KEYWORD: Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He used marijuana a few
times a year from 1977 to July 2005.  He has held a security clearance since March 2001.  He did
not include his use of marijuana or use while holding a security clearance on his two security
clearance applications.  Clearance is denied. 
 
CASENO: 06-08400.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-08400
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
THOMAS M. CREAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He used marijuana a few times
a year from 1977 to July 2005.  He has held a security clearance since March 2001.  He did not
Item 7 (Security Clearance Application, dated August 25, 2000).1
Item 4 (Security Clearance Application, dated August 25, 2004).2
2
include his use of marijuana or use while holding a security clearance on his two security clearance
applications.  Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision to deny a security clearance for Applicant.  The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1990), as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 10, 2006.  The SOR alleges security concerns
under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 28, 2006.  He admitted two and denied
two of the allegations under Guideline H, and denied the allegations under Guideline E, providing
an explanation for his actions.  He elected to have the matter decided on the written record in lieu
of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on February 22, 2007.
Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on March 14, 2007, and was
provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
disqualifying conditions.  His response was due April 13, 2007.  As of April 30, 2007, he had not
responded.  The case was assigned to me on April 30, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 48-year-old supervisory signal technician for a defense contractor.  He has
worked for the same employer for over 27 years.  He is married with one step-daughter.  Applicant
submitted two security clearance applications at different times, an electronic version in 2000,  and1
a paper version in 2004.2
Applicant admitted he used marijuana until he completed high school in 1977.  He told
investigators he started using marijuana in 1977 or 1978.  He admitted using marijuana only a few
times since graduating from high school, averaging two or three times yearly.  He stated he is not a
habitual user.  He used marijuana in social situations or at concerts, and his consumption did not
have an effect on him.  He only took a puff when offered so he could be part of the event or group.
Item 3, Response to SOR, dated August 28,2006, Item 6 (Investigation Testimonies, dated August 8, 2005,3
to August 12, 2005).
Item 3 (Response to SOR, dated August 28, 2006) at 4.4
Item 5 (Interrogatories, dated July 7, 2006).5
Item 3 (Response to SOR, dated August 28, 2006) at 4.6
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
Directive ¶ E2.2.1.8
3
He did not use marijuana to satisfy a need for a drug or to get high.   He did not feel his use under3
the circumstances qualified as drug use, and his use does not show a consistent pattern.   Applicant4
noted he had indiscretions in the past on vacation or holidays that did not affect his work
performance or ability to deliver services to his customers.5
He told investigators that he purchased marijuana at least three times during his years of use.
In response to the SOR, he stated a friend brought food and beverage for a gathering and also had
marijuana to share.  He gave the friend some money to cover the food and beverage expenses, and
he told him to keep the change for the marijuana.  He did not take possession of the marijuana and
did not consider his actions as purchasing marijuana.6
Applicant admitted he used marijuana on June 18, 2005, and July 10, 2005.  At the time,
Applicant had a security clearance granted on March 3, 2001.  Applicant responded “No” to question
27 on both security clearance applications, asking if in the last seven years he illegally used any
controlled substance.  He admitted using marijuana, a controlled substance, a few times a year from
1977 until July 2005.  In 2000 and 2004, he had used marijuana in the last seven years.  Applicant
also answered “NO” to question 28 on the August 25, 2004, security clearance application asking
if he ever used illegal drugs while possessing a security clearance.  He has held a security clearance
since 2001.
POLICIES
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national
security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . .
that will give that person access to such information.”   Eligibility for a security clearance is7
predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive.8
The Directive sets out the adjudicative guidelines for making decisions on security clearances.
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines for determining eligibility for access
to classified information, and it lists the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions for each
guideline.  Each clearance decision must be fair, impartial, and a commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors listed in the
Directive ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6.
Id.9
Directive ¶¶ E2.2.1.1 through E2.2.1.9.10
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.11
Directive ¶ E3.1.14.12
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.13
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 14
ISCR Case No. 99-0597 (App. Bd. Dec 13, 2000).15
ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct. 7,16
1993))
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Directive ¶ E2.2.2.17
4
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.  An administrative
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider: (1) the nature, extent, and9
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the applicant’s age and maturity at the
time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation
and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation of recurrence.10
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the
government.  The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to classified information.  The decision to deny an individual a
security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.   It is merely11
an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the Applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.12
Thereafter, Applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate
facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the13
national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”   The government is under no duty to14
present evidence to disprove any Adjudicative Guideline mitigating condition, and an Administrative
Judge cannot assume or infer that any particular mitigating condition is applicable merely because the
government does not present evidence to disprove that particular mitigating condition.   “[T]he15
Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the
criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.”   “Any doubt as to whether access to16
classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” 17
5
Based upon a consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guidelines most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline H - Drug Involvement:  Improper or illegal involvement with drugs, raises questions
regarding an individual’s willingness or ability to protect classified information.  Drug abuse or
dependence may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an unauthorized
disclosure of classified information.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct:  A security concern exists for conduct involving questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations.  Any of these characteristics in a person could indicate that the person may not
properly safeguard classified information.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which
would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guidelines are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions section below.
CONCLUSIONS
I carefully considered all of the factors in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Applicant’s use of marijuana from 1977 until 2005, and providing money to friends who
purchased marijuana  raises Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition (DC) E2.A8.1.2.1 (Any drug
abuse), and DC E.A8.1.2.2 (Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution).  Applicant admitted using marijuana in high school in 1977 or1978.
He admitted using marijuana twice yearly since then.  He admitted using marijuana in June and July
2005.  He also reimbursed friends who purchased the marijuana.  Even though he may not have
directly paid for or purchased the marijuana, his actions in reimbursing the friend for the purchase of
the marijuana is the same as purchasing.  The government has established the disqualifying conditions.
I have considered all of the Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions (MC) and determine none
apply.  He admits to last using marijuana in July 2005.  He used marijuana a few times a year since
1977.  His use less than two years ago is recent, and his repeated use a few times a year shows his use
was not aberrational behavior or an isolated event.  MC E2.A8.1.3.1 (The drug involvement was not
recent), and MC E2.A8.1.3.2 (The drug abuse was an isolated or aberrational event) do not apply.
While Applicant states he will not use drugs in the future, he has presented no information to
demonstrate any actions to show his statement is meaningful.  A statement not to use in the future is
not sufficient to establish a demonstrated intent.  He has not presented information to mitigate the
security concern for his use of drugs.
There is a security concern under Personal Conduct DC E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission,
concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire,
personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations . . . determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness.)  Deliberate action in providing false information with the intent to
deceive is the security concern.  When Applicant completed the security clearance application, he did
6
not include his use of marijuana within the last seven years on either application.  He stated he could
not remember using marijuana for the seven years preceding his August 2000 application.  He also did
not note he used marijuana while holding a security clearance.  He did not believe his occasional use
constituted or warranted a positive response to the question.  Also, since he did not use drugs with any
consistency, and only on vacation or at social events, and his use of marijuana did not affect his job
performance, he did not feel his use warranted a positive response on the application.  He did not want
his employer to misinterpret any positive answer.  The two questions are direct and straight forward.
They ask if he ever used drugs in the last seven years or while holding a security clearance.  The
questions do not ask if he used marijuana under circumstances that affect his job performance or the
time and circumstances of his use of marijuana.  It is clear he understood the question since he did not
want his employer to misinterpret a positive response.  His failure to correctly respond was deliberate
with an intent to deceive the evaluators of his suitability for a security clearance.  I considered all the
mitigating conditions under personal conduct and determine none apply.  I find against Applicant as
to Personal Conduct.
I have considered Applicant’s conduct under the “whole person” concept.  I considered
Applicant used an illegal drug over a period of time and while holding a security clearance.  He then
deliberately lied about the use to deceive investigators.  He presented no information to mitigate or
refute his use of marijuana.  I find he is not eligible for access to classified information.
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
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is denied
7
Thomas M. Crean
Administrative Judge