1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08882 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Robert B. Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Greg F. Greiner, Esq. ___________ Decision ___________ HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: Personal conduct security concerns relating to a 2011 drug offense, a 2014, firearms offense, and omission of an arrest on his 2014 prescreening security questionnaire are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On December 17, 2014, Applicant completed and signed his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On June 10, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective on September 1, 2006 (Sept. 1, 2006 AGs). The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under Guideline E (personal conduct). On July 11, 2016, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and requested a hearing. On October 10, 2016, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On April 17, 2 2017, the case was assigned to me. On April 25, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for May 22, 2017. (HE 1) Applicant’s hearing was held as scheduled. During the hearing, Department Counsel offered three exhibits; Applicant offered eight exhibits; there were no objections; and all proffered exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Tr. 11-13; GE 1-3; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-H) On June 1, 2017, DOHA received a copy of the hearing transcript. On July 25, 2017, Applicant provided two exhibits, which were admitted into evidence without objection. (AE I; AE J) While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.1 Findings of Fact2 Applicant’s SOR response admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.a, and he made some partial admissions relating to SOR ¶¶ 1.b through 1.d. (HE 3) He also provided extenuating and mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional findings of fact follow. Applicant is a 41-year-old software integration tester, and he has been employed by a DOD contractor since 2000. (Tr. 14, 16, 19) In 1999, he received a bachelor’s degree in aviation management, and in 2008, he received a master’s degree in business administration. (Tr. 15-16; AE B) In 1995, he married, and in 1999, he divorced. (Tr. 16- 17; GE 1) In 2004, he married, and in 2012, he divorced. (Tr. 18-19, 58; GE 1) His children are ages 9 and 21. (Tr. 16-17) His nine-year-old child is autistic. (Tr. 17) Applicant volunteers and coaches youth sports. (Tr. 17-18) Applicant served in the Marine Corps from 1995 to 2000, and he received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 14) He was a sergeant when he was discharged. (SOR response) His specialty was Aircraft Navigation Systems. (AE A) He was awarded the following ribbons, badges, and medals: Rifle Marksman Badge; National Defense Service Medal; Good Conduct Medal; Armed Forces Service Medal; NATO Medal; and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. (AE A) 1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf. 2 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. 3 Applicant’s performance evaluations indicate he met or exceeded expectations. (AE C) His employer awarded to Applicant 10 certificates of recognition, appreciation awards, or pride awards, and one cash award. (AE D) One of Applicant’s managers described him as conscientious about safeguarding security. (AE E) Applicant’s brother, a friend, and his former spouse lauded Applicant’s loyalty, trustworthiness, reliability, and support for his son. (AE E) Personal Conduct Applicant used marijuana in high school; he did not use marijuana between 1995 and 2011; and on December 30, 2011, he used marijuana while holding a security clearance. (Tr. 20, 67-68; SOR ¶ 1.a; GE 2) On December 30, 2011, he drank about three or four beers in a bar with a woman over several hours. (Tr. 63, 67) Then he and the woman left the bar, and he smoked marijuana in his truck parked outside a bar to impress her. (Tr. 21, 62) She provided the marijuana that he used. (Tr. 62) The remainder of the marijuana cigarette was left in his truck. (Tr. 21) The police stopped him, and Applicant admitted the marijuana they found in his truck was Applicant’s marijuana. (Tr. 25) Applicant was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Combined Alcohol/Drug, Possession of Marijuana, and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia. (Tr. 22-24; SOR ¶ 1.b) His breathalyzer result was .06, which is below the .08 level for DWI in his state. (Tr. 22) The police sent him to a hospital for a blood test; however, there was not sufficient marijuana in his system to establish intoxication. (Tr. 23) On February 25, 2013, Applicant pleaded guilty to Possession of Marijuana and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia, and the court placed him on limited probation for one year. (GE 2; SOR response) He was required to pay a $325 probation fee and $106 court costs. (GE 2) He attended a class on drug abuse. (Tr. 26) He performed 30 hours of community service. (Tr. 26) His most recent association with the woman who provided the marijuana to him was in September or October 2016. (Tr. 37) After he successfully completed probation, the charges relating to the December 30, 2011 drug offenses were dismissed. (SOR response) Under state law, the offense became a “closed record” and Applicant could not be charged with false statement under state law for failure to disclose the arrest or charge. (AE H) After he completed probation, Applicant said his attorney told him he did not have to disclose the offense because he had completed probation, and it was not a crime. (Tr. 26-27, 69-70) The letter from Applicant’s counsel indicates his attorney advised Applicant of the state law concerning disclosure of information in closed records. (AE H) His attorney’s letter does not mention requirements for disclosure on security documents. On March 27, 2014, Applicant completed a Personnel Security Pre-Screening Questionnaire, which asked, “have you been arrested since your last completed investigation?” Applicant answered, no, and he failed to disclose his arrest on December 30, 2011 for Driving While Intoxicated Combined Alcohol/Drug, Possession of Marijuana, and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia. (Tr. 26-27; SOR ¶ 1.c; GE 2) The pre-screening questionnaire did not explain about the need to disclose expunged or closed records. Applicant now understands that he should have disclosed the December 2011 arrest. (Tr. 28) He disclosed his marijuana offense on his December 17, 2014 SCA, and he discussed 4 the offense during his October 22, 2015, Office of Personnel Management personal subject interview (OPM PSI). On July 18, 2014, Applicant drank two beers at a professional baseball game, and Applicant does not believe his consumption of alcohol affected his judgment. (Tr. 43-44) Applicant, his girlfriend, his mother, and Applicant’s son were in a sedan leaving the baseball parking lot. (Tr. 30, 44) His girlfriend was driving her car; her mother was in the front passenger seat; and Applicant was sitting behind her mother; and his seven-year- old son was in a rear seat next to Applicant. (Tr. 30, 44-45) His girlfriend cut in front of an F-350 truck, and the truck driver retaliated by tailgating the car, and coming close to striking his girlfriend’s vehicle. (Tr. 31) Applicant felt threatened. (Tr. 47) There was a pistol in the passenger seat in the back of the car, and possession of a firearm in a vehicle is not illegal under state law. (Tr. 31-32; SOR response) The firearm was loaded with a bullet in the chamber. (Tr. 52) Applicant said he lifted the pistol up about three inches below shoulder level, and then he put the firearm on his thigh before he fell asleep. (Tr. 33, 48-50, 53) The barrel was pointed upwards towards the roof of the car, so that it was not pointed at any of the occupants in the vehicle. (Tr. 48-49) Applicant said the truck or another vehicle must have pulled up next to his vehicle. (Tr. 33-34) They must have seen the firearm and called the police. (Tr. 33-34, 53)3 Applicant remembered hearing some honking horns, and maybe his girlfriend cut off other people getting to the highway. (Tr. 33) The police stopped the car within about a half mile of the stadium. (Tr. 54) Applicant was arrested for Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon, and one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child; however, he was not charged. (Tr. 29, 34, 56; SOR ¶ 1.d) He was held overnight in jail. (Tr. 56) The police report states Applicant brandished the firearm, and Applicant denied that he brandished the firearm. (Tr. 31-32) Applicant called the prosecutor and learned he was on “silent probation” for the offense. (Tr. 34) The charge remained pending until the statute of limitations expired three years after the date of the offense. (Tr. 34; AE J) Applicant was advised that unless he was arrested for another firearms offense during the three years, he would not be charged, and his firearm would be returned to Applicant. (Tr. 34; AE J) In 2015, Applicant obtained a permit to carry a concealed firearm. (Tr. 39; AE F) On July 21, 2017, a criminal records check indicated Applicant was never charged with a criminal offense pertaining to this incident. (AE I) He disclosed his arrest for the firearms offense on his December 17, 2014 SCA, and he discussed the offense during his October 22, 2015 OPM PSI. Applicant’s only arrests were in 2011 and 2014. (Tr. 35 He has had experience with firearms all of his life, and he said he would never handle a firearm in an unsafe manner. (Tr. 42) Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, 3 According to the police report, a witness said Applicant pointed the firearm outside his vehicle at another vehicle so that Applicant’s girlfriend’s vehicle could enter a line of traffic. (SOR response) The witness took a picture of his license plate and called the police. 5 “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President, Secretary of Defense, and DNI have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b). 6 Analysis Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern stating: 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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. For SOR ¶ 1.c, AG ¶ 16 describes one condition that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, “(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 national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.”4 Applicant admitted that on March 27, 2014, he failed to disclose his December 30, 2011 arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession, and his marijuana use on his employer’s prescreening questionnaire. AG ¶ 16(a) is established with respect to his omissions on his March 27, 2014 prescreening questionnaire. AG ¶ 17(b) can mitigate security concerns pertaining to omission of information on his May 27, 2014 prescreening questionnaire: (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully. 4 The Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases, stating: (a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to present evidence to explain the omission. ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 (App. Bd. June 9, 2004)). 7 The DOHA Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows: Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013). Applicant’s attorney advised him that under state law his December 30, 2011 marijuana arrest became a closed record, and Applicant interpreted this to mean that he did not have to disclose it on his employer’s prescreening questionnaire. Once he learned it was necessary to disclose it, he did so on his December 17, 2014 SCA, and he discussed the offense during his October 22, 2015 OPM PSI. SOR ¶ 1.c is mitigated. AG ¶ 16 describes three conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: (c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue 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 the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; (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 individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior . . . ; (3) a pattern of . . . rule violations; and (e) personal conduct . . . that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing. 8 In July 2014, Applicant, his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s mother, and his seven-year- old son were threatened in a road-rage incident. Applicant displayed a firearm and successfully deescalated the risk of injury. He denied that he pointed the firearm at anyone. Missouri Revised Statute Sections 571.030(4) and (5) state a person commits an offense if he or she knowingly: (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense. Applicant was arrested for displaying a firearm; however, he believed he was acting in self defense. He was never charged. The statute of limitations has expired. From his description of his conduct in the road-rage incident, he was not intoxicated, and he was not using a firearm in “an angry or threatening manner.” This firearms offense is not substantiated. Applicant possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and he used marijuana5 in December 2011 while holding a security clearance. AG ¶ 16(d) is not established because his drug offenses are explicitly covered under the drug involvement guideline. AG ¶ 16(e) is not established because his involvement with marijuana and drug paraphernalia in December 2011 does not create a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress because security and law enforcement officials are aware of it. AG ¶ 17 provides seven conditions that could mitigate security concerns in this case: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully; (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; 5 Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, as referred to in the Controlled Substances Act are contained in 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). Marijuana is a Schedule (Sch.) I controlled substances. See Drug Enforcement Administration listing at http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308 11.htm. See also Gonzales v. Raish, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (discussing placement of marijuana on Schedule I). 9 (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; (e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; (f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and (g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations. AG ¶ 17(c) can mitigate security concerns when drug offenses are not recent. There are no “bright line” rules for determining when such 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). 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.”6 There is no evidence of Applicant’s involvement with illegal drugs or 6 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 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, affirmed the administrative judge’s decision to revoke an applicant’s security clearance after considering 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. 10 drug paraphernalia after December 2011. More than five years have elapsed since he was involved with marijuana and his marijuana involvement is not recent. His drug involvement happened on one occasion since 1995, and “it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on [his] reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” AG ¶ 17(c) applies to SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, and personal conduct security concerns are mitigated. 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(d): (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), “[t]he ultimate determination” of whether to grant a security clearance “must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines” and the whole-person concept. My comments under Guideline E are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is a 41-year-old software integration tester, and he has been employed by a DOD contractor since 2000. He served in the Marine Corps from 1995 to 2000, and he received an honorable discharge as a sergeant. He received a bachelor’s degree in aviation management and a master’s degree in business administration. Applicant volunteers and coaches youth sports. His performance evaluations, character statements, certificates of recognition, appreciation awards, or pride awards, and cash award support approval of his access to classified information. There is no evidence of security violations. In December 2011, Applicant possessed drug paraphernalia, possessed marijuana, and used marijuana, and he was arrested for these offenses. He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. He successfully completed two years of probation and the offense became a “closed record.” In July 2014, he was arrested for a firearms offense; however, the firearms offense did not result in a charge, and he was acting in self defense. He disclosed his marijuana charge and his arrest for the firearms offense on his In ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 8 (App. Bd. May 14, 2004), the Appeal Board reversed an unfavorable security clearance decision because the administrative judge failed to explain why drug use was not mitigated after the passage of more than six years from the previous drug abuse. 11 December 17, 2014 SCA, and he discussed the offenses during his October 22, 2015 OPM PSI. I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Personal conduct security concerns are mitigated. 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 E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: For Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. _________________________ Mark Harvey Administrative Judge