Applicant's illegal use of marijuana from 1990 until 1994, and again in July 2002, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

On Remand. It is found that the Department of Defense did not have jurisdiction over the Applicant when the original Decision was issued on April 23, 2003. That is because a valid Form 562 (Clearance Change Notification) terminating the Applicant's pending application for a security clearance was properly submitted to the Department of Defense on December 10, 2002. Decision of April 23, 2002, is found null and void. Prior Decision Vacated.

Applicant is a 56 year old employee of a defense contractor. He was born in Sudan in 1947, and he first came to the United States in 1975. He became a naturalized United States citizen in 1986. Applicant's immediate family members, including his father, parents-in law, and his seven siblings are citizens of and reside in Sudan. The evidence establishes that Applicant is vulnerable to foreign influence. By not mitigating these foreign influence security concerns, Applicant failed to demonstrate it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance. Clearance is denied.

Applicant's use of her Russian passport in August 2001 and August 2003, after she received her United States (U.S.) citizenship in August 2000 represent affirmative acts of preference for a foreign country over the U.S. The fear Applicant's father has that the Russian government taps phones or reads letters places Applicant's parents in a position to be exploited by a foreign government in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty to his parents and the U.S. Clearance is denied.

Although Applicant's financial difficulties were partly beyond his control, his own poor judgment and deliberate choices were the main source of his problem. He was slow to take effective action to resolve his indebtedness once he had the means to do so. His falsification of his clearance application suggest he cannot be relied upon to tell the truth if the truth conflicts with his personal interest. Clearance denied.

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Nothing in Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or general principles of federal administrative law give the parties a right to supplement the record evidence continuously. Applicant has failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that the Administrative Judge considered all the record evidence. The Board need not review those findings and conclusions by the Judge that have not been challenged on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.

Applicant's recreational abuse of marijuana from October 1992 to May 1997, with additional use in January 2001, after applying for a clearance, is not mitigated where Applicant's demonstrated intent to refrain from drug abuse varied directly with his perception of personal risk of adverse consequences. However, record does not support allegation of falsification of his previously disclosed drug abuse history on a November 2002 interrogatory. Clearance denied.

Applicant's recreational abuse of marijuana from 1997 to April 2001 was not mitigated where Applicant used marijuana after applying for a clearance in April 2001. Applicant's falsification of his April 2001 clearance application suggests he cannot be relied upon to tell the truth if it conflicts with his personal interest. Clearance denied.

The security concerns raised by a 32-year-old Bangladesh-born naturalized U.S. citizen Applicant (also a citizen of France) with a French-born mother (a citizen and resident of France), a deceased Bangladesh-born father, a brother residing in South America (a dual citizen of France and the United Kingdom), and a sister-in-law serving in the foreign service of Finland (a citizen of Finland) residing in South America, with whom he retains close relationships, none of whom are agents of that foreign government (except the sister-in-law) or in a position to be exploited by the governments of France, United Kingdom, or Finland, have been mitigated by the evidence developed herein. Clearance is granted.

Applicant's wife and stepson are citizens of Thailand living with applicant in the United States. Neither these immediate family members nor applicant's in-laws living in Thailand raise a significant security concern under Guideline B. Clearance is granted.