100 percent 
guarantee a person will not return to drinking no matter how much time has passed 
since their last drink. Individuals sober for ten or twenty years return to drinking. Time is 
but one indicator. A more significant indictor is Applicant’s knowledge and 
understanding of the problem and his attitude toward addressing the problem. AG ¶ 
23(b) applies because Applicant is motivated to change his behavior. He is committed 
to maintaining abstinence. He chooses not to drink and this decision is supported by his 
girlfriend.  
 
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. 
 
AG ¶ 25 describes two conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying: 
 
(a) any drug abuse; and 
 
 
9 
 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, 
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. 
 
In 1997, 17 years ago, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of 
marijuana when a burnt marijuana joint was found in the ashtray of the car he was 
driving. The charge was later dismissed. More importantly, in 2001, he transported 
illegal drugs from one state to another. He transported 13 pounds and 23 pounds of 
marijuana across state lines without being caught, but was caught transporting more 
than five kilograms of cocaine. He also had firearms in his residence. AG ¶ 25(a) and 
AG ¶ 25(c) apply.  
 
AG ¶ 26 provides two 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; 
and 
 
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as:  
 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; and 
 
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
and 
 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence. 
 
 Applicant last involvement with illegal drug occurred in 2001, 14 years ago. The 
transportation of five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute and possession of 
firearms are serious crimes for which a serious sentence was imposed. He was 
sentenced to 138 months in prison with three years of supervised release. The 
seriousness of the drug involvement must be considered in apply the mitigating factors.  
 
There are no “bright line” rules for determining when conduct is “recent.” The 
determination must be based “on a careful evaluation of the totality of the record within 
the parameters set by the directive.” ISCR Case No. 02-24452 at 6 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 
2004). For example, the Appeal Board determined in ISCR Case No. 98-0608 (App. Bd. 
Aug. 28, 1997), that an applicant's last use of marijuana occurring approximately 17 
months before the hearing was not recent. If the evidence shows “a significant period of 
time has passed without any evidence of misconduct,” then an administrative judge 
must determine whether that period of time demonstrates “changed circumstances or 
conduct sufficient to warrant a finding of reform or rehabilitation.”5 
                                                          
5 ISCR Case No. 02-24452 at 6 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2004). In ISCR Case No. 04-09239 at 5 (App. 
Bd. Dec. 20, 2006), the Appeal Board reversed the judge’s decision denying a clearance, focusing on the 
absence of drug use for five years prior to the hearing. The Appeal Board determined that the judge 
excessively emphasized the drug use while holding a security clearance, and the 20 plus years of drug 
 
10 
 
Applicant does not intend to possess or be involved with illegal drugs again. He 
has changed, matured, and assumed greater responsibility for the course of his life. He 
takes responsibility for his actions and understands the consequences. His conduct cost 
him ten years of his life. He missed seeing his children growing up, missed their 
teenage years, their graduations, and missed out on a big part of their lives. Illegal drug 
involvement is inconsistent with his plans for the future. He acknowledges he made 
“very, very poor” decisions in the past and regrets his past conduct. After leaving prison, 
he moved to a new state so that he no longer associated with individuals who are 
involved with illegal drugs.  
 
Because of Applicant’s abstention from illegal drug involvement for 13 years, and 
his recognition of the adverse impact on his life that illegal drugs cause, the 
incompatibility of illegal use with his goals, and his stated desire never to use again, 
there is reasonable certitude that he will continue to abstain from illegal drug use. 
Applicant did not attempt to hide his illegal involvement with drugs. He disclosed it on 
his e-QIP and during his interviews. His illegal drug involvement, although very serious, 
does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment because 
it is not recent. AG ¶ 26(a) and 26(b) apply. 
 
Personal Conduct  
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct, which is 
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. 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
use, and gave too little weight to lifestyle changes and therapy. For the recency analysis the Appeal 
Board stated:  
 
Compare ISCR Case No. 98-0394 at 4 (App. Bd. June 10, 1999) (although the passage 
of three years since the applicant's last act of misconduct did not, standing alone, compel 
the administrative judge to apply Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1 as a matter of 
law, the Judge erred by failing to give an explanation why the Judge decided not to apply 
that mitigating condition in light of the particular record evidence in the case) with ISCR 
Case No. 01-02860 at 3 (App. Bd. May 7, 2002) (“The administrative judge articulated a 
rational basis for why she had doubts about the sufficiency of Applicant's efforts at 
alcohol rehabilitation.”) (citation format corrections added). 
 
In ISCR Case No. 05-11392 at 1-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2006) the Appeal Board, considered the recency 
analysis of an administrative judge stating: 
 
The administrative judge made sustainable findings as to a lengthy and serious history of 
improper or illegal drug use by a 57-year-old Applicant who was familiar with the security 
clearance process. That history included illegal marijuana use two to three times a year 
from 1974 to 2002 [drug use ended four years before hearing]. It also included the illegal 
purchase of marijuana and the use of marijuana while holding a security clearance. 
 
 
11 
 
When Applicant completed his January 2014 e-QIP he did so with the assistance 
of another company employee. Applicant should have been more careful in reviewing 
the form before signing it. But he is a laborer in a salvage yard with a GED and as such 
should not be held to the same standard as someone who uses a computer daily and 
reviews paperwork as a main part of their job. 
 
The e-QIP lists the most serious of his criminal conduct. He told the person he 
had other arrests, but did not know the dates. Even though the e-QIP asked if Applicant 
had ever been convicted of domestic violence or had alcohol or drug related arrests, his 
coworker told him just to list the events of the last ten years. He told his coworker of the 
September 2013 DWI and that he was awaiting a court hearing on the matter. The 
domestic violence conviction and the DWI were not listed on the e-QIP and Applicant’s 
parents were listed as U.S. citizens. He never told his coworker his parents were U.S. 
citizens.  
 
Applicant was wrong in failing to carefully review the form when he was called to 
sign it. The answers on the e-QIP raise the question of whether the following 
disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 16 apply,  
 
(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. 
 
The allegations under Guideline E, (Personal Conduct) are unfounded. The 
government has shown some of Applicant's e-QIP answers were incorrect, but this does 
not prove the Applicant deliberately failed to disclose information about his arrests. The 
Applicant has denied intentional falsification. Deliberate omission, concealment, or 
falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the 
Government when applying for a security clearance is a security concern. But every 
inaccurate statement is not a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate and 
material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully.  
 
Applicant voluntarily disclosed his DWI to both the individual helping him 
complete the form and to the investigator. He told the individual helping him that he had 
other arrests. He also told the investigator about the domestic violence conviction and 
stated the prior individual had only asked him about the past ten years. He did not tell 
either individual that his parents were U.S. citizens. In fact, he was unsure of his 
parent’s immigration status. His parents are permanent U.S. residents. 
 
I found Applicant=s explanation of his e-QIP answers to be credible. After hearing 
his testimony, observing his demeanor, and evaluating all the evidence of record, I 
found his testimony credible on the falsification issue. Because Applicant listed his most 
serious offense, informed both individuals about the DWI, told the initial individual 
assisting him that he had other arrests, and never said his parents were U.S. citizens, I 
 
12 
 
conclude that his contention that his security clearance application omissions were 
unintentional is credible and that he did not intentionally falsify his e-QIP. 
 
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 relevant 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. It is important not to view the 
conduct piecemeal, but to view all the conduct and the whole-person. In 2001, more 
than 13 years ago, Applicant transported illegal drugs, which is a serious crime for 
which he received serious punishment. It must not be overlooked that Applicant was 
sentenced to 138 months in prison. However, the actions of a 31-year-old man and that 
of a 45 year-old are not the same. In 2001, he was unemployed and thought it was a 
good idea to transport illegal drugs. Now, after having lost ten years of his life and lost 
ten years of being with his children, he is no longer involved with illegal drugs or drinks 
alcohol and realizes how much his conduct cost him. The 2013 DWI appears to be an 
isolated incident since there is no other adverse alcohol related events in Applicant’s life 
and is the only criminal conduct during the past ten years.  
 
 Applicant is hard working and does well in his job. His lifestyle has changed. 
When he completed his e-QIP he told his coworker about his DWI and that he had other 
arrests. He told both his coworker and the investigator about the DWI, never lied about 
his parent’s citizenship, and told the investigator about the domestic violence charge. 
The felony appears on the e-QIP. When he completed his e-QIP, with the assistance of 
his coworker, he was not attempting to hide the truth. 
 
Viewed as a whole, and not piecemeal, the record evidence leaves me without 
questions or doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. 
 
13 
 
For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from 
his criminal conduct, personal conduct, drug involvement, and alcohol consumption.  
 
 
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, Criminal Conduct:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.d:  For Applicant 
  
 Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.c:  For Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 3, Drug Involvement:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:   For Applicant 
  
 Paragraph 4, Alcohol Consumption: FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 4.a:   For Applicant 
   
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
 
 
______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge