KEYWORD: Drugs
DIGEST: Applicant is a software engineer for a defense contractor.  He unlawfully used marijuana
and a prescription drug on multiple occasions between about 2002 and 2006, while a college student
and a summer intern, and reported it on his security clearance application.  Since then, he no longer
associates with people involved with illegal drugs, and no longer lives in a college dormitory where
his drug abuse occurred.  He indicated his willingness to execute a statement of intent with automatic
revocation of his clearance for any violation.  However, his drug abuse was so extensive and
continued for so long that not enough time has passed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his history of drug involvement.
Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 07-00422.h1
DATE: 08/16/2007
DATE:  August 16, 2007
In re:
-------------------------     
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00422
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL J. BRESLIN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq. Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a software engineer for a defense contractor.  He unlawfully used marijuana and
a prescription drug on multiple occasions between about 2002 and 2006, while a college student and
a summer intern, and reported it on his security clearance application.  Since then, he no longer
associates with people involved with illegal drugs, and no longer lives in a college dormitory where
his drug abuse occurred.  He indicated his willingness to execute a statement of intent with automatic
revocation of his clearance for any violation.  However, his drug abuse was so extensive and
continued for so long that not enough time has passed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his history of drug involvement.
Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 30, 2006, Applicant submitted an application for a security clearance.  The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry
(Feb. 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992) (the “Directive”), as amended; and the new
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and implemented
by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  On March 23, 2007, DOHA issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision: security concerns raised under the
Directive, Guideline H, Drug Involvement.  
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 7, 2007.  He elected to have the matter
decided without a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the government’s case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM)
dated June 4, 2007.  On June 15, 2007, Department Counsel mailed a complete copy of the FORM
to Applicant, along with notice of his opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute,
extenuate, or mitigate the potentially disqualifying conditions.  On July 20, 2007, Applicant
submitted an additional response for consideration.  The case was assigned to me on August 13,
2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations in the SOR, with explanations.  (Item 2; Item 5.)  Those
admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact.  After a complete and thorough review of the
evidence in the record, I make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is 23 years old.  (Item 3 at 1.)  He is an embedded systems software engineer for
a defense contractor.  (Id. at 3.)  He was an Eagle Scout and a high achiever in high school. 
Applicant attended college between about September 2002 and May 2006.  (Id. at 3.)  Friends
offered him marijuana and he smoked it; at first his use was experimental, but gradually he became
a regular user.  (Item 5 at 2.)  According to Applicant, his heaviest use occurred during his freshman
3
and sophomore years.  (Id.)  He estimates that he used marijuana between 25 and 60 times.  (Id.)
Applicant asserts he used marijuana only twice while home from college.  (Item 5 at 2.)  His
marijuana use tapered off after 2004.  
Applicant purchased a small quantity of marijuana (about one gram) for his personal use on
two occasions in his sophomore or junior year.  (Item 5 at 2; Additional Response at 2.)  He had
friends who sold marijuana; one two occasions he helped them make transfers, but did not receive
any profit.  (Item 5 at 2.)  
On approximately six occasions between 2002 and 2006, Applicant purchased Adderall, an
amphetamine-based prescription medication, at a total cost of about $50.00.  He used the drug,
without a prescription, to stay awake to study for final exams and to attend parties.  
While he was still in college, Applicant worked as a student engineer/intern for a major
defense contractor between May and August 2005.  (Item 3 at 4.)  He reported his last use of
marijuana occurred in March 2006.  (Item 5 at 2.)  
In August 2006, Applicant began working for a defense contractor.  (Item 5 at 3.)  On August
30, 2006, Applicant completed an SF 86, Security Clearance Application.  (Item 3.)  He reported
using marijuana drugs during college as follows: three times during his freshman year; 30-40 times
during the Spring of his sophomore year; once a  month during his junior year; and 4-5 times during
his senior year.  He admitted helping friends with sales of marijuana on two occasions.  He also
reported using Adderall without a prescription about 7 times, as a study aid and as recreation.  (Item
3 at 9-10.)  
Applicant states he no longer associates with individuals involved in using or selling illegal
drugs, and that he has no intention of ever being involved in the use, purchase, or sale of illegal drugs
in the future.  (Additional Response, at 2.)  He indicated his willingness to execute a statement of
intent with automatic revocation of his clearance for any violation.  
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.”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 527 (1988).  In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 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.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel security guidelines, as
well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under each guideline.  Conditions that
could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate
security concerns pertaining to this adjudicative guideline, are set forth and discussed in the
conclusions below.
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.”  (AG, ¶ 2.)  An
administrative judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the
available, reliable information about the person.  (Id.)  An administrative judge should consider the
following 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 pertinent 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.  (Id.) 
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.  (Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.)  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence
to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  (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 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).  “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.)
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.  (Exec. Ord. 10865, §
7.)  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has
established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
I considered carefully all the facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.  I
reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in ¶ 24 of the
new adjudicative guidelines.  
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. 
“Drug abuse” is defined as “the illegal use of a drug or the use of a legal drug in a manner that
deviates from approved medical direction.”  (AG, ¶ 24(b).)
5
Under  ¶ 25(a) of the Directive, “any drug abuse” is potentially disqualifying.  Applicant
admitted wrongfully using marijuana, an illegal drug, and abusing Adderall, a prescription
medication, on multiple occasions while a college student and a summer intern for a defense
contractor between about 2002 and 2006.  The evidence raises this potentially disqualifying
condition.
Paragraph 25(c) of the Directive provides that “illegal drug possession, including cultivation,
processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution” may raise security concerns.  Applicant
admitted purchasing marijuana two times and buying Adderall for his personal use on about six
occasions.  He also helped friends complete sales of marijuana on two other occasions, although he
did not receive a profit.  The evidence also raises this potentially disqualifying condition.
Under the Directive, it is possible to mitigate the security concerns arising from involvement
with illegal drugs.  Paragraph 26(a) may apply where “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.”  In this case, Applicant’s
use of illegal drugs was relatively recent; he stopped using marijuana in about March 2006 and
applied for a security clearance in August 2006.  Moreover, his usage was not “infrequent,”
considering his reported usage during his sophomore and junior years of college.  He used illegal
drugs for so long that it cannot be fairly described as experimentation or a result of unusual
circumstances.  Considering all the evidence, I conclude this potentially mitigating condition does
not apply.
Under ¶ 26(b), it may be mitigating where the evidence shows “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.
To his credit, Applicant indicated he no longer associates with people involved with illegal drugs,
and he no longer lives in a college dormitory where his drug abuse occurred.  Additionally, he
indicated his willingness to execute a statement of intent with automatic revocation of his clearance
for any violation.  These factors tend to support this potentially mitigating factor.  I am not
persuaded, however, that an appropriate period of abstinence has passed; I note Applicant used
multiple drugs for about four years, and continued using marijuana even after he worked as a student
intern for a defense contractor during the summer of 2005.  The period of abstinence is relatively
short by comparison.
Whole Person Concept
6
I considered carefully all the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in this case
in light of the “whole person” concept, keeping in mind that any doubt as to whether access to
classified information is clearly consistent with national security must be resolved in favor of
national security.  Applicant’s admissions reveal a pattern of substantial drug abuse, continuing for
about four years.  Applicant has not presented any evidence of completion of a drug rehabilitation
program, nor is his period of abstinence long enough to demonstrate a significant behavioral change.
Considering all the evidence, I conclude Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.  Although the
evidence of Applicant’s rehabilitation is insufficient at this time, with the passage of more time,
continued good duty performance, and no further incidents of drug abuse, he may demonstrate
persuasive evidence of his security worthiness.
FORMAL FINDINGS
My conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a-e: 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.
Michael J. Breslin
Administrative Judge