KEYWORD: Drugs
DIGEST: Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has a history of illegal
drug use as recent as March 2006.  He failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under the drug
involvement guideline. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23996.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In re:
----------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23996
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has a history of illegal drug
use as recent as March 2006.  He  failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under the drug
involvement guideline. Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
The government submitted five items in support of its contentions.2
Item 3 (Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated March 12, 2007) at 1-4.3
Item 4 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated March 15, 2006) at 1-9.4
Id.5
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 16, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating that it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence1
the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of
the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the
Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to
Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On March 12, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR, and elected to
have his case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
government’s written case on April 4, 2007. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material
(FORM) on April 10, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material
to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case.  The case was assigned to me on May 22,2
2007. Applicant submitted additional information. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegation in his SOR response under Guideline H.  The admission3
is incorporated as a finding of fact. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon
due consideration, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After graduation from high
school in 1986, he served in the United States (U.S.) Navy from 1988 until his honorable discharge
in August 2004. He also attended college courses until 2004. He has worked for his current employer
since February 2005. Applicant is divorced with three children.  He received a secret clearance in4
February 1990. On March 15, 2006, he completed a renewal security clearance (SF 86) application.5
Since November 1994, Applicant used marijuana with various friends. He acknowledged that
he purchased his own marijuana sometimes or just used what his friends had at the time.  He used
a cigarette or pipe form. He approximates purchasing about $20 worth of marijuana twice a year. He
used it to diminish his stress. He did not use any other illegal drug. He does not consume alcohol.
Although, he has never been arrested for his illegal drug use, he was fired from a former
employer for testing positive for drug use. Applicant maintains he had many friends at his last job
Letter from Applicant to Department Counsel, dated May 1, 2007.6
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  7
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.8
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 2 (a)(1)-(9).9
3
and smoked marijuana with a few of them. He takes full responsibility for failing the drug test at
work, but believes he may have been set up. He states his intention to stop using marijuana in his
recent response to the FORM. He admitted that he has gone for long periods in the past without
using marijuana and that he could do that again for the sake of his employment.
Applicant enjoys his current position. He wants to contribute to its success as much as
possible. He wishes to make a decent living for his family and is embarrassed by his loss of
employment due to failing a drug test. He takes full responsibility for the use of marijuana and
understands that it was stupid to jeopardize his job. He claims that his family’s welfare is more
important to him now than smoking marijuana. He states he will make a change in his lifestyle and
apologizes for this mistake.6
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding7
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the adjudicative
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
“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 administrative8
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1) the9
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 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
 Id.10
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.11
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.12
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).13
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.14
AG ¶ 24.15
4
continuation or recurrence.   10
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.11
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent12
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether13
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations for access to14
sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline H of the revised Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG) most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case.
 
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) The Concern: Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription
drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgement and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply
with laws, rules, and regulations.15
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant used marijuana
for a period of more than 11 years on a social basis until 2006. He admits he was fired from
employment in 2005 for failing a drug test. Consequently, Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition
(DI DC) AG ¶25(a) (any drug use), DI DC ¶25(b) (testing positive for illegal drug use) and DI DC¶
25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia) apply. 
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. I considered the Drug
Involvement Consideration Mitigating Condition (DI MC) AG ¶26 (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). It does not apply
because he was smoking marijuana in March 2006 when he completed his security application. Despite
his loss of employment in 2005 for smoking marijuana, he continued. 
5
Applicant provided insufficient evidence or explanation to support the DI MC AG ¶26 (b) (a
demonstrated intent not to abuse drugs in the future, such as: (1) (disassociation from drug-using
associates and contacts); (2) (changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used); (3) an
appropriate period of abstinence; (4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation). In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated that he values his family
and making a decent living is more important than smoking marijuana. Given his history of marijuana
use for more than 11 years, and despite his recent firing, continued use of marijuana, I find an
insufficient proof of a demonstrated intent.
Applicant apologizes for his mistake and states he has thought about his life and will not be
influenced by peer pressure. However, Applicant has not mitigated the drug involvement security
concern. The other mitigating conditions do not apply in this case.
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination. Applicant’s recent involvement with drugs leaves doubt as to his
trustworthiness. I have considered his desire to put this behind him, but I conclude it is premature to
find in favor of Applicant.
.
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
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
6
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge