KEYWORD: Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant, 29 years old and unmarried, is employed as a software engineer by a defense
contractor. In 2001, he was granted a security clearance.  In approximately 2002, he committed a
security violation by failing to remove and secure computer hard drives containing classified
information at the end of the work day.  Applicant used  marijuana intermittently from 1996 to 2004.
In 2004, when he was 26 and holding a security clearance, he used marijuana with friends at a
concert.  While Applicant mitigated a Guideline E security violation concern, he failed to mitigate
security concerns related to drug use under Guidelines E and H.  Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-12032.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12032
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace L. Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and1
modified.
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program2
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.
Applicant’s original submission consisted of 13 exhibits.  His first exhibit was a copy of the Statement of3
Reasons, dated June 20, 2006.  His second exhibit was his Answer to the Statement of Reasons, dated July 20, 2006. 
Since the Statement of Reasons and Applicant’s Answer to the Statement of Reasons were already in the record , I did
not admit them as Applicant’s exhibits. (See FORM, Items 1 and 3.) 
2
Applicant, 29 years old and unmarried, is employed as a software engineer by a defense
contractor. In 2001, he was granted a security clearance.  In approximately 2002, he committed a
security violation by failing to remove and secure computer hard drives containing classified
information at the end of the work day.  Applicant used  marijuana intermittently from 1996 to 2004.
In 2004, when he was 26 and holding a security clearance, he used marijuana with friends at a
concert.  While Applicant mitigated a Guideline E security violation concern, he failed to mitigate
security concerns related to drug use under Guidelines E and H.  Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant.  On June 20, 2006, under the applicable Executive Order  and Department1
of Defense Directive,  DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its2
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of the Directive.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 20, 2006.  He requested
his case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing.  The Government compiled its File of
Relevant Material (FORM) on March 29, 2007.  The FORM contained documents identified as Items
1 through 5 .  Additionally, one official U.S. Government document, an except entitled “Marijuana,”
printed September 27, 2006, from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration website was offered for
administrative notice. (See http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html.)
On March 29, 2007, a copy of the FORM was forwarded to Applicant, with instructions to
submit any additional information and/or objections within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the
file on April 9, 2007.  On May 10, 2007, Applicant submitted additional information, consisting of a
five-page Discussion and Argument and 11 exhibits.    Department Counsel did not object to the3
admission of Applicant’s Discussion and Argument and exhibits.  On May 22, 2007, the case was
assigned to me for a decision.  After a careful review, I marked Applicant’s Discussion and Argument
as exhibit (Ex.) A, and I marked his 11 exhibits as Exs. B through L and admitted them to the record
of this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains two allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline H, Drug
Involvement, and two allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline E, Personal Conduct.
3
(Item 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all four allegations. (Item 3.)  His admissions
are incorporated as findings of fact.
Applicant is 29 years old and single.  He graduated from college in June 2001 and in July 2001
went to work for employer A, a defense contractor, as a software engineer II.  He was employed by
Employer A until October 2004, when the employer closed the branch Applicant was assigned to.
Rather than go with the branch to another city, Applicant elected not to move and to find a new job.
In approximately 2002, while he was employed by Employer A, Applicant committed a
security violation.  He and another employee failed to remove and secure computer hard drives
containing classified information before leaving the workplace at the end of the work day.  He and the
other employee were given verbal warnings from their employer for the security violation.  Applicant
stated that at the time of the security violation, he and the other employee were working 12 to 14 hour
days to make progress on a project that was behind schedule.  Applicant stated he and his co-worker
armed the proper locks when leaving the work site, even though they had not removed and secured the
hard drives containing classified information as they were required to do.  He speculated he and his
co-worker were guilty of a practice dangerous to security but had not committed a security violation.
(Item 3 at 1-2.)  
In November 2004, Applicant took a job as a software engineer with another defense contractor
(Employer B).  He worked for Employer B until September 2006, when he returned to Employer A
as a senior software engineer, in order to be closer to his fiancee.  (Ex. A, Argument; Item 4; Item 5.)
As an employee of Employer A, Applicant seeks eligibility for a security clearance.  (Applicant’s
signed receipt of SOR, dated April 9, 2007.)     
Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, from about June 1996 to at least August
2004.  He was granted a security clearance in approximately November 2001.  While employed by
Employer A and while holding a security clearance, he used marijuana in August 2004.  DOHA
alleged Applicant’s use of marijuana while holding a security clearance security raised security
concerns not only under the Drug Involvement guideline but also under the Personal Conduct
guideline. 
  
On October 12, 2001, Applicant completed and certified an electronic security clearance
application (SF-86).  Question 27 on the SF-86 reads as follows:
Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity - Illegal Use of Drugs.
Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you
illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana,
cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine,
heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone,
tranquilizers, etc.) hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription
drugs?    
Applicant responded “yes” to Question 27 and reported he had used marijuana two times
between June 25, 1996 and June 26, 1996.  (Item 5.)
4
Applicant completed a second electronic SF-86 in October 2005.  On October 11, 2005, he
signed and certified the following statement:
My statements on this form, and any attachments to it, are true,
complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are
made in good faith.  I understand that a knowing and willful false
statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or
both. (See section 1001 of title 18, United States Code).
Section 24 on the SF-86 that Applicant completed in October 2005 uses language identical to
Question 27, quoted above, to inquire about an Applicant’s use of illegal drugs and controlled
substances.  In October 2005, Applicant responded “yes” to Section 24.  He admitted he used
marijuana in August 2004 once at a concert he was attending with friends.  He also admitted marijuana
use three times between January 2000 and June 2000, with the additional comment: “Tried it in
college.” (Item 4.) 
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated he attended a concert with three friends in August
2004.  He stated he and his friends were looking forward to a good time at the concert.  Before the
concert began, Applicant and his friends smoked a joint that was passed around by other fans  at the
concert. Applicant expressed regret for using marijuana in 2004 while holding a security clearance.
He stated he had used marijuana “no more than 10 times during his college years from June 1996 -
June 2000.”  He stated he did not intend to use marijuana again, and he denied any other illegal drug
use while holding a security clearance.  (Item 3 at 1.)
Applicant submitted exhibits showing negative drug tests at the start of his employment in
2001 and 2006 and in May 2007.  (Ex. B, Ex. C, and Ex. D.)  He submitted his performance appraisals
for the periods July 2001 to June 2002  (Ex. E), June 2002 to June 2003 (Ex. F), June 2003 to June
2004  (Ex. G), November 25, 2004 (Ex. H), and 2006 to 2007 (Ex. I).  His employers noted Applicant
exceeds job requirements in most cases, was mature and reliable, and “the ultimate team player.” (Ex.
A at 3.)  Additionally, Applicant supplied three letters of character reference from co-workers, who
praised him as reliable, competent, good-natured, honest, and capable.  (Ex. J, Ex. K, Ex. L) 
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988).  As Commander in Chief, 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.”  Id. at 527.
The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility
for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20,
1960).  Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the security
guidelines contained in the Directive.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  ISCR Case
No. 01-20700 at 3.
5
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personal security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying
conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.  In evaluating the security
worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors
listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not
necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.  It is merely
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 establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  The Directive presumes a
nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed
in the guidelines and an applicant’s security suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd.
May 2, 1996).  
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden
shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at
3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
In the SOR, DOHA alleged under Guideline H that Applicant used marijuana, with varying
frequency from about June 1996 to at least August 2004 (¶ 1.a.) and that he continued to use marijuana
after being granted a security clearance in November 2001 (¶ 1.b.).
The Government’s concern with Guideline H conduct is that it raises questions regarding an
individual’s ability or willingness to protect classified information.  Drug abuse or dependence may
impair social or occupational functioning, thereby increasing the risk of an unauthorized disclosure
of classified information.  ¶ E2.A8.1.1.1.
Drugs are defined under Guideline H as mood and behavior-altering substances, including
drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act
of 1970, as amended, and inhalants and other similar substances. ¶¶ E2.A8.1.1.2., E2.A8.1.1.2.1.,
E2.A8.1.1.2.2.  Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates
from approved medical direction.  ¶ E2.A8.1.1.3.  Marijuana, or cannabis, is identified and listed in
the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended, as a controlled substance.  
From Applicant’s admissions, the Government has established a prima facie case that he  used
marijuana intermittently for over eight years between 1996 and at least August 2004 and that he used
marijuana after being granted a security clearance in November 2001.  Applicant has admitted
DC E2.A8.1.2.1 reads, in pertinent part: “Any drug abuse.”  DC E2.A8.1.2.2. reads: “Illegal drug possession,4
including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, and distribution.”
DC E2.A8.1.2.5. reads, in pertinent part: “Recent drug involvement, especially following the granting of a5
security clearance, or an expressed intent not to discontinue use, will almost invariably result in an unfavorable
determination.”
MC E2.A8.1.3.1. reads: “The drug involvement was not recent.”  6
MC E2.A8.1.3.2. reads: “The drug involvement was an isolated or aberrational event.’7
MC E2.A8.1.3.3. reads: “A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future.”8
6
Guideline H drug involvement specified in the SOR and identified as disqualifying under
Disqualifying Condition (DC) E2.A8.1.2.1., DC E2.A8.1.2.2.,  and DC E2.A8.1.2.5.4 5
The record shows that Applicant’s involvement with marijuana began as a college student and
continued through his college and post-college years.  Applicant’s estimate of the amount of his
marijuana use varied.  On his 2001 SF-86, he admitted using marijuana only twice in a two-day period
in 1996.  On his 2005 SF-86, he admitted using marijuana three times between January and June 2000.
He also admitted using marijuana in August 2004 while at a concert with friends.  In his answer to the
SOR, Applicant admitted using marijuana “no more than 10 times” during his college years.  Applicant
provided no explanation for his failure to list his 2000 drug use on his 2001 SF-86.  
Applicant stated his last drug use occurred in August 2004, almost three years ago.  Thus, his
drug involvement was not recent, and, accordingly, Mitigating Condition (MC) E2.A8.1.3.1.  applies.6
However, Applicant’s marijuana use, although sometimes sporadic and intermittent, spanned a period
of approximately eight years of his adolescence and young adulthood.  Thus, his drug involvement was
neither isolated nor aberrational and represented a lifestyle choice.  Therefore, MC E2.A8.1.3.2.  does7
not apply.
Applicant asserted he did not intend to use marijuana in the future.  While this assertion
appeared credible on its face, Applicant provided no plan or rationale for abstaining from the use of
marijuana and how he would avoid using the drug if he continued to associate with people who use
marijuana.  Absent some clear demonstration of how he planned to abstain from marijuana use, and
a measurable track record showing abstinence, Applicant failed to show that MC E2.A8.1.3.3.  is8
applicable.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant raised concerns under Guideline E, Personal Conduct,
when he committed  a security violation in approximately 2002, while working for Employer A, by
failing to remove and secure hard drives containing classified information before leaving the office
at the end of the work day.  Applicant and another employee received verbal warnings from their
employer for this security violation. (SOR ¶ 2.a.)  DOHA also alleged that Applicant’s use of
marijuana in 2004, after having been granted a security clearance in November 2001, raised security
concerns under Guideline E.  (SOR ¶ 2.b.)
MC E2.A5.1.3.1. reads, in pertinent part: “The  information was . . . not pertinent to a determination of9
judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.”
MC E2.A5.1.3.5. reads: “The individual has taken positive steps to significantly reduce or eliminate10
vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress.”  
7
Guideline E conduct, which involves questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability,
lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, could indicate an
applicant may not properly safeguard classified information.  Directive ¶ E2.A5.1.1.
With respect to the Guideline E conduct alleged in the SOR, the Government has established
its case.  The Government established, and Applicant admitted, that he committed a security violation
in 2002 and used marijuana in 2004, while holding an active security clearance granted in 2001.
Applicant’s conduct raises concerns under Disqualifying Condition (DC) E2.A5.1.2.5. because it
suggests a pattern of rule violation.  His failure to follow rules for protecting classified information
in 2002 resulted in a security violation and a verbal warning from his employer.  His willingness to
break rules and violate laws by using  marijuana while holding a security clearance suggests that, under
some circumstances, he may put his interests before those of the Government.
Applicant’s security violation was a one-time event, early in his employment with a Defense
contractor.  Applicant presented credible evidence showing he had developed into a responsible
professional and had not been charged with any additional security violations since his first and only
one in 2002.  Further, his laudable employment record indicated it was unlikely he would commit a
security violation in the future.  Accordingly, I conclude that Guideline E Mitigating Condition (MC)
E2.A5.1.3.1. is applicable.   Applicant’s use of marijuana in 2004, while holding a security clearance9
granted in 2001, occurred while he was a young professional of 26. It is unclear from the record
whether he continues to associate with individuals who use marijuana or to visit places where illegal
drugs are openly used, thus exposing himself to the possibility of coercion, exploitation, or duress and
ignoring the reality that illegal drug use is criminal behavior.  Thus Mitigating Condition (MC)
E2.A5.1.3.5.  is inapplicable.  No other Guideline E mitigating conditions apply.10
Whole Person Analysis
Paragraph E2.2 of the Directive requires that the adjudicative process in a security clearance
case not only assess conduct under the adjudicative guidelines, but it must also reflect a careful
weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.  The factors to be considered
in a whole person analysis include the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct (E2.2.1.1); the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation (E2.2.1.2); the
frequency and recency of the conduct (E2.2.1.3); the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the
conduct (E2.2.1.4.); the voluntariness of participation (E2.2.1.5.); the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes (E2.2.1.6); the motivation for the conduct
(E2.2.1.7); the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (E2.2.1.8.); and, the likelihood
for continuation or recurrence (E2.2.1.9).
Applicant voluntarily admitted his marijuana use in adolescence and college and while holding
a  security clearance.  His drug use, while intermittent, was habitual and spanned a period from 1996
8
to 2004.  His last drug use occurred when he was 26 years old and holding a security clearance,
suggesting a pattern of rule violation and unreliability.
I have reviewed and considered all of the evidence.  After weighing the applicable Guideline
H and E disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and after considering all relevant factors in the whole
person analysis, I conclude Guideline H allegations 1.a. and 1.b against Applicant, Guideline E
allegation 2.a. for Applicant, and Guideline E allegation 2.b. against Applicant.  
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern.  Security
clearance decisions are not intended to assign guilt or to impose further punishment for past
transgressions.  Rather, the objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, common
sense assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.  Indeed,
the “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of his or her acts and
omissions, including all disqualifying and mitigating conduct.  Having done so, I conclude Applicant
should not be entrusted with a security clearance.  In reaching my decision, I have considered the
evidence as a whole, including the appropriate factors and guidelines in Department of Defense
Directive, 5220.6., as amended
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline H.: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E.: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2. a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant
DECISION
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 or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance
is denied.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge