1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-00977
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jacob Ranish, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concerns generated by his illegal drug use, but
failed to mitigate the security concerns generated by his falsifications during the
investigative process. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On August 22, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines H, drug
involvement, and E, personal conduct.  The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG).
I admitted GE 4, subject to Applicant’s corrections and modifications. (Tr. 51-53)1
2
Applicant answered the SOR on September 22, 2015, admitting the allegations
and requesting a hearing. The case was initially assigned to another administrative
judge on March 23, 2016, before being transferred to me on May 11, 2016. On June 8,
2016, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for July 7, 2016. At the
hearing, I received four Government exhibits marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1
through 4,  in addition to six Applicant exhibits (AE A - AE F), together with Applicant’s1
testimony, and the testimony of an expert, qualified in the field of psychology. (Tr. 14)
After the record closed, Applicant’s counsel moved to re-open the record to consider
additional information from Applicant’s psychologist who testified and provided a written
evaluation (AE A). I denied the request. The transcript was received on July 15, 2016. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old single man with an adopted child, age 14, who is the
son of his ex-girlfriend. (Tr. 78) Shortly after graduating from high school in 2000, he
enlisted in the U.S. Army, serving through 2004. While enlisted, Applicant completed a
15-month combat tour of duty from March 2003 to June 2004. (Tr. 39) Since leaving the
Army, Applicant has worked for various military contractors, initially, as a diesel
mechanic, and later as a network administrator. (AE A at 4; Tr. 44) He worked in a
combat zone from 2010 through 2012, and he has been working abroad at another non-
combat location since 2013. (Tr. 77-78) Applicant is currently pursuing a degree in
cybersecurity.
In September 2004, while in the Army, Applicant failed a random drug screening,
testing positive for cocaine. (GE 3 at 1) He was administratively separated, receiving a
general discharge under honorable conditions. (GE 3; Answer at 2-3) Applicant admits
using cocaine on one occasion shortly before failing the drug test. (Tr. 37) He held a
security clearance at the time, which was later suspended. (GE 3 at 11)  Applicant used
cocaine approximately three times after leaving the military. His last use was in 2008
while celebrating his birthday with friends at a party. (Tr. 55, 60)  
Applicant experimented with marijuana while in high school. (Tr. 58) He did not
use it while in the military. He used it once or twice after leaving the military. His last use
was in 2008. His last use resulted in a failed pre-employment drug screening. (GE 1 at
35) On November 12, 2015, a certified drug abuse counselor evaluated Applicant. After
conducting a comprehensive biopsychosocial test and a drug abuse screening test, she
concluded that Applicant was not drug dependent and that there was no risk of relapse.
(AE C at 1-2)
Applicant attributes his use of cocaine to the stress of combat. Specifically, while
deployed, he came under fire frequently, and lived in constant fear of poison gas
attacks. (Tr. 33) Moreover, he lost several fellow soldiers including his best friend. (Tr.
34)
3
When Applicant’s tour of duty was over, he had trouble adjusting to civilian life,
experiencing frequent nightmares, “cold sweats,” crying spells, and extreme anxiety
during events such as amusement park firework shows. (Tr. 65-66; AE A at 5) At the
prompting of his mother, Applicant, some time between 2005 and 2006,  met with a
family friend who works with a support group for wounded veterans. (Tr. 65)
Beginning in 2006, Applicant begin attending pastoral counselling. (Tr. 67) His
pastor, a veteran, helped him deal with war-related emotional issues. (Tr. 67-68)
Applicant attended counseling with him once or twice per month until he went abroad
again to work for a defense contractor in 2010. (Tr. 68)
Applicant completed a questionnaire for public trust positions in 2008. He
answered “no” to a question requiring him to disclose any drug use within the year
before completing the application, when, in fact, he had smoked marijuana once during
this time period. (GE 2 at 11)
Applicant completed a security clearance application in 2011. He was required to
disclose any drug use that occurred within seven years of the date he completed the
application. He disclosed one episode of marijuana usage in 2008, but disclosed neither
the other episodes, nor the 2004 cocaine use.
In 2012, an investigative agent interviewed Applicant. During the interview,
Applicant mischaracterized the reasons for receiving a general discharge under
honorable conditions, stating it was because military police detected the smell of alcohol
on his breath while he was entering the base, rather than because he tested positive for
cocaine during a random drug test.
In November 2015, Applicant met with a psychologist. After conducting a
comprehensive psychological test during a lengthy interview, the psychologist
concluded that Applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to
his combat experience, and that “the passage of time has been helpful in resolving
some of these issues.”  (AE A at 6) Also, he reasoned that Applicant’s decision to use
illegal drugs related to his PTSD. (AE A at 6) 
Applicant’s psychologist explored issues related to Applicant’s falsifications.
Specifically, he testified that Applicant’s drug use was a symptom of his PTSD, and that
he neglected to disclose it to the investigator and include it on the applications, not as
intentional falsifications, but as a “coping mechanism” to deal with his PTSD. (Tr. 18)
Further, the psychologist characterized Applicant as in denial regarding his drug use
history for several years. He characterized denial as a “self-protect[ion] mechanism
[where] the mind simply revises history to eliminate traumas.” (Tr. 18) 
After interviewing Applicant, his psychologist administered a test that measured
the validity of Applicant’s responses. (AE A at 5) After reviewing the results, he
concluded that Applicant was making “no effort to minimize his mental or emotional
problems and was frank and open as he took the test.” (AE A at 6) 
4
Applicant testified that he was under an extraordinary amount of stress  when the
investigative agent interviewed him in 2012. His stress was caused by issues related to
the breakup of his relationship with his then fiancee and the revelation that a six-year-
old child with whom he had been supporting financially her entire life was not actually
his biological child. (Tr. 73) Per Applicant, this stress compelled him not to disclose the
actual reason for his discharge from the Army.
Applicant disclosed one episode of marijuana use on his 2011 security clearance
application. (GE 1 at 34-35) When asked on cross-examination why he did not disclose
the other episodes of marijuana use, he responded that the disclosed episode was the
one that resulted in a failed drug test. (Tr. 70) Applicant also testified that when he
completed the application for a position of public trust in 2008, he did not know that
using illegal drugs was inconsistent with holding a position of public trust, and that he
“didn’t know anything about security clearances.”  (Tr. 63)
In 2010, Applicant worked overseas for a military contractor.  Once, while
completing his timesheet online, the Internet connection malfunctioned, as it was prone
to do because of the remote location. When the connection came back online, Applicant
completed his timesheet, but neglected to notice that the work date range, set forth in a
box in the corner of the screen, had reverted to a default date range rather than the date
range that he actually worked. (Answer at 3) His employer discovered the mistake and
formally reprimanded him.
Later, while working for the same employer, Applicant listened to music on the
company computer in violation of company policy, and was subsequently terminated.
(Answer at 3) According to Applicant, American pop music was difficult to obtain where
he was working, he received the music from coworkers, and he was unaware of the
policy. (Answer at 3)
Applicant is highly respected on the job. His supervisor characterizes him as a
man of “utmost professionalism and integrity” who produces exemplary results. (AE F at
2) A coworker whom Applicant supervised characterized him as a hard-working
employee who “mak[es] everyone around him perform to the best of their abilities.” (AE
F at 3) According to a military officer with whom Applicant worked, he was reliable,
honest, trustworthy, and dependable. (Answer at 8)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. 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.
5
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.” 
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 security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “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). Over the years, Applicant has
used both marijuana and cocaine. One of his episodes of cocaine use occurred while he
possessed a security clearance. AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(c), “illegal drug
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia,” and 25(g), “any illegal drug use after
being granted a security clearance,” apply.
Applicant’s drug use was infrequent, sporadic, and possibly related to his PTSD
that was undiagnosed at the time. The last use of illegal drugs occurred eight years ago.
In November 2015, a certified drug abuse counselor evaluated Applicant and concluded
that he was neither drug dependent, nor at risk of relapse. AG ¶ 26(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 AG ¶ 26(b)(3), “an appropriate period of
abstinence,” apply. Applicant has mitigated the drug involvement security concern.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern under this guideline is as follows:
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.
Applicant’s omissions on his 2008 application for public trust, his omissions from
his 2011 security clearance application, and his omission of relevant information about
6
past drug use when interviewed by an agent in 2012 raise the question of whether the
following disqualifying conditions apply 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;  and  
16(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative.
According to Applicant’s psychologist, his omission of information about his illegal
drug usage was not deceptive, but indicative of denial as a coping mechanism of PTSD
that he suffered from after completing a combat tour of duty. Applicant’s description of
the circumstances leading to the realization that he had PTSD was emotionally
compelling. However, he failed to provide a nexus between his PTSD symptoms and his
responses during the past security clearance investigation processes. Specifically, the
psychologist defined denial as a total blanking out of negative experiences and negative
behavior from one’s past. Applicant, however, did not omit everything. Instead, his
omissions were selective, as he listed one episode of marijuana - the one most easily
discoverable through the security clearance investigative process as it resulted in a
failed drug test - but not the other episodes of marijuana use. Moreover, Applicant’s
contention that he did not know illegal drug use was inconsistent with holding a position
of public trust was not credible, and further undercut the nexus that he was seeking to
develop between his PTSD and his omissions. Under these circumstances, I conclude
that AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(b) apply without mitigation.
As for the allegation of time sheet fraud, alleged in subparagraph 2.a,  I conclude
that Applicant’s explanation mitigated it satisfactorily. I resolve subparagraph 2.a in
Applicant’s favor.
Although listening to music on the office computer violated company policy
(subparagraph 2.b),  it was an infraction of minimal significance. I conclude AG ¶ 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,” applies. I
resolve subparagraph 2.b in Applicant’s favor.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
7
(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.
Applicant deserves credit for overcoming his PTSD. There are several facts that
reflect positively upon Applicant, including his decision to adopt his ex-girlfriend’s child,
and the strong character references. However, these positive attributes are not
sufficient to overcome the negative security inference generated by Applicant’s
omission of relevant information from two recent background investigations. Upon
considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that
Applicant has failed to mitigate 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: FOR  APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.c-2.e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                            
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge