KEYWORD: Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Security concerns are raised pertaining to Applicant's history of illegal marijuana use. In
a signed, sworn, statement provided to the Defense Security Service in June 2002, she professed her
intentions never to use marijuana or any other illegal drug in the future. She continued to
occasionally use marijuana until January 2005.  She used marijuana after being granted a security
clearance on June 24, 2003.  Her present expressed intentions to no longer use marijuana is given
minimal credence based on her failure to follow through with her past intentions to discontinue
illegal marijuana use. She has not met her burden to mitigate the concerns raised under drug
involvement. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-22515.h1
DATE: 07/30/2007
DATE:  July 30, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.06-22515
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ERIN C. HOGAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
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).
 Item 6.2
 Item 5.3
 Item 4. 4
2
SYNOPSIS
Security concerns are raised pertaining to Applicant's history of illegal marijuana use. In a
signed, sworn, statement provided to the Defense Security Service in June 2002, she professed her
intentions never to use marijuana or any other illegal drug in the future. She continued to
occasionally use marijuana until January 2005.  She used marijuana after being granted a security
clearance on June 24, 2003.  Her present expressed intentions to no longer use marijuana is given
minimal credence based on her failure to follow through with her past intentions to discontinue
illegal marijuana use. She has not met her burden to mitigate the concerns raised under drug
involvement. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 14, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating they were 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, alleges security concerns under Guideline H, Drug Involvement, and
Guideline E, Personal Conduct of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29,
2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. 
On January 4, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations.  Applicant elected to have
her case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the government’s file of
relevant material (FORM) on May 31, 2007. The FORM was mailed to Applicant on June 4, 2007,
and received on June 7, 2007. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant timely responded on July 2, 2007.
Department Counsel had no objection to Applicant's response. The case was assigned to me on July
16, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 28-year-old software test engineer employed with a defense contractor. She
submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigation Processing (e-QIP) on September 28, 2005.23
She admits all allegations in the SOR.4
Applicant has a history of illegal drug use.  Between August 1997 and May 2001, she smoked
marijuana on a monthly basis during her college years.  She used marijuana at parties with friends.
 Item 7 at 1. 5
 Item 7. 6
 Item 5. 7
 Item 7 at 2. 8
 Item 6.9
 Item 6, question 24, additional comments.10
3
She would give  money to friends who purchased the marijuana.  She first stopped using marijuana5
in May 2001 when she graduated from college.6
On May 5, 2002, she submitted a security clearance application. This was the first time she
applied for a security clearance.  In response to question 27, Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug
Activity - Illegal Use of Drugs, she answered, "yes" and indicated that she had used marijuana
approximately 25 times between August 30, 1997, and May 15, 2001.   On June 14, 2002, she was7
interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service in conjunction with her background
investigation.  She provided a signed, sworn statement.  In the statement, she discussed her
marijuana use and stated:
I stopped using marijuana in May 01 after graduation from college. I stopped because
I matured, I was going out into the real world and I needed a real job. I have
absolutely no intentions of using marijuana or any other illegal or illicit drug or
substance in the future.   8
Appellant was granted a security clearance in June 2003. On September 28, 2005, she
submitted an electronic questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) in order to upgrade her
security clearance.  In response to question 24(a), "Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity,
Since the age of 16 or 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 (barbituates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.),
hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?"she answered "yes" and indicated that she
used marijuana approximately 30 times between August 1997 and May 2004.  She wrote in the9
additional comments section:
As I discussed with the agent who interviewed me for my Secret security clearance,
the extent of my marijuana use in college was approximately 5-6 times a year, only
when drinking/partying. I never personally purchased any, but I contributed to the
purchase with a group of friends, one of whom would go and make the purchase.
Since graduating from college, I have used marijuana sporadically as made available
by acquaintances in graduate school during parties.  I have not used marijuana since
the beginning of 2005.  This can be proven because of drug testing in my current
place of employment.10
 Item 4. 11
 Response to FORM, dated July 2, 2007. 12
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). 13
 Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 24. 14
 Revised AG, dated Augsut 2006, ¶15. 15
4
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant indicates that she is willing to sign a statement of intent
with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation. She is also willing to complete a prescribed
drug treatment program.  She no longer associates with anyone who uses illegal drugs. She states that
she will never use marijuana again. She is willing to submit to voluntary urine tests.  She states that
at the time of her sworn statement in June 2002,  she discontinued marijuana use and had no
intention of using marijuana again. She made the mistake of using the marijuana again and fully
admitted her mistake on her request for a security clearance upgrade.11
In her response to the FORM, Applicant provided the results of two drug tests which she took
on June 8, 2007, and June 27, 2007. Both tested negative. She states that she has maintained a high
level of trust with her co-workers and employers in all three jobs where she has held a security
clearance. She follows  the rules for protecting classified information. She would never do anything
to harm this country.  12
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, Safeguarding13
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security guidelines
contained in the Directive and the revised AGs, effective September 1, 2006.  The revised AGs set
forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.  The adjudicative guidelines at issue in this case are: 
Guideline H - Drug Involvement:  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 judgment and because it raises questions about a person's
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.14
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with
the security clearance process.15
 Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 2.16
 Id.17
 Id.18
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14.19
 Directive ¶ E3.1.15.20
 Directive ¶ E.2.2.2; Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 2(b).21
5
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below.
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”   An administrative16
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 following17
factors: (1) the 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 extent to which participation is
voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent 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.  18
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions under each guideline. Additionally, each security clearance 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). 
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.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,19
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.  The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.20
“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security
will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  21
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 a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. It is merely an indication
that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for issuing a
clearance.
 AG, ¶ 24(b).22
6
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.
Guideline H - Drug Involvement
Applicant's past drug abuse raises a security concern. Drug abuse is defined as "the illegal use
of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction."  Between22
August 1997 and January 2005, Applicant used marijuana on a sporadic basis. The drug involvement
security concern is heightened further by her decision to use marijuana after being granted a security
clearance, after stating during her security background investigation in June 2002 that she had no
intent to use marijuana in the future. 
The following Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions (DI DC) apply to Applicant's case.
DI DC ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse) applies due to her past history of illegal marijuana use. DI DC ¶ 25(c)
(illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia) applies.  Applicant possessed and purchased
marijuana on several occasions during college and graduate school.  
DI DC ¶ 25(g) (any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance) applies.
Applicant admits to using marijuana on several occasions while holding a security clearance.  Having
been interviewed in depth about her marijuana use during her initial background investigation, she
should have been aware that any illegal drug use is a security concern.  In fact, she expressly stated
in a June 14, 2002 signed, sworn, statement that she had no intentions of using marijuana in the future
but used marijuana on several occasions after being granted a security clearance. 
DI DC ¶ 25(h) (expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use) applies.  Despite Applicant's expressed intentions to
never use illegal drugs after graduating from college, she used marijuana on several occasions up until
January 2005.  Her current intentions to never use marijuana again is less convincing based upon her
return to illegal marijuana use in the past after making a similar claim. Her decision to use marijuana
after expressing her intentions to refrain from marijuana use is a failure to clearly and convincingly
commit to discontinue drug use.   
 
The drug involvement concern can be mitigated. However, I find none of the mitigating
conditions apply.  In Applicant's case, two of the Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions (DI MC)
have the potential to apply.  DI MC ¶ 26(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent,
or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not apply.  Applicant's drug
use was recent. Her decision to use marijuana after telling the Defense Security Service that she has
no intentions for future use raises questions about her reliability, trustworthiness and good judgement.
7
DI MC ¶ 26(b) (a demonstrated intent not to abuse any 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) is not applicable. Applicant said that she had no
intent to use marijuana during her initial security background investigation.  She was granted a
security clearance.  It is likely the security clearance was granted based on her statement of intent to
refrain from illegal drugs in the future.  She continued using marijuana despite these intentions and
after being granted a security clearance.  She has already been granted one opportunity to demonstrate
an intent to refrain from marijuana use.  She did not succeed.  Her current expressed intentions to
refrain from marijuana use carries less weight considering her failure to live up to her expressed
intentions in the past.  
Although Applicant indicated that she does not intend to use illegal drugs in the future, there
is doubt that she will follow through on her intentions based on her failure to follow her past
intentions to stop using marijuana. She has not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the drug
involvement security concern.  I find against Applicant under Guideline H.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Personal conduct under Guideline E is always a security concern because it asks the central
question if a person's past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard
classified information.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any
failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
While Applicant's case raises the overall concern under Guideline E, no specific disqualifying
condition applies to Applicant's case.  The government states Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition (PC DC) ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, considered
as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information) applies.
This case is really a drug involvement case. The same conduct alleged under Guideline H is being
cross alleged under Guideline E.  An adverse determination was made under Guideline H. As a result,
PC DC ¶ 16(c) does not apply based on the plain language of the disqualifying condition because the
credible adverse information was sufficient for an adverse determination under another guideline -
Guideline H.
There are no allegations of deliberate falsification in this case. As such, cross alleging the
conduct alleged under the drug involvement guideline under the personal conduct guideline is
redundant. I find for Applicant with respect to Guideline E. 
I considered all the evidence provided and also considered the “whole person” concept in
evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. While Applicant
claims that she no longer intends to use marijuana, her continued use of marijuana after making a
8
similar statement in the past lessens the credibility of this statement.  Applicant failed to mitigate the
security concerns raised by the drug involvement concern. Therefore, I am persuaded by the totality
of the evidence in this case, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue a security clearance for 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
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all 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.
Erin C. Hogan
Administrative Judge