1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
)  ADP Case No. 18-01317 
) 
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Andrew H. Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by her continued marijuana use 
and delinquent debt. She did not intentionally falsify her Public Trust Position 
Applications. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility 
for a position of trust is denied.  
Statement of the Case 
On May 30, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing trustworthiness 
concerns under Guidelines H, F, and E.  (Item 1.) The action was taken under DOD 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); the Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective 
within the DOD for SORs issued after June 8, 2017. 
Applicant answered the SOR on June 20, 2018, and requested a decision on the 
record without a hearing. (Item 1.) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s 
written case on July 18, 2018. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) 
was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 10. She was 
 
 
2 
 
 
given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate 
the Government’s evidence. She received the FORM on July 25, 2018, and did not 
respond. Items 1 through 10 are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned to me 
on December 10, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted the allegations in the SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h, 2.a through 2.o, 
2.q through 2.t, and 3.a, with explanations. She denied SOR ¶¶ 2.p, and 3.b through 3.e. 
(Item 1.)  
 
 Applicant is 42 years old. She earned an associate’s degree in 1997. She listed on 
her April 2016 electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) that she 
has been employed in her present position since May 2001. She occupies a position of 
trust. She was married to her first husband from June 1996 to February 2009. She married 
her second husband in 2010, and has three children and one stepchild. (Item 2; Item 3; 
Item 4.) 
 
 On Applicant’s April 2016 e-QIP, she indicated: “I experimented with several 
different drugs in high school, but the only one that I continued to do beyond high school 
was marijuana and there were stretches of years (including my first marriage) when I did 
not do it out of respect for those around me who do not smoke.” (Item 4.) She estimated 
the dates of use to be June 1991 through April 2016. She further checked the box that 
indicated she intended to engage in this activity in the future and indicated that “while 
there are no specific plans of continuing [to use marijuana], there are also no specific 
plans of avoiding it, either.” (Item 4.)  
 
 During her subject interview conducted on May 23, 2017, Applicant discussed her 
drug use in detail. (Item 5.) She indicated that she used and purchased marijuana at 
varying frequencies since 1991. At the time of the interview, she used marijuana on a 
weekly basis. She used marijuana with her husband and friends. She disclosed that 
between 1991 and 1994 she used cocaine once, LSD three times, and amphetamines at 
varying frequencies. (Item 5.)  
 
 Applicant completed Public Trust Position Applications in July 2003 and March 
2005. Questions 21(a) and 21(b) on those forms asked Applicant if she had used any 
controlled substance within the last year and whether in the past seven years she had 
been involved in the illegal purchase of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, 
or cannabis. She answered all of these questions no. She claimed in her answer to the 
SOR that between March 1994 and May 2008, she did not use or purchase any controlled 
substance to include marijuana. Her claim is credible, as she consistently indicated that 
she did not use marijuana during the course of her first marriage, which corresponds with 
the dates of her Public Trust Position Applications. (Items 2-5.)  
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 Applicant was also alleged to be indebted on 19 delinquent accounts totaling 
$34,656, and to have discharged debt through Chapter 7 bankruptcy in June 2004. These 
debts and the bankruptcy filing were established in the bankruptcy petition and the credit 
reports dated May 6, 2005, June 9, 2016, and July 16, 2018. (Items 7-10.) She attributed 
her debts to her divorce, the need for emergency medical care, and underemployment. 
(Item 5.) 
 
 In Applicant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, filed in March 2004, she listed assets 
totaling $16,053 and liabilities of $64,500. All of her liabilities were unsecured claims. 
They were discharged in June 2004. (Item 10.)  
 
 Of her alleged delinquent debts, a total of $10,102 related to unresolved medical 
accounts, as stated in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d, 1.g through 1.o, 1.q, and 1.s. In her 
answer, she indicated, “I admit that I have many medical bills and am actively making 
payments every month to pay them off. I do not know which of these debts is legitimate 
and/or still outstanding.” She provided nothing further in this regard. Her July 2018 credit 
report listed four delinquent medical accounts, which correspond with SOR ¶¶ 1.k, 1.l, 
1.m, and 1.n. It is unclear if the other medical debts alleged were resolved through 
payment or if they are no longer reported on the credit report due to their age. SOR ¶¶ 
1.a through 1.d, 1.g through 1.o, 1.q, and 1.s are unresolved. (Items 8, 9.) 
 
 Applicant also had four non-medical debts identified on the SOR. She was alleged 
to be delinquent in the amount of $3,707 for a judgment against her by a bank, as stated 
in SOR ¶ 1.e. She satisfied this judgment in January 2013, as reflected on her July 2016 
credit report. She was also alleged to be indebted on a judgment obtained by a utility 
company in the amount of $658 as stated in SOR ¶ 1.f. She satisfied this judgment in 
February 2011, as reflected on her July 2016 credit report. These debts are resolved. 
(Item 8.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.p alleged Applicant was indebted on a repossessed automobile in the 
amount of $16,873. This debt became delinquent in January 2010. Applicant denied this 
debt. She indicated that this debt was incurred by her ex-husband without her knowledge 
or permission. “As soon as [she] discovered the purchase had been made, [she] left him. 
In [their] divorce papers, this is the date of [their] separation.” Applicant presented no 
evidence establishing that she contested this debt with the creditor or credit reporting 
agency. This debt is unresolved. (Item 8.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.r alleged Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $3,316. The 
debt was reported as delinquent in October 2014. She admitted this debt and claimed to 
have set up a payment agreement with this creditor. She provided no documentation of 
that agreement or of any payments made to this creditor. This debt is unresolved. (Items 
5, 8.) 
 
 
  
 
 
4 
 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge 
must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating 
conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for a position of 
trust. 
 
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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire 
process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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.  
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. According to Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant 
is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable [trustworthiness] decision.” 
 
 A person applying for a position of trust seeks to enter 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 national security 
eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant 
may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard sensitive information. Such 
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather 
than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information.  
 
 
  
 
 
5 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse 
 
The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline drug involvement and 
substance misuse is set forth at 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. 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 25 contains seven conditions that could raise a 
trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying. The following conditions are 
established: 
 
(a) any substance misuse (see above definition); 
 
(c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, 
processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of 
drug paraphernalia;  
 
(f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or 
holding a sensitive position; and 
 
(g) expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, 
or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse. 
 
 Appellant smoked marijuana at varying frequencies from 1991 to present. She 
purchased it for her own use and shared it with friends and her current husband. She also 
used LSD, cocaine, and amphetamines at varying frequencies between 1991 and 1994. 
She continued to use marijuana despite occupying a position of trust since 2001, and 
indicated an intent to continue its use. Therefore, AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(c), 25(f), and 25(g) are 
established.  
 
  
 
 
6 
 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 26 contains four conditions that could mitigate 
trustworthiness concerns. Two conditions may be applicable: 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt 
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and 
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her 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 
drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that 
any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of 
national security eligibility. 
 
 Applicant indicated her intent to use marijuana in the future. She uses it with her 
husband and current associates. She has not presented sufficient evidence to support 
any of the mitigating conditions. 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The trustworthiness concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations 
are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:  
 
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. 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes two conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns and 
may be disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Beginning around 2004, Applicant accumulated delinquent debt that she has been 
unable to fully resolve. She discharged liabilities of $64,500 through Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
in June 2004. However, she continued to accrue additional delinquent debt. The majority 
of her 19 delinquent accounts remain unresolved. The evidence raises the above 
trustworthiness concerns, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or 
mitigate those concerns.  
 
 The guideline includes three conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate 
trustworthiness concerns arising from financial problems: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; and 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 Applicant failed to meet her burden to establish that she is addressing the 
remaining 17 delinquent accounts. While there is evidence that ¶ 1.e and 1.f were 
resolved in good faith, there is no evidence that her other debts were repaid or 
otherwise resolved in good faith. She provided no evidence to suggest that future 
delinquencies are unlikely. Her debts are partially attributable to circumstances 
beyond her control like emergency medical care and her divorce, but she has not 
demonstrated reasonable and responsible action to address them, despite being 
fully employed since 2001. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: 
 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
 
 
8 
 
 
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.  
 
Based on Applicant’s alleged deliberate falsification of her e-QIP and drug use, the 
following disqualifying condition could apply: 
 
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; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's 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. 
 
Applicant was truthful on her 2003 and 2005 Public Trust Position Applications. 
She has consistently stated that she did not use marijuana during the course of her first 
marriage, out of respect for her husband who did not use it. The dates of her first marriage 
correspond with the reporting timeframes of one and seven years for drug use and 
purchase. She honestly answered the questions about her past drug use by stating “no” 
on those forms. Therefore, AG ¶ 16(a) is not established. 
 
  Applicant continues to purchase and use marijuana. As a result, she is vulnerable 
to exploitation, manipulation, and duress. The evidence is sufficient to raise AG ¶ 16(e).  
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness concerns. I 
considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 including: 
 
(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 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to 
recur; 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability 
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 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. 
 
 Applicant remains vulnerable to coercion. She produced no evidence of counseling 
or positive steps that would alleviate the risks present from her conduct. Her decision to 
continue to use marijuana demonstrated questionable judgment. None of the above 
mitigating conditions apply. 
  
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility 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.  
 
 According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is 42 years old, and 
has a long history of marijuana use and financial difficulties. She intends to continue using 
marijuana, which casts doubt on her judgment and ability to follow rules and regulations. 
Additionally, Applicant has not established a track record of resolving delinquent debts 
and achieving financial solvency. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with doubt as 
to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, eligibility, and suitability for a position of trust. She 
failed to meet her burden to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised under the 
guidelines for drug involvement and substance misuse, financial considerations, and 
personal conduct. 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
  Paragraph 1, Guideline H:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a through 1.h  Against Applicant 
                  
                   Paragraph 2, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.d  Against Applicant 
Subparagraphs 2.e and 2.f   For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 2.g through 2.s  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.t    For Applicant 
 
  Paragraph 3, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 3.b through 3.e  For 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 public trust 
position. Access to trusted information is denied. 
                                               
  
 
                                              
 
Jennifer Goldstein 
Administrative Judge