KEYWORD: Drugs
DIGEST: Applicant, a 23 year old engineer with a major defense contractor, successfully mitigated
security concerns for marijuana use during college by demonstrating an intent not to use again and
separating himself from his college associates with whom he used. An allegation of use while
holding a security clearance was rebutted by a factual showing his last use occurred four months
prior to his employment. Clearance is granted.  
CASENO: 06-22753.h1
DATE: 05/22/2007
DATE:  May 22, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22753
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a 23 year old engineer with a major defense contractor, successfully mitigated
2
security concerns for marijuana use during college by demonstrating an intent not to use again and
separating himself from his college associates with whom he used. An allegation of use while
holding a security clearance was rebutted by a factual showing his last use occurred four months
prior to his employment. Clearance is granted.  
STATEMENT OF CASE
On November 29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the
preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be
referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued,
denied, or revoked.
On December 11, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, and requested a
hearing. The matter was assigned to me on February 12, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on
March 2, 2007, and a hearing was held on March 22, 2007. Four government exhibits and three
applicant exhibits were admitted into evidence. Applicant, and one witness testified on his behalf.
The transcript was received on March 30, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations relating to use of marijuana but denied that he had
used marijuana while holding an interim security clearance. After a complete review of the record,
I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 23-year-old employee of a defense contractor employed as an electrical design
engineer since July 17, 2006. He had worked in a cooperative program at the same company while
a student through a his university sponsored program for two periods of three months each in 2005
and 2006. The second and last employment while a student concluded in February 2006 (Exh. A).
He applied for a security clearance on a SF 86 on February 23, 2006 on which he acknowledged use
of marijuana. The last use was in April 2006 just before his graduation (Tr. 15). He elaborated on
the frequency of use in his statement to an investigator saying he had used marijuana approximately
forty times over a five year period while in college. During the time he worked with the cooperative
program for his company he did not use marijuana (Tr. 15 and Exh. 2). Applicant has a Bachelor’s
degree in electrical engineering and applied communications granted in May 2006.
Applicant owns his own home which he has been restoring since January 2007. He is single
with an annual salary is $57,000. He is regarded as a dedicated and highly regarded employee by his
supervisor (Exh. B). 
3
Applicant’s use of marijuana was with his college friends whom he no longer sees and he no
longer associates with people who use drugs. His company does random drug testing. He does not
intend to use illegal drugs in the future. His statement on that intent to the investigator was somewhat
equivocal but he clarified it at the hearing to my satisfaction and the investigator and department
counsel who both agreed with the clarification as no longer equivocal (Tr. 57-58). 
The government conceded at the hearing that Applicant did not use drugs while holding a
security clearance and that a finding on the allegation should be in his favor (Tr. 57).
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.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration
of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other 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.
Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to do so.” Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which
disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. Applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “Any doubt as to whether access
to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must,
on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
The government has cited drug involvement under Guideline H as a security concern in the
proposed denial of a security clearance for the Applicant. Drug involvement is always a security
concern because it raises questions about a person’s willingness or ability to comply with laws, rules
and regulations (AG ¶24). Any drug abuse is a condition that may be disqualifying (AG ¶ 25 a).
Mitigating Conditions that might be applicable are that there is a demonstrated intent not to abuse
any drugs in the future, by disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts, and changing the
4
environment where drugs were used (AG ¶ 26 b 1 and 2). The mitigating factors are applicable here
since he has demonstrated an intent not to use and no longer associates with the same people with
whom he used while in college. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. The “whole
person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each
case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and
applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the
whole person of Applicant, I conclude Applicant’s youth, record of conduct, and candor justifies a
finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance to him. He
is an intelligent young man with a promising career whose college life and indiscretions are behind
him as he embarks on a career in his chosen field. 
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant 
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge