DATE:  October 18, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02832
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CAROL G. RICCIARDELLO
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 22-year-old college student. She has a history of illegal drug use, including
using marijuana after she applied for a security clearance and while employed by a federal contractor.
She has made a commitment to abstain from future drug use. However, under the circumstances not
enough time has elapsed to ensure she has reached a level of maturity to maintain her commitment.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by Guideline H, Drug Involvement.
Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF CASE
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended.1
GE 3.2
Supplement Answer dated Sept. 2007.3
GE 3.4
Id.5
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2
(Jan.2, 1992), (Directive), as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on June 8,
2007, detailing the basis for its decision-security concerns raised under Guideline H, drug
involvement of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented
by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006.1
In a sworn statement dated July 17, 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 July 26, 2007. The FORM was mailed to
Applicant on July 31, 2007, and received on August 18, 2007. Applicant was afforded an opportunity
to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant responded
in September 2007 (no specific date was on the response). The case was assigned to me on October
5, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 22-year-old college student studying engineering. She graduated from high
school in May 2004. She began college in August 2004 and anticipates earning a degree in
mechanical engineering in May 2008. She began working for a federal contractor when she was in
high school and worked June 2003 to August 2004, June 2004 to August 2004, May 2005 to August
2005, and May 2006 to July 2006. She has been offered full time employment with the same federal
contractor upon graduation. 
Applicant admitted she used marijuana approximately 50 times from June 2003 through
September 2006. She submitted her security clearance application on July 11, 2006. She admitted
she used ecstacy in about July 2006 while she was employed by a federal contractor. She admitted
she continued to use marijuana after she applied for a security clearance.  She minimizes her drug2
use by stating that most of her drug use was in high school, “dropping almost completely” when she
entered college, and her “road to abstinence began in 2004.”  This contradicts her admissions to3
using drugs until at least September 2006. Applicant’s explanation regarding her use of ecstacy in
July 2006, while employed by a federal contractor, was that it was “a one-time lapse in judgment that
will not be repeated.”  Applicant believes she now has professional goals that have “ignited change”4
in her life.  She stated: “Over the course of my college career, I feel that I have made a sincere5
Id.6
GE 3.7
Id.8
GE 5.9
Id.10
Supplemental Answer Sept. 2007, Enclosure (unmarked). All comments in this paragraph are attributed to the11
same document. 
Id. These comments are attributed to other Enclosures in her Supplemental Answer.12
3
commitment to amending my past indiscretions while showing maturity, accountability, and
responsibility.”6
Applicant stated she has never been diagnosed with drug dependency or abuse.  She did not7
provide information as to whether she has actually been tested in this regard. She stated in her July
2006 answer to the SOR that she has not used marijuana “in nearly a year.” She also stated she has
a “new found respect for the laws prohibiting its use.” She stated she is a different person now with
a new set of priorities. She does not intend to use drugs in the future.  In response to interrogatories,8
Applicant was asked if she associated with persons who use illegal substances or frequent places
where she believes illegal substances are being used or are used in her presence. Her response was
“I am still in college. No matter what social scene I go to, there are probably drugs (usually in
private, unknown to me). Marijuana is especially prevalent. Also, I am an avid concert-goer, where
smoking definitely takes place. However, even if my peers are using drugs, I feel no desire to join
them.”  She also admitted that she consumes alcohol and was last intoxicated on whiskey in9
February 2007.10
Applicant is highly regarded by one of her professors who also served as her internship
supervisor. He characterizes her as a reliable, hardworking, self-sufficient, respectable student and
citizen. Due to her civility and leadership, she was elected president of the college’s chapter of a
prestigious engineering society. She has helped motivate other students in their professional
development, volunteered to help start a chapter of the society at another college, and has gained the
respect of her classmates and professors.  Applicant’s supervisors while she was employed describe11
her as confident, capable, intelligent, responsible, detail-oriented, and highly motivated. She is a fast
learner, clear communicator, who worked well independently, and her work product was exceptional.
She was able to understand complex problems and worked with little guidance. She was impressive
in planning, analyzing data and overcoming problems throughout the projects. She was given two
excellence awards during a twelve week tenure. Applicant was considered professional , courteous
and very personable.12
POLICIES
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).13
Id. at 527.14
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 15
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).16
Id.17
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.18
Executive Order 10865 § 7.19
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.20
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.21
See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3rd 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994).22
See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996)23
See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.24
4
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has13
“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.”  The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee14
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.”  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of15
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should16
err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should17
be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a18
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not19
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.20
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less21
than a preponderance.”  The Guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven22
conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.23
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has24
the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
ISCR Case No. 01-207000 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002)25
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Guidelines ¶ 2(b).26
Drug abuse is defined in the Adjudicative Guidelines 24 (b): drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of27
a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction. 
5
or continue his security clearance.”  “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must,25
on the side of denial.”26
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guideline are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below. 
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above. I
reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guideline most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Drug Involvement
Drug involvement is security concern because 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. 
I have considered all of the Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions (DI DC) and
especially considered DI DC 25(a) (any drug abuse ) and 25 (d) (illegal drug possession, including27
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug
paraphernalia). Applicant admitted she used illegal drugs from June 2003 through September 2006.
In order to use illegal drugs she had to possess them. I find both disqualifying conditions apply. 
I have considered all of the Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions (DI MC) especially
considered 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), DI MC 26 (b) (a demonstrated intent not to abuse
ay 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). Applicant stated she last used illegal drugs in September 2006. Her last use occurred after
she applied for a security clearance. She also admitted using drugs while she was employed by a
federal contractor. Applicant is obviously a smart young woman with unlimited career potential. She
refers to her use of ecstacy as a one-time error in judgment. She makes no reference to the 50 other
6
times she used marijuana and her judgment in this regard. She stated her “road to abstinence began
in 2004.” She confuses abstinence, which is to refrain from doing something, from perhaps her
reduction in consumption. Either she abstained from using illegal drugs or she did not. She admitted
she did not. It has been barely a year since her conversion to abstinence. She admits she still
associates with peers who use drugs, but does not feel the need to join in. It does not appear that she
appreciates the illegality of their conduct and the risk she takes by being with them. She did not offer
any evidence that she intends on avoiding places where drugs are used, or avoiding peers who use
drugs, rather she sees this as a part of her college life that apparently she believes is unavoidable.
Applicant remains part of the culture that accepts illegal drug use and she is passive to the illegality
of drug use by her peers. Applicant is either unable or unwilling to extricate herself from the people
and places where drugs are prevalent. Because she has signed a statement that she is willing to have
a security clearance automatically revoked if she uses illegal drugs and her recent commitment to
abstaining from their use, I find that DI MC 26 (b) partially applies. 
I have also considered the amount of time that has elapsed since Applicant stated she has
abstained from using drugs, along with the circumstances of her use, and her environment. Although
it appears that Applicant is moving along in the maturation process and now realizes her actions can
have serious ramifications, I find that under the circumstances, not enough time has elapsed to prove
that she is truly committed to abstinence and that she can avoid the peer pressure of those with whom
she associates and use drugs. Applicant may now be truly committed to abstinence, but she was still
using drugs after she applied for a security clearance. She was aware when she filled out her security
clearance application that illegal drug use was a concern. Despite that and for whatever reason she
continued her use of marijuana. She was a valued employee who was respected by her supervisors,
but while working for them, she used ecstacy, an illegal drug. Applicant’s judgment and maturity
raise serious security concerns. Although she has a made a commitment to abstain from illegal drug
use, it is still unclear whether she has reached a maturity level that she can maintain and make good
decisions without succumbing to the college atmosphere that she described. I find not enough time
has elapsed to show a sustained maturity level and commitment to abstinence. Under the
circumstances and at this time, I can not find that her actions are unlikely to recur and not enough
time has elapsed since her last drug use. Therefore, I find DI MC 26 (a) does not apply. Although
I find DI MC 26 (b) partially applies it is not enough to overcome the security concerns raised. 
The Whole Person Analysis
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person’s
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. 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.
In addition to considering the specific disqualifying and mitigating conditions under the
Guidelines, I have also considered the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 2a (1)-(9) of the
Guidelines to be considered in evaluating a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance.
7
Specifically these are: (1) the nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
and 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 was 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. Although the presence
or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative,
the Guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
I considered all evidence provided and considered the “whole person” concept in evaluating
Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. I considered Applicant’s age
and maturity and the circumstances surrounding her participation in using illegal drugs. I considered
how often she used them and when she used them in relation to her security clearance application
and while employed. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline H
and evaluating the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has failed to
mitigate the security concerns raised by the drug involvement concerns. 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 Applicant a security clearance. Accordingly, Guideline H is decided against 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 Drug Involvement (Guideline H) AGAINST  APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against 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.
Carol. G. Ricciardello
8
Administrative Judge