1 
 
 
 
                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
  (Redacted)  )   ISCR Case No. 16-01422 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant used marijuana from February 2015 to December 2016 under his state’s medical 
marijuana program, including after he had informed the Department of Defense that he had no 
intention to use marijuana in the future. After losing his home to foreclosure in 2012, he owed a 
charge-off balance on a second mortgage. While his financial situation has stabilized, he has not 
provided documentation showing that his old delinquencies have been resolved. The financial 
considerations and drug involvement security concerns are not yet fully mitigated. Clearance is 
denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On October 3, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD 
CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under 
Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse), Guideline F (financial considerations), and 
Guideline E (personal conduct), and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant or continue security clearance eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the 
action under Executive Order (EO) 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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
On November 1, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR allegations and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On March 
 
2 
 
2, 2017, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine whether it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On March 
9, 2017, I scheduled a hearing for March 28, 2017. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Before the introduction of any evidence, Department 
Counsel withdrew the Guideline E allegations in the SOR. Four Government exhibits (GEs 1, 3-5) 
were admitted in evidence. Proposed GE 2, a summarized report of subject interview, was 
withdrawn by Department Counsel after Applicant objected. GE 3, an incident report filed by 
Applicant’s employer, was admitted over Applicant’s concerns about its accuracy. Applicant testified, 
as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on April 5, 2017. 
 
I held the record open after the hearing for documents from Applicant. On April 25, 2017, 
Applicant submitted his medical record, which was admitted without objection as Applicant exhibit 
(AE) A. At Applicant’s request, I extended the deadline for Applicant to submit his credit report, 
which was received on May 5, 2017. Department Counsel indicated on May 8, 2017, that the 
Government did not object to its admission. I admitted the document as AE B and closed the record. 
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued 
Security Executive Agent (SecEA) Directive 4 establishing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines 
(AG) applicable to all covered individuals who require national security eligibility. The AG supersede 
the adjudicative guidelines implemented in September 2006 and are effective for any adjudication 
made on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have adjudicated Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility under the new AG.1 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline H that Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency 
from at least February 2015 to October 2015 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that Applicant intends to continue to use 
marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.b), and that he tested positive for marijuana in a drug screen administered by 
his current employer (SOR ¶ 1.c). Under Guideline F, Applicant allegedly owed a $40,176 charged-
off loan (SOR ¶ 2.a); a past-due utility debt of $659 (SOR ¶ 2.b); wireless phone debts of $437 
(SOR ¶ 2.c) and $106 (SOR ¶ 2.f) in collection; a $399 electric utility debt in collection (SOR ¶ 2.d); 
and a $116 medical debt (SOR ¶ 2.e). Applicant denied the allegations in the SOR, SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.f 
because they had been paid. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 45-year-old welder who has worked for his current employer, a defense 
contractor, since June 2015. He married his cohabitant girlfriend in June 2016. He has two sons, 
who are now ages 12 and 5, who reside with him and his spouse. Applicant seeks his first DOD 
security clearance. (GE 1; Tr. 39-40, 56.)  
 
 On May 18, 2015, Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of a Questionnaire for 
National Security Positions (SF 86). Applicant disclosed a felony conviction from 1991, for which he 
                                                          
1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this 
case. 
3 
 
was incarcerated for ten years.2 He listed no drug involvement or financial issues of potential 
security concern. (GE 1.) 
 
Drug Involvement 
 
 Applicant reported during a pre-employment physical examination for his current job that he 
had a medical marijuana card. (AE A; Tr. 45-46.) On May 22, 2015, Applicant’s employer filed an 
incident report advising the DOD that Applicant was in possession of a state-issued medical 
marijuana card and that Applicant failed to acknowledge that fact on his security clearance 
application. (GE 3.)  
 
 Applicant had a valid medical marijuana card from January 21, 2015, to January 21, 2017, to 
address chronic pain issues. He had shoulder surgery in June 2006 and knee surgery in September 
2012 following a fall from a scaffold at work in May 2012. Applicant had taken prescribed narcotics 
with unpleasant side effects. On November 8, 2014, a physician certified that Applicant had severe, 
debilitating, chronic pain in his right knee and left shoulder, which qualified him for the medical 
marijuana program. (AE A; Tr. 37-38, 43-44, 50.) When Applicant applied for enrollment in the 
state’s medical marijuana program, he was informed in writing about marijuana as a medication, 
including that “possession of cannabis is still currently illegal under federal law.” Applicant certified 
that he understood. (AE A.) 
 
 Applicant used marijuana in edible form or by smoking approximately once or twice a week 
from February 2015 to December 2016.3 (AE A; Tr. 52.) Applicant obtained his marijuana from 
plants cultivated in his home by a friend for him or from a dispensary. (Tr. 38, 88.) He testified that 
under the medical marijuana program, he could legally grow 50 plants, of which half could be in a 
vegetative state. (Tr. 87-88.) Applicant took a pre-employment drug screen (hair follicle test), which 
he submits was negative for marijuana because he would not have been hired if he had tested 
positive for the drug. (Tr. 56-61.) He attributed the negative drug screen to the fact that he used 
“very little” of the drug. (Tr. 59.) Applicant was not told that it was contrary to his employer’s drug-free 
workplace policy to use marijuana legally for a valid medical reason. (Tr. 47-48.) 
 
 Applicant received the SOR on October 13, 2016, advising him of the Government’s 
concerns about his use of marijuana. He indicated in response on November 1, 2016, that he did 
not intend to use marijuana in the future. (Answer.) He sought assistance from security personnel at 
work when completing his response and was told that it would be in his best interest to not use 
marijuana and to not renew his eligibility for the medical marijuana program if he wanted a security 
clearance. (Tr. 53, 83.) Applicant testified that he “followed that advice.” (Tr. 53.) When asked why 
he used marijuana in December 2016 after he had received the SOR and denied any intention of 
                                                          
2 The SOR did not allege and criminal conduct, presumably because of the passage of time. Under Appendix 
B of the SecEA Directive 4, the “Bond Amendment” prohibition against granting or renewing access to 
individuals convicted of a crime punished by a sentence of more than one year in prison and who were 
incarcerated for not less than one year only applies to covered individuals seeking access to sensitive 
compartmented information (SCI), special access programs (SAP), or restricted data (RD). There is no 
evidence that Applicant is seeking such access so the prohibition does not apply. 
 
3 Applicant testified discrepantly about the frequency of his marijuana use. When asked about his OPM 
interview, Applicant confirmed that he had told the investigator that he used it once a month. (Tr. 41.) Yet, 
when asked about him obtaining his medical marijuana card in 2015 and use once a month, Applicant 
responded, “I didn’t even tell him once a month, I don’t even know where he got once a month from. But it was 
actually—I actually, it was like once a week.” (Tr. 52.) 
4 
 
future use, Applicant indicated that he did not realize his marijuana use was problematic because 
his employer knew that he had a medical marijuana card when he was hired. (Tr. 80-81.) 
 
 At his hearing in March 2017, Applicant denied any use of marijuana before he obtained his 
medical marijuana card. (Tr. 80.) He expressed an intention not to use marijuana in the future 
because he values his job with his employer. A security clearance would open opportunities for a 
better position. (Tr. 53-55.) In an apparent reference to his criminal past, he acknowledged that he 
had “got in a lot of trouble” when he was young, and he wants to set a good example for his children 
and continue to contribute to society. (Tr. 85-86.) He did not renew his eligibility for the state’s 
medical marijuana program. (Tr. 37.) He has not had any marijuana in his home since December 
2016. (Tr. 88.) 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 Applicant was employed as an insulation technician when he bought a home in March 2006. 
He obtained a primary mortgage loan of $152,000 and a second mortgage loan of $38,000. Six 
months later, he began working as a welder. He made timely monthly payments of approximately 
$711 on the primary mortgage and $398 on the second mortgage. (GEs 1, 4.) 
 
 Applicant had a significant period of unemployment, although there is discrepant information 
in the record about the dates. He indicated on his May 18, 2015 SF 86 that he was employed until 
February 2011, when his then employer closed its business. He reported that he was unemployed 
through August 2013. (GE 1.) Available medical records indicate that he was employed in 2012, so it 
is likely that he out of work from 2009 until 2012, as he testified at his hearing. (Tr. 33.) 
 
 Applicant made no payments on his mortgage loans after January 2011. In August 2011, the 
holder of the second mortgage charged off a loan balance of $40,176 (SOR ¶ 2.a). In January 2012, 
the holder of his primary mortgage foreclosed on his home and closed his account. The home was 
sold, and Applicant was not held liable for any deficiency balance on that loan. (GEs 4, 5; AE B; Tr. 
33-34, 66.) 
 
 Applicant made no payments on a $116 medical debt incurred in December 2008 and placed 
for collection in August 2009 (SOR ¶ 2.e) or on a $659 telephone services (SOR ¶ 2.b) debt from 
May 2010. In May 2011, the debt was placed for collection. In February 2011, a $399 electric utility 
debt (SOR ¶ 2.d) was placed for collection for nonpayment since December 2010. A $437 wireless 
phone debt incurred in June 2011 (SOR ¶ 2.c) went unpaid. In August 2012, another cell phone 
provider assigned a $106 debt (SOR ¶ 2.f) for collection. (GE 4.) 
 
 As of April 2016, the $40,176 charged-off second mortgage was still on Applicant’s credit 
record.4 (GE 5.) In the process of purchasing a new home, he retained the services of a credit repair 
company to have the debt removed from his credit report. He was told that he was not required to 
pay the debt because it had been charged off. (Tr. 68-69.) Applicant was disputing the $659 
reported telephone delinquency (SOR ¶ 1.b) on his credit record. His credit report showed no other 
past-due debts. He was making timely payments on a charge account with a balance of $9,458 as of 
March 2016. He was an authorized user on another revolving charge account with a $249 balance. 
(GE 5.) 
 
                                                          
4 Applicant surmised at the hearing that the $40,000 was the deficiency balance on his mortgage after the 
bank foreclosed and sold his home at auction. (Tr. 68.) Available credit reports indicate that it was a second 
mortgage that was paid on time until February 2011. (AE GE 4.) 
5 
 
 In late April 2016, Applicant and his spouse bought a house for $218,000. (Tr. 79.) Applicant 
obtained an FHA mortgage loan for $214,787, to be repaid at $1,703 monthly. He had no history of 
late payment on the account as of June 2017. In January 2017, Applicant took out a truck loan for 
$15,389, to be repaid at $273 monthly. He bought a 2008 model-year vehicle. His account was 
current with a balance of $14,976 as of April 2017. (AE B; Tr. 66, 72-73.) As of May 2017, Trans 
Union was reporting the defaulted second mortgage on his foreclosed property as “PAID IN 
FULL/WAS A CHARGE OFF,” but also with a balloon payment of $32,800 due on April 1, 2021. The 
credit listing is scheduled to be removed from his credit record in January 2018. (AE B.) 
 
 Applicant’s take-home pay from his defense contractor employment is $785-$800 a week, 
depending on overtime income. His spouse works as a counselor and her income varies. She has a 
car payment of $280 a month. Their monthly utility costs average $400. His spouse pays for bundled 
Internet, telephone, and cable television services, which he estimated at $200-$300 a month. They 
have childcare expenses of $130 a week and medical prescription expenses that fluctuate. (Tr. 72-
77.) He testified that he is an authorized user on his spouse’s credit cards, which had aggregate 
balances of $18,000 to $19,000. (Tr. 77-78.) As of May 2017, Trans Union was reporting that the 
revolving charge with a $9,458 balance in March 2016 had been paid off in December 2016. 
However, the credit card that had a $249 balance in March 2016 had a balance of $9,298 as of April 
2017. The collection accounts that Applicant maintains have been paid (SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.f) were no 
longer on his credit record. (AE B.) However, he presented no documentation corroborating that 
they have been resolved. 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has 
in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing that “no one has a 
‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When 
evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider 
the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the 
adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 
required to be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human 
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of 
variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all 
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires 
that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be 
resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those 
conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Under 
Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged 
in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and 
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by 
Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable 
security decision. 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with 
the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty 
6 
 
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and 
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by 
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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. 
Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, 
Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). 
7 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse 
 
The security concerns about drug involvement and substance misuse are articulated in AG ¶ 
24: 
 
The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and 
non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or 
mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose 
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both 
because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and 
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with 
laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” 
as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this 
guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. 
  
Applicant used marijuana5 under his state’s medical marijuana program on a weekly basis 
from February 2015 to December 2016. His use was legal in his state, and there is no evidence that 
he violated state law by sharing or selling some of the marijuana that he cultivated in his home or 
purchased from an authorized dispensary. However, federal law does not recognize marijuana as 
having any legitimate medical use. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(B) (defining Schedule I drugs as having a 
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. State laws pertaining to marijuana use do 
not alter existing national security adjudicative guidelines, and marijuana use remains against DOD 
policy. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 25(a), “any substance misuse,” and AG ¶ 25(c), “illegal 
possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, 
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia,” apply. 
 
When Applicant responded to the SOR on November 1, 2016, he indicated that he did not 
intend to continue to use marijuana. Concerning his decision to cease his marijuana use, Applicant 
testified in March 2017 that he sought the assistance of security personnel at work to respond to the 
SOR allegations, and he was advised that it would be in his best interest to discontinue his medical 
marijuana use if he wanted a security clearance. His use of marijuana to at least sometime in 
December 2016, after he had denied any intention of future use, implicates the second component 
of AG ¶ 25(g), “expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure to 
clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.” The Government did not meet its 
burden of showing that Applicant tested positive for marijuana in a drug screen for his current 
employer, so AG ¶ 25(b), “testing positive for an illegal drug,” was not established. 
 
Applicant’s use of marijuana on a weekly basis to December 2016 was neither so infrequent 
nor so far in the past to be mitigated under AG ¶ 26(a), which provides: 
 
                                                          
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 I drug. Despite some states providing for medical 
marijuana use or the decriminalization or legalization of recreational use of minor amounts of the 
drug, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Such drugs have a 
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
lack accepted safety for using the drug under medical supervision.   
  
8 
 
(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. 
 
 Medical records in evidence (AE A) show that Applicant disclosed to his employer during his 
pre-employment physical examination that he was using cannabis “once per week to twice per 
week” under his state’s medical marijuana program. AG ¶ 26(b) has some applicability in that 
Applicant acknowledges his drug involvement. He has taken steps “to overcome this problem” by 
not renewing his medical marijuana card. Applicant testified under advisement of Title 18, Section 
1001 of the United States Code that he does not intend to use marijuana in the future because his 
job is important to him. AG ¶ 26(b) provides: 
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or drug involvement and substance misuse, 
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a 
pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: 
 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; 
 
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and 
 
(3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all illegal drug involvement 
and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is 
grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. 
 
 There is no evidence that Applicant used any marijuana after December 2016. However, his 
three months without marijuana as of his hearing is too short to establish the pattern of abstinence 
under AG ¶ 26(b), especially given that his marijuana use continued after he indicated in response 
to the SOR that he did not intend any future use. He testified that he did not realize the concern 
about not complying with his stated intention because, while his employer had told him that it would 
be in his best interest to abstain, his employer had hired him knowing that he used marijuana under 
his state’s medical marijuana program. Even if Applicant assumed that his employer had no problem 
with his marijuana use because he used it legally in his state,6 Applicant had reason to doubt that 
the federal government felt the same way after he received the SOR. He claimed to not know that 
marijuana use was prohibited under federal law. (Tr. 84.) However, his medical records (AE A) 
reveal that when he applied for the medical marijuana program, Applicant certified that he 
understood that marijuana use was still illegal under federal law. Whether or not he was expressly 
told by his employer or the OPM investigator that medical marijuana use was prohibited under 
federal law and DOD policy, he raised some doubt about his ability to abide by stated commitments 
by continuing to use marijuana after denying any intention of future use. The drug involvement 
security concerns raised by his medical marijuana use are not yet fully mitigated. 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are articulated in AG ¶ 18: 
                                                          
6 Applicant testified that his employer did not inform him that his marijuana use was incompatible with his 
employment: 
 
I mean, why would they? They knew about it, they still hired me. So that would almost be like 
a contradiction to hire me knowing that I have a medical marijuana cad, and then being in 
there and they turn around and say you know, you can’t do this and this, that, that, and the 
other. I mean, in my mind that’s kind of a contradiction. (Tr. 54.) 
9 
 
 
Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may 
indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and 
regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial 
distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator 
of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental 
health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual 
who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or 
otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained 
by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from 
criminal activity, including espionage. 
 
 The Government met its burden of establishing a prima facie case for disqualification 
because Applicant defaulted on the mortgage debt, utility (telephone and electric services) debts, 
and medical debt in the SOR. Although he denied the debts when he answered the SOR, he 
admitted that he had incurred the delinquencies. His denial was based on the charge off of his loan 
on the foreclosed property and claimed payment of the smaller delinquencies. All of the debts in the 
SOR were listed as seriously past due on his June 2015 credit report. Only the $40,176 charged-off 
second mortgage (SOR ¶ 2.a) and $659 telephone debt (SOR ¶ 2.b) were on his Equifax credit 
report as of April 2016 (GE 5), but debts may not be reported to all three credit reporting agencies or 
they may have dropped off a credit report because of the passage of time or other reason. 
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “history of not 
meeting financial obligations,” apply. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” applies in that the delinquencies were incurred more than five 
years ago with the possible exception of the $106 wireless phone debt in SOR ¶ 2.f, which was 
assigned for collection in August 2012.Yet, AG ¶ 20(a) does not mitigate the financial irresponsibility 
exhibited when debts continue to be neglected. The wireless telephone debt in SOR ¶ 2.c was 
placed for collection in January 2015 more than four years after it first came due. The telephone 
debt in SOR ¶ 2.b from May 2010 was still in collection as of March 2015. Applicant was disputing 
that debt as of April 2016, but he presented no evidence to substantiate or explain the basis of his 
dispute that could trigger AG ¶ 20(d).7  
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) Applicant’s job layoff and subsequent lengthy unemployment are circumstances 
that credibly explain his default of his second mortgage. AG ¶ 20(b) provides: 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the 
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected 
medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory 
lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the 
circumstances. 
 
                                                          
7 AG ¶ 20(e) provides: 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which 
is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the 
dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
10 
 
 Applicant testified that he was unemployed for about three years after being laid off in 2009. 
His SF 86 report of unemployment from February 2011 to August 2013 cannot be easily reconciled 
with his medical records (AE A) from 2012, which indicate that he was working as a welder for a 
marine company at that time. Applicant’s credit reports show that he stopped making his mortgage 
payments in early 2011, which would have been either immediately after he lost his job based on his 
SF 86 dates or a year or so into his unemployment if his current recollection of his unemployment is 
more accurate. The second mortgage was charged off in July 2011, when Applicant was 
unemployed. The debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.d are likewise from 2010-2011. Depending on when 
Applicant was unemployed, lack of income could explain why a $116 medical debt from December 
2008 was placed for collection in August 2009. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) requires that an individual act responsibly under the circumstances. In that 
regard, credit reports show that Applicant’s second mortgage was charged off when he was 
unemployed, six months after he stopped paying. There is no evidence that Applicant made any 
payments on the defaulted loan after he resumed working. Applicant testified that he had no contact 
with the creditor, but that he was told by the OPM investigator, by a credit repair company, and by 
his company that gave him a mortgage for his current home in April 2016 that he did not have to 
repay the mortgage loan because it was charged off in August 2011. His latest credit report of May 
2017 discrepantly indicates the account as paid in full with a payment received of $32,880, but also 
that a balloon payment of $32,880 is due on April 2, 2021. The credit entry is scheduled to be 
removed from his record in January 2018. There is no evidence that Applicant is currently being 
pursued for any balance on the loan, but Applicant also took no steps to either address the loan or 
ensure that he had no legal liability after his primary mortgage lender foreclosed on the property. 
  AG ¶ 20(c), “he person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from a 
legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service and there are clear 
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” and AG ¶ 20(d), ‘the individual 
initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” 
could have some applicability if Applicant paid the smaller debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.f as he claims. He 
presented no documentation showing any payments of even the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.e and 2.f, which 
are under $120. He was reportedly disputing the $659 telephone debt (SOR ¶ 2.b) as of April 2016. 
If his dispute was based on payment, he should have been able to produce some record showing 
that it has been satisfied. The absence of the collection debts from Applicant’s Trans Union credit 
report of May 2017 does not necessarily mean that they have been paid. Debts may not be reported 
to all three of the credit reporting companies. Applicant’s June 2015 credit report, which did not 
include any credit information from Trans Union, indicates that the collection information about the 
accounts in SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.f came only from Equifax. The collection debt in SOR ¶ 2.f was 
reported only by Experian. 
 
 The charge-off of the second mortgage in August 2011 did not preclude Applicant from 
obtaining a mortgage for his current residence in April 2016 or a car loan in January 2017. Applicant 
has made timely payments on his mortgage and car loans, but I cannot ignore Appeal Board 
precedent, which requires that “a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.”8 The SOR debts may have become seriously 
                                                          
8 The DOHA Appeal Board stated in ISCR Case No. 07-06482, decided on May 21, 2008, in part: 
 
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of 
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through 
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). 
However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off 
each and every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd. 
Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate[s] that he has “. . . 
11 
 
delinquent because of unemployment, but Applicant also took no steps to address his loans on the 
home lost to foreclosure. Applicant’s financial situation appears to have stabilized in that he is 
meeting his current obligations, but he has not demonstrated a track record of debt reduction for the 
debts in the SOR. The financial considerations security concerns are not fully 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 his conduct and all relevant 
circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d).9 In making the 
overall commonsense determination required under AG ¶ 2(a), I cannot ignore that Applicant held a 
medical marijuana card that qualified him to use marijuana for medical purposes in his state. He was 
upfront with his employer about his marijuana use and possession of a medical marijuana card. 
However, it is most troubling that Applicant continued to use marijuana after he had informed the 
DOD that he did not intend any future marijuana use. Applicant may no longer have any intention to 
use marijuana, but he raised doubts about whether the Government can reasonably rely on his 
representations. It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security 
clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security 
clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990). For the reasons 
discussed, I am unable to conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
Applicant security clearance eligibility at this time.  
  
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 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.f:  Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 3, Guideline E:  Withdrawn 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to 
implement that plan.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). 
 
9 The factors under AG ¶ 2(d) are as follows:  
  
(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. 
12 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national 
interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge