DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 12-09774
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ross Hyams, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: William F. Savarino, Esq. 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s evidence in mitigation is insufficient to surmount the adverse evidence
under the guidelines for drug involvement and personal conduct. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) in July 2008. He was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) in September 2008. He completed a second e-QIP in May
2012, and was interviewed again in the same month. On March 18, 2015, the Department
of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
drug involvement and personal conduct. The action was taken pursuant to Executive Order
2
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), as amended (Directive), and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1,
2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was signed and notarized on April 1, 2015. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on October 20,
2015, for a hearing on November 18, 2015. The hearing was held as scheduled. Six
Government exhibits (GE) 1-6 and Applicant’s 18 exhibits (AE A-R) were admitted in
evidence without objection. Applicant and two witnesses testified. The transcript (Tr.) was
received on December 3, 2015. The record closed on the same day. 
Rulings on Procedure
On June 19, 2015, the Government filed a motion to amend the SOR as follows:
1) Modification of SOR 1.b to state: 
“You used marijuana while holding a security clearance from approximately
January 2009 to June 2011.”
As verification of his denial to the amended SOR 1.b allegation, Applicant encircled
“DENY” and placed his initials to the right of the encircled word. 
(2) Addition of SOR 2.b to state:
“You falsified your 2008 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing for
National security Positions, signed by you on July 26, 2008. In response to the language
of the question in Section 24, you answered “yes” and disclosed using marijuana from
approximately January 2000 to June 2004. In truth, you used marijuana through the date
of your 2012 e-QIP, signed by you on May 2, 2012.” The proposed amendment is poorly
drafted in that Applicant’s drug use account in his May 2012 e-QIP is only relevant to the
seven-year time period before Applicant executed his July 2008 e-QIP. In addition, there
is no evidence in the government’s exhibits to support the claim that Applicant used
marijuana through the date of his May 2012 e-QIP. The only record reference to the 2012
date was during Applicant’s testimony. Therefore, under ¶ E3.1.17 of the Directive, the last
sentence of this allegation is modified to read:
“In truth, you used marijuana to June 2011, as set forth in your May 2, 2012
e-QIP.”
 This ruling is made under ¶E3.1.17 of the Directive.1
3
The change is made to bring the allegation into agreement with the information Applicant
entered in response to Section 23 of the May 2012 e-QIP and his May 2012 summary
interview (GE 3, 5).
Applicant’s first answer to proposed SOR 2.b was “DENY.” Then, he changed his
answer to “ADMIT” by encircling the word and placed his initials to the immediate right of
the encircled word. He provided his signature and date (June 29, 2015) on the first page
of his three-page answer. The motion is hereby granted. The two-page motion to amend
and Applicant’s three-page answer and attachment are admitted in evidence as Hearing
exhibit (HE 1). 
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied SOR 1.a of the original SOR that alleges he used marijuana about
three times a year from approximately January 1996 to June 2011. He mistakenly admitted
SOR 1.b that alleges he used marijuana while holding a security clearance from November
2008 to January 2009. The government documentation supports Applicant’s claim that he
was not in possession of a security clearance when he used marijuana between November
2008 and January 2009. SOR 1.b is withdrawn.  See GE 6. As noted in Rulings on1
Procedure, Applicant denied proposed amendment SOR 1.b. His original denial to
proposed amendment SOR 2.b became his final position because he believed that he
falsified no information in his July 2008 e-QIP. (GE 2 at 29-30; Tr. 51-52, 59-62)
Applicant is 33 years old. He has been married since May 2010, and has one
daughter. He received a bachelor’s degree in January 2006. He has been employed as an
operations program manager with a defense contractor since November 2013, and
received a promotion in July 2015. He was a supply chain program planner during an
earlier period of employment for this contractor between 2006 and 2010. He seeks a
continuation of his security clearance that was granted in January 2009. (GE 1 at 12, 16;
GE 6; Tr. 25)
Background of Security Investigation 
In July 2008, Applicant (26 years old) executed an e-QIP. In response to Section 24
(Illegal Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity), he acknowledged that he used marijuana
while in college between 2000 and 2004. The drug was available and other friends used it.
He indicated that he used the drug less than 30 times and described his use as recreational,
not habitual. In his September 2008 OPM interview, Applicant confirmed the use that he
described in his July 2008 e-QIP. He indicated that he stopped using the drug in 2004
 The statement was the basis for the original  allegation 1.b of the SOR. That allegation has been withdrawn.2
(GE 6)
4
because he did not like it and no longer had an interest in it. He had no intention of using
the drug in the future. (GE 2 at 30; GE 4 at 3)
At the age of 29, Applicant executed an e-QIP in May 2012. He was applying for a
contract manager’s position. In response to Section 23 (Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug
Activity), Applicant estimated that he first used marijuana in January 1996, and he estimated
that his most recent use was in June 2011. In response to the instruction to provide nature
of use, frequency, and number of times used, Applicant responded “recreational-less that
3x per year.” Regarding future intentions, Applicant stated “I no longer use this drug
recreationally, so I do not have any intention of using it in the future.” (GE 3 at 32-33)
Applicant was interviewed a second time in May 2012. He essentially confirmed
marijuana use between January 1996 and June 2011. He described singular puffs at social
gatherings. He combined marijuana with alcohol to lower his inhibitions. He was never
involved in the sale or purchase of marijuana. He never had a positive drug test. At a
subsequent point in the same paragraph of his summary interview, he provided a statement
that between November 2008 and January 2009, he used marijuana while possessing a
security clearance.  Applicant indicated that he stopped using marijuana and had no future2
intentions of drug use. He opined that his use was isolated and sporadic. (GE 5 at 5) 
In his April 2015 attached response to the original SOR, Applicant emphasized that
he was trying to be open and honest during the May 2012 OPM interview. He recalled using
marijuana on one occasion between November 2008 and January 2009, not three times a
year from January 1996 to June 2011, as set forth in the summary interview. He believed
that there may have been a misunderstanding of his verbal responses or he may not have
understood the line of questioning from the OPM investigator. (April 2015 answer and
attachment) 
In his June 29, 2015 answer to the amended SOR, he denied the SOR 1.b amended
allegation of using marijuana between January 2009 and June 2011, while holding a security
clearance. In response to SOR 2.b, Applicant reiterated his contention that after 2004, he
only used marijuana once in November 2008. (Answer to SOR) 
On the second page of his June 29, 2015 answer to the amended SOR, Applicant
provided more reasons why the marijuana use information appearing in his May 2012
interview was inaccurate. He again stated he was trying to be open and honest when he
disclosed his drug use. He stated, “I mis-recalled information and made statements that
were not specific and seemingly ambiguous.” Applicant noted that during the interview he
5
became confused and distracted in linking some of the questions and time periods. He
stated subsequently in the paragraph that the May 2012 e-QIP “was submitted at a time
when I was under certain duress due to family obligations and concerns, as well as certain
employment stress and unhappiness.” (Answer to Amended SOR, Attachment)
At the hearing, Applicant agreed with the contents of the July 2008 e-QIP and
September 2008 interview. He also provided some additional information about his
discussions with a friend who bolstered his belief that his last use of marijuana was in
November 2008. (AE O; Tr. 36-46, 55-56)
Concerning the May 2012 e-QIP, Applicant testified that he completed the security
application truthfully and answered the pertinent drug use question (Section 23) affirmatively
because he recalled only a single use of marijuana between his 2008 e-QIP and his May
2012 e-QIP, though he was unsure when the use occurred. He picked the June 2011 date
arbitrarily “because it seemed to cover the period of 2008 to 2012.” (Tr. 49) Then, Applicant
claimed that his affirmative response to the follow up drug use question while holding a
security clearance applied to his single use which he ultimately concluded was in November
2008, the date he mistakenly believed he had a security clearance. He subsequently
received information showing that his security clearance was not issued until January 2009.
He provided no additional information about the purported employment-related and family-
related stress and unhappiness he was experiencing when he executed the 2012 e-QIP.
(GE 3 at 32-33; GE 6; Tr. 47-52, 56)
Applicant was asked why he provided more drug use information on the 2012 e-QIP
than on the 2008 e-QIP. His reply was because he did not have possession of the first e-
QIP. Then, in explaining his reason for selecting January 1996 as the date he began using
marijuana, and addressing the overall wording of the drug use question, Applicant testified:
Sir, this statement reads [“]provide an estimate of the year and first month of
first use.[”] I would interpret that as the first use ever since the dawn of time.
The question is phrased: you answered yes to in the last seven years. There
is no subsequent follow up to item number one that says in the last seven
years provide an estimate of the month and year of your first use in the last
seven years. I disclosed that this was my first, probably the first time of use
ever. (Tr. 71-72) 
Applicant’s explanation for the January 1996 beginning date in Section 23 of the 2012
e-QIP has just been quoted. As explained earlier, Applicant chose the termination date of
June 2011 arbitrarily. The third portion of the question is directed to the nature, frequency
and number of times used. By indicating “recreational - less than three times a year,” the
most logical interpretation of the information furnished by Applicant is that he admitted using
marijuana less than three times a year between January 1996 and June 2011. One
6
explanation for his affirmative response to the very next question (use of marijuana while
holding a security clearance) is that he only used the drug one time in November 2008.
However, the most reasonable inference based on the information he provided on the
previous page is that he used the drug while holding a security clearance between January
2009 and June 2011. The information he provided in his 2008 e-QIP and his explanations
in his answers and testimony for marijuana use and use while holding a security clearance
are not credible, specifically because of his confirmation of the information in his subsequent
May 2012 OPM interview. I find he used marijuana between 2004 and 2008, and his use
continued until June 2011. (GE 1 at 32-33)
Applicant was asked whether he provided the June 2011 date during the May 2012
interview. His response was, “Sure, yes I don’t recall telling him specifically that June 11th
was neither a definitive date nor an estimate.” (Tr. 54) He told the investigator that he had
used marijuana on one occasion between November 2008 and January 2009, while holding
a security clearance. Applicant provided no additional testimony about his purported
misunderstandings to the investigator’s line of questions and his ambiguous responses
during the interview. (GE 5 at 5; Tr. 53-57)
Applicant realizes that using marijuana is illegal. While he still socializes with the
individual he used marijuana with in November 2008, that individual no longer uses drugs.
Applicant has purchased his second house and is more focused on his career and raising
his family. On November 18, 2015, Applicant signed a statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation. (Tr. 46, 58; AE O, R)
Character Evidence
Applicant’s friend, witness A, met him in college as a roommate in 2002. They lived
together after college for a few years until witness A married and moved. They have
remained in regular contact. Witness A is aware of the drug use allegations involving
Applicant using marijuana with another friend. In the personal friendship they have
developed, witness A has no reason to doubt Applicant’s honesty and integrity. Witness A
does not believe that Applicant has used marijuana since college, except for the use in
2008. (Tr. 17-23)
Witness B has worked in the engineering, manufacturing, and logistics division, as
an operations program manager. She has held a security clearance for 35 years. She hired
Applicant in November 2013 and is his supervisor. She considers Applicant to be one of her
top four operation managers because of his attention to detail and thoroughness. She
considers him trustworthy and dedicated. (Tr. 23-31)
Of Applicant’s 18 character references, 10 references are from coworkers or
employees who have interacted with Applicant at work. The work references, who have
7
known Applicant for up to seven years, have found him to be reliable, trustworthy, honest,
and a good family man. (AE A, B, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N)
Four character references are from friends and neighbors who have known Applicant
and his family for up to 31 years. Applicant is described as being honest, responsible, and
a good family man. The fifth character reference is from Applicant’s father who indicated that
he shared the amended SOR with Applicant. He was proud that Applicant decided to tell the
truth about his November 2008 use of marijuana in his 2012 e-QIP. (AE C, D, E, F, P)
In Applicant’s 2014 performance evaluation, witness B noted in her overall comments
that Applicant was a team player dedicated to improving department procedures. Applicant
provided a signed statement expressing his intention to refrain from drug use or consent to
a revocation of his security clearance. (AE R, Q)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the AG. These conditions
must be evaluated in the context of the nine general factors of the whole-person concept to
bring together all available, reliable information about the person, past and present,
favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision for security clearance eligibility. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to the potential,
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Drug involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern for 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 tor
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations; 
 Drug use is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical3
direction. (Directive at 34)
8
The pertinent disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25 that may be disqualifying are:
(a) any drug use;  3
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and 
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance.
After a careful examination of Applicant’s certified May 2012 e-QIP, which is
corroborated by his May 2012 OPM interview, I conclude that Applicant began using
marijuana in January 1996. He used the drug at a frequency of less than three times a year
between 2004 and July 2008, when he executed his initial e-QIP. He continued to use the
drug until he stopped in June 2011. In order to use the drug, he had to possess it. Between
January 2009 and June 2011, he used the drug while holding a security clearance. AG ¶¶
25(a), 25(c), and 25(g) are applicable. 
The potentially mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 of the drug involvement guideline
are: 
(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, (2) changing or
avoiding the environment where drugs are used, (3) an appropriate period of
abstinence, and (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation. 
Though there is no evidence of marijuana use by Applicant since June 2011, his
infrequent use of the drug less than three times a year lasted for about 15 years. His
marijuana use in social settings did not occur under unusual circumstances. AG ¶ 26(a) has
only limited application. 
Applicant has provided meaningful evidence under the four factors of AG ¶ 26(b).
There is evidence that he stopped associating with drug-users and no longer interacts in an
environment where drugs are used. The absence of marijuana use in the last four years is
supported by Applicant’s signed statement of intent to forego future marijuana use.
However, Applicant’s failure to fully disclose his marijuana history in his 2008 e-QIP reduces
the mitigation he receives under AG ¶ 26(b).
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth in AG ¶ 15:
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. 
The potentially pertinent disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 16 are: 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire, . . . used to conduct security investigation,
determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine
security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities; 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but
which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
indicating that he may not properly safeguard classified information; and
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other
guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but
which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of
candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating the person may not properly safeguard protected
information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: (1)
untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality,
release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate
or other government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent, or other
behavior in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and
10
(4) evidence of significant misuse of government or other employer’s time or
resources.
Applicant’s deliberate falsification of his certified July 2008 e-QIP is based on the
information he provided in his certified May 2012 e-QIP indicating that he used marijuana
between 2004 and 2008, and thereafter until June 2011, at a frequency of less than three
times a year. Applicant’s certified May 2012 e-QIP responses regarding his marijuana use,
substantiated by his OPM interview later in May 2012, support application of AG ¶ 16(a).
Assuming that there is insufficient evidence to invoke AG ¶ 16(a), then the incomplete
picture Applicant provided about his marijuana use in his July 2008 e-QIP represents
credible adverse information representative of poor judgment and a lack of candor within the
scope of AG ¶¶ 16(c) and 16(d). 
The potentially pertinent mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 are: 
(c) the offense was 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; and
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors,
circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. 
Applicant’s view of his marijuana use is that it was minor because after his college
use between 2000 and 2004, he claimed he used the drug one additional time in November
2008. Had the record supported that account, then the favorable character evidence would
likely warrant a continuation of his security clearance eligibility. However, Applicant’s more
recent e-QIP discloses that he used marijuana from 1996 to June 2011. He had an
opportunity to correct the erroneous information in the May 2012 e-QIP, but declined when
he was interviewed by the OPM investigator in the same month. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply.
Though Applicant has provided considerable character evidence that demonstrates
positive changes in his behavior, he has not acknowledged that his 2008 e-QIP was an
incomplete picture of his drug use. Furthermore, his lifestyle changes must be balanced
against his denial of drug use information that he furnished in his May 2012 e-QIP, that he
confirmed in his May 2012 interview, but is currently denying. Applicant receives only limited
mitigation under AG ¶ 17(d). 
11
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
drug involvement and personal conduct. I have also weighed the circumstances within the
context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance
of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following factors:
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 the
participation was 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 a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole-person concept.
There is positive evidence supporting Applicant’s security clearance. He received a
bachelor’s degree in January 2006. He has been married since May 2010, and has a
daughter. In the two years that she has supervised Applicant, witness B testified that
Applicant is one of her top operation program managers. His coworkers, neighbors and
friends believe Applicant is trustworthy, honest, reliable, responsible and a good family man.
Applicant’s father believes that his son has been honest during the security investigation.
The foregoing favorable evidence is insufficient to overcome Applicant’s drug use and
use while holding a security clearance. Applicant contends that he arbitrarily selected the
June 2011 termination date (May 2012 e-QiP) because he was not sure when he last used
marijuana. If he could not remember the last date of use, I do not understand how he
remembered when he began using marijuana. Nor do I understand why he would arbitrarily
enter information about his termination date and the frequency of use. Applicant’s
explanation (one-time use in November 2008) for his “yes” answer to the question of using
marijuana while holding a clearance does not make sense given the information he provided
on the previous page of the May 2012 e-QIP. Considering the totality of the evidence,
Applicant’s evidence in mitigation is insufficient to overcome the ongoing security concerns
based on the drug involvement and personal conduct. 
At the conclusion of his closing argument, Applicant’s counsel provided me with two
DOHA Appeal Board cases for my review before reaching a decision in this case. In his
opinion, both cases were reversed because the administrative judge did not fully assess the
12
period of abstinence and changed circumstances since the applicant’s last drug use. The
primary holding of the Board in each case is that an administrative judge cannot substitute
his negative credibility determination for record evidence. Those two cases are
distinguishable in that both cases were decided on the record as there was no opportunity
to weigh witness demeanor. In the first case, ISCR Case No. 02-08032 (App. Bd. May 14,
2004), the guidelines for drug involvement and personal conduct were alleged. However the
personal conduct guideline was resolved in Applicant’s favor. In the second case, ISCR
Case No. 02-24452 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2004) drug involvement was the only guideline
alleged. My adverse findings in this case are based on Applicant’s admissions in his May
2012 e-QIP and interview that he used marijuana until June 2011. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Withdrawn
Subparagraph 2 (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge