1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-00228 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, I find that Applicant did not 
mitigate personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on July 31, 2014, to retain a security clearance required for her duties with a 
defense contractor. A security investigator from the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) interviewed Applicant on October 11, 2016. The government also sent Applicant 
interrogatories, which she answered on March 1, 2017. After reviewing the results of the 
background investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns for personal conduct 
(Guideline E) on April 11, 2017. The SOR alleges that Applicant used marijuana while 
being eligible for access to classified information, and that she provided false responses 
do drug misuse questions on the e-QIP and to questions from a security investigator. 
The actions was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense 
2 
 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant provided a detailed answer to the SOR on May 18, 2017. She admitted 
with explanation to the use of marijuana and to providing false information to the 
security investigator. She denied with explanation the allegation that she provided false 
information on the e-QIP. Applicant requested that her case be considered on the 
record. (Item 4) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on June 
14, 2017. (Item 11) Applicant received a complete copy of relevant material (FORM) 
consisting of ten items on June 28, 2017. She was provided the opportunity to file 
objections and to submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying 
conditions. She provided additional material in response to the FORM on July 25, 2017. 
(Item 12) Department Counsel had no objection to consideration of the additional 
material. (Item 13) I was assigned the case on October 23, 2017. 
 
The Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, 
establishing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for 
access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs) which 
are applicable to all individuals requiring initial or continued eligibility for access to 
classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede 
the September 1, 2006 AGs and were effective on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I 
have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject 
Interview (PSI) with an OPM investigator (Item 6) was not authenticated and could not 
be considered over her objection. She was further advised that she could make any 
corrections, additions, or deletions to the summary to make it clear and accurate, and 
could object to the admission of the summary as not authenticated by a Government 
witness. She was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the summary, 
the administrative judge could determine that she waived any objection to the 
admissibility of the PSI summary. Applicant did not object to consideration of the PSI in 
her response to the FORM. Since she did not raise any objection to consideration of the 
PSI. I considered information in the PSI in my decision. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following 
additional findings of fact. Applicant is 30 years old. She is a college graduate with a 
bachelor’s degree awarded in May 2009. She is not married. She has been employed 
as an auditor and accountant by a defense contractor since April 2009. She was 
granted eligibility for access to classified information in October 2009. (Item 5, e-QIP, 
dated July 31, 2014; Item 6, PSI, dated October 11, 2016) 
3 
 
The SOR details three allegations under the personal conduct security concern 
(Guideline E). SOR 1.a alleges that Applicant used marijuana on at least one occasion 
while holding a Top Secret DOD security clearance. SOR 1.b alleges that Applicant 
falsified facts on the e-QIP completed on July 31, 2014, by answering “no” to question 
23 asking if in the last seven years, she used a drug or controlled substance. SOR 1.c 
alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in the PSI by informing the investigator that 
she only used marijuana on one occasion in 2009. (Item 1)  
 
Applicant completed her e-QIP in April 2009. In response to drug use questions 
on the e-QIP, she denied using any illegal substance in the previous seven years. 
Based on the information she provided on the e-QIP and a background investigation, 
she was granted eligibility for access to classified information in October 2009. (Item 9 
and 10) In February 2014, Applicant completed a security clearance application for 
another government agency. She admitted using marijuana on one occasion in October 
2013. (Item 8) 
 
In July 2014, Applicant completed another e-QIP for a DOD agency. In response 
to the drug use question on the e-QIP, she denied using marijuana in the previous 
seven years or at least not since July 2007. (Item 5) Applicant was interviewed by a 
security agent in October 2016. She denied in the interview using an illegal substance in 
the last seven years. The security agent asked her about her response on the security 
application for the other government agency. Applicant again denied using marijuana in 
October 2013, but admitted she had used marijuana in the spring of 2009 to celebrate 
her college graduation. In her response to DOD interrogatories concerning her drug use 
and her responses concerning her drug use, Applicant explained that she provided false 
information about illegal drug use because she feared losing her security clearance. 
(Item 6) 
 
In responding to the FORM, Applicant took responsibility for her one-time use of 
marijuana in October 2013. She acknowledged she did not disclose her use of 
marijuana for fear of losing her access to classified information. While acknowledging 
that her decision to use marijuana was not right, she stated that the decision does not 
hinder her judgment. She provided a negative test result for drug use. She maintains 
that she is a good citizen, with good character, and has not received any disciplinary 
action. (Item 12) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the Administrative Guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and 
4 
 
common sense decision. 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. 
 
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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
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 burden of persuasion to obtaining 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 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 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 and sensitive 
information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid 
answers during the national security investigation and adjudicative process. (AG ¶ 15). 
Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the person’s 
past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard 
classified or sensitive information.  
 Applicant admitted she used marijuana in October 2013 while being eligible for 
access to classified information. In February 2014, she admitted to another government 
agency on a security clearance application, her use of marijuana in October 2013. In 
July 2014, Applicant denied in a DOD e-QIP that she used marijuana in the previous 
seven years. In an October 2016 PSI, she denied using marijuana in October 2013, but 
admitted using marijuana in the spring 2009. Applicant’s use of marijuana and her 
5 
 
denial of use during the security clearance process raises the following disqualifying 
conditions under AG ¶16: 
(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; 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information, or concealing or 
omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, 
investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health 
professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national 
security eligibility determination, or other government representative; and  
(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. 
 I considered the following Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶17: 
(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 advise 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;  
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressor, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other appropriate 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; and 
6 
 
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable 
reliability.  
 The mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant admitted that she twice 
deliberately provided falsified information concerning her misuse of marijuana while 
being eligible for access to classified information. The record shows that she made little 
if any effort to tell a consistent, straight, truthful story. She deliberately provided 
inaccurate information because she was concerned about losing her security clearance. 
Since the security clearance process relies on an applicant providing correct 
information, Applicant’s action in providing false information is not a minor offense. The 
information concerning her drug misuse is accurate because it came directly from 
Applicant when she completed a security clearance application for another government 
agency. Applicant presented no information to establish that she acknowledged the 
problem of providing false information or that she obtained counseling to change her 
behavior. 
 The personal conduct security concern is that Applicant “deliberately” did not 
provide correct, true, and accurate information. Applicant admitted that she did not 
provide correct information concerning her misuse of a controlled substance because of 
her fear of losing her eligibility for access to classified information. Applicant not only 
misused a control substance while being eligible for access to classified information but 
she falsified information about her use twice. I find that there is sufficient evidence to 
conclude that Applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified relevant information 
concerning her misuse of an illegal substance on her security questionnaire and to the 
security investigator. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern for her misuse of 
marijuana while being eligible for access to classified information, and then not being 
truthful about her use of the illegal substance. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all relevant 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), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for 
access to classified information must be an overall common-sense judgment based 
upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
7 
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s over eight 
years of service to a defense contractor. The evidence shows a recent use of marijuana 
in 2013 while having eligibility for access to classified information and she failed to 
disclose her marijuana use on two separate. Applicant accepted her responsibility for 
using marijuana while being eligible for access to classified information as well as failing 
to disclose marijuana use when required. Applicant’s use of marijuana under the 
circumstances shows a lack of good judgment. She showed a lack of judgment when 
she did not reveal her prior marijuana use on her e-QIP and to the security investigator.  
 
Applicant has not established that she did not deliberately provide false 
information concerning her drug use on two separate occasions during the security 
clearance process. These facts leave me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s 
judgment and her suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I 
conclude that Applicant has not mitigated drug involvement and personal conduct 
security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c:   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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge