1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of:
  ------------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
) 
)
)      ISCR  Case No.  15-04975
)
)
Appearances
For Government: Ray Blank, Esq., 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 did not mitigate the security concerns regarding his criminal conduct, personal
conduct, and drug use. Clearance is denied.
Statement of Case
On February 8, 2016, 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 (E.O. 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 March 9, 2016 and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on October 21, 2016, and scheduled for hearing on October 27,
2016, in accordance with prior agreement with Applicant. At the hearing, the Government's
case consisted of five exhibits (GEs 1-5). Applicant relied on one witness (himself) and no
exhibits. The transcript (Tr.) was received on November 7, 2016. 
Procedural Issues
2
Before the receipt of opening statements and the presentation of evidence.
Department Counsel furnished an updated Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS)
record confirming Applicant’s previous employer laid off Applicant in May 2016 after losing
its defense contract. Because Applicant’s new employer was not listed in JPAS records,
Department Counsel made contact with Applicant’s facility security officer (FSO) on the
date of the scheduled hearing and obtained an updated JPAS record confirming
Applicant’s employment by his new employer. The updated JPAS record was admitted as
HE 1.
Prior to the close of the hearing, Applicant requested the record be kept open to
permit him the opportunity to supplement the record with documentation of his deferred
adjudication, completion of his court-ordered probation, and dismissal of his admitted
criminal charges. (R.T., at 21)
For good cause shown, Applicant was granted seven days to supplement the
record. Within the time permitted, Applicant supplemented the record with  documentation
of the court’s deferred adjudication order, details of required 400 hours of community
service, and satisfaction of probation conditions and dismissal of felony charges.
Applicant’s submissions were admitted as AEs A-C.
Summary of Pleadings
Under Guideline J, Applicant allegedly was arrested on August 1, 2008 in another
state and charged with possession of marijuana, less than 2000 pounds and more than 50
pounds, a felony - 2nd degree, found guilty on February 8, 2009, and sentenced to four
years probation; fined $4,000, and had court costs imposed in the amount $313. 
Under Guidelines E and H, Applicant allegedly was in possession of an illegal drug
as set forth under Guideline J after he had been granted a security clearance on January
29, 2006.
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but two of of the allegations, with
one qualification. He claimed he was not convicted of the charge alleged in SOR 1.a. He
denied the allegations covered by Guideline H but offered no explanations for his denials.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 46-year-old aircraft mechanic of a defense contractor who seeks a
security clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted are incorporated
herein. Additional findings will follow. 
Background
Applicant married in May 2004 and has no children from this marriage. (GEs 1-2)
He earned a high school diploma in June 1986 and claimed some post-high school
educational credits. (GEs 1-2) He took online flight school courses from an out-of-state
college between August 2007 and January 2009 but claimed no diploma or certificate for
3
the online courses he completed. (GEs 1-2)
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in November 1986 and served four
years of active duty in the USAF and four years of inactive reserve duty. (GEs 1-2; Tr. 33)
He received an honorable discharge in May 1991. Applicant enlisted in the Air National
Guard in June 1996 and served three years in the ANC’s inactive reserves. (GE 1; Tr. 33)
He received an honorable discharge in June 2002. (GE 1)
Applicant has worked for his current employer since October 2016 as an aircraft
mechanic. (GE 1; Tr. 38) Between January 2015 and October 2016, he worked in the
same capacity for another defense contractor. (GE 1) Records document that Applicant
was granted a security clearance in July 2006 that was never activated during his
employment. (Tr. 39)  
Between late 2007 and January 2009 Applicant was unemployed while attending
flight school at a state college for online courses. (GE 1; Tr. 43) Applicant believes he
retained his security clearance following his layoff in late 2007, he is not entirely certain.
(Tr. 41-42) Weather or not he retained his security clearance, he remained fully aware of
the USAF’s anti-drug policy while unemployed and without a security clearance in 2008.
(GE 3; Tr. 35)
Applicant’s drug-related criminal offense
In August 2008, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana,
less than 2,000 pounds lbs and more than 50 pounds. (GEs 1 and 3-5) Applicant admitted
knowingly transporting 230 pounds of marijuana for friends on the occasion he was
charged for possession in 2008 when he was unemployed and did not have a security
clearance. (Tr. 31-33) Although, he was fully aware at the time of USAF zero tolerance
policy concerning the use and possession of illegal drugs. (Tr. 35) 
Applicant pleaded guilty to the felony drug possession charges in February 2009
and was found guilty as charged. (GE 1 and 4-5) The presiding court entered a deferred
adjudication order in February 2009 and sentenced Applicant to four years of probation (to
include 400 hours of community service), imposed a $4,000 fine, and added court costs
of $313. (GEs 1, 3-5 and AEs C-D; Tr. 36-37) The court deferred adjudication pending
documentation of Applicant’s satisfactory completion of his ordered probation and payment
of all court-ordered fines and fees. (GEs 1-5; R.T., at 18) 
Upon confirmation of Applicant’s successful completion of his probation conditions
and payment of all court-ordered fines and court costs, the presiding court dismissed the
pending charges in January 2011. (AE B) Applicant retained his Constitutional rights to
vote and own firearms. (Tr. 30-31) He has not engaged in any  recurrent criminal conduct
since his 2008 arrest on felony marijuana possession charges.
Character references and community contributions
Applicant provided no character references or performance evaluations. Nor did
he provide  any evidence of community or civic contributions.
4
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. These guidelines include "[c]onditions that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying” (disqualifying conditions), if any, and any of the
"[c]onditions that could mitigate security concerns.” 
These Ags 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 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 individual
guidelines are pertinent in this case:
Criminal Conduct
  The Concern. 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 ¶ 15
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
5
the security clearance process.  AG ¶ 15.
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.
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 E. O. 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 over Applicant’s guilty plea to felony charges of
transporting more than 50 pounds of marijuana (actual transport figure was 230 lbs) for
friends in 2008. The presiding court accepted Applicant’s guilty plea and entered an order
of deferred adjudication, conditioned on his completion of four years of supervised
probation (including 400 hours of community service) and payment of a court-ordered
$4,000 fine and $313 in court costs. (GE 1 and AE B) In accordance with the court’s
sentencing terms. Applicant completed two years of probation that included his performing
6
400 hours of community service and paid the court-ordered $4,000 fine and court costs.
(AE B)
Based on the developed record to date, one disqualifying condition (DC) of the
criminal conduct guideline (Guideline J) warrants application: DC ¶ 31(a), “a single serious
crime or multiple lesser offenses.” On the strength of the evidence presented. one several
disqualifying conditions of the Adjudicative Guidelines for drug abuse are also applicable:
DC ¶ 25(c), “illegal possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia,” While the term “use” in DC ¶
25(a), “any drug abuse,” is expansive enough under Webster’s definition of the term (i.e.,
employ, utilize, manipulate)  to cover drug possession it is not necessary to apply to these
narrow circumstances covering Applicant’s one-time delivery of marijuana in 2008 to
friends.
Independent judgment concerns exist over Applicant’s commission of a felony in his
transporting of over 200 lbs of illegal drugs in 2008 (a major felony). Based on the findings
and conclusions in the record, DC ¶ 16(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 that the person may not properly safeguard protected information . . .” applies
to Applicant’s situation. DC ¶ 16(d) includes, but is not limited to consideration of (2) “a
pattern of dishonesty or rule violations . . .”
Applicant is entitled to credit for his completion of his probation conditions, payment
of his court fine and court costs, and avoidance of any drug-related conduct since his 2011
release from probation. More time is needed, though, to dispel all reasonable doubts about
his ability to avoid illegal drug possession in the future. Other mitigating conditions covered
by Guidelines J, H, and E are not available to Applicant. 
Historically, the Appeal Board has emphasized the importance of a strong
rehabilitation program and a seasoned track record in mitigating serious criminal offenses.
See ISCR Case No. 95-0622 at 4-5 (App. Bd. April 18, 1997). Holding a security clearance
requires a high degree of trust and confidence in the person entrusted with classified
information. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 511 n.6 (1980) 
Serious drug-related conduct weighs heavily against reposing in an applicant the
trust and confidence required of persons granted access to classified information. Because
of the gravity of Applicant’s drug-possession offense and his ensuing two years of
supervised probation, satisfaction of Appeal Board requirements of public confidence and
trust requires a much stronger showing of reform and rehabilitation over a significant period
of time before safe conclusions can be made that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
From a whole-person perspective, Applicant has shown limited verifiable growth and
maturity in the two years since the dismissal of his drug-related charges in 2011. He
provided no character references, performance evaluations, or probative evidence of
7
community and civic contributions since completing his probation conditions. At this point,
positive impressions that he has forged with his supervisors and community remain
unknown.
Taking into account the seriousness of Applicant’s felony guilty plea, the limited
amount of evidence of his continuing mitigation efforts since completing his probation
requirements in 2011, and a whole-person assessment of his avoidance of recurrent use
and possession of illegal drugs, conclusions are warranted that it is still too soon to
conclude that Applicant is absolved of any risks of recurrent drug-related offenses.
Concerns over his felony drug-related offense in 2008 are not mitigated.
Formal Findings
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR in the context of the findings of fact, conclusions,
and the factors and conditions listed above, I make the following separate formal findings
with respect to Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.
GUIDELINE J (CRIMINAL
CONDUCT)
Subparagraph: 1.a: 
 AGAINST
APPLICANT
  Against Applicant  
  GUIDELINE E (PERSONAL CONDUCT)  AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph: 2.a: 
 GUIDELINE E
(DRUGS)   Against
Applicant   AGAINST
APPLICANT
Subparagraph: 3.a: 
Subparagraph: 3.b:
  Against Applicant  
Against Applicant
Conclusions
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge