DATE:  November 27, 2007
In Re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00932
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KATHRYN MOEN BRAEMAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns over her drug use with her history of recent
marijuana use since 2002 to June 2007, including use after she completed her security questionnaire
in 2006.  While she claims no current use since July 2007 and plans to stop use if granted a security
clearance, such a prospective promise does not sufficiently demonstrate she has mitigated concerns
because of the recency of her past use and her maturity when she began use.  As the evidence of
current use and drug addiction is not established, the conditions that trigger the Smith Amendment
have not been proven.  However, security concerns persist over her recent drug use and her casual
attitude towards illegal drug use.  Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
       This procedure is required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992 (Directive), as amended by Change 4, April 20, 1999.   
2
to the Applicant on June 27, 2007.  The SOR detailed reasons why the Government could not make
the preliminary positive finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue a security clearance for Applicant.   The SOR alleged specific concerns over illegal drug1
use (Guideline H) in paragraph 1 based on the revised (“new”) Adjudicative Guidelines issued on
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense, effective September 1, 2006.
Applicant responded to these SOR allegations in a notarized Answer of July 23, 2007, where she
admitted allegations 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c. in paragraph 1 and denied 1.d.  She requested a decision
without a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on September 7, 2007,
which was forwarded to the Applicant on September 14, 2007.  Applicant was advised she had 30
days to respond to the FORM by submitting any objections or any additional information. Applicant
received the FORM on September 18, 2007,  but sent no response to the FORM, which was due on
October 18, 2007.  DOHA assigned this case to another judge on November 9, 2007, and to me on
November 15, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact:
  
Applicant, 40 years old, began  work for a defense contractor as an interaction designer in
July 2004 to present.  She completed an Electronic Questionnaire (SF-86) which she signed in March
2006. (Exhibit 3)  
Applicant received a M.S. in design from a university in May 2003. She was married in
August 1993.  She has no military service.  (Exhibit 3) 
Drug Use
Applicant admitted her illegal drug use in the last seven years in answer to Question 24 A
on the electronic security form.  She admitted using marijuana from December 2002 to December
2005.  (Exhibit 3)  However, when questioned in an interrogatory in June 2007, she admitted she
disclosed additional use in a security interview in December 2006 where she admitted she first began
smoking marijuana with her husband in December 2002.  She estimated her use as five times a year,
and she stated she used marijuana 25 times between December 2002 and December 2005.  Since she
completed her SF-86 security form she smoked marijuana an additional three or four times from
March 2006 to November 2006.  Despite her maturity in age, she expressed a casual attitude towards
illegal drug use as she compared her use of marijuana to that of a person who has a glass of wine
with dinner once per month.  She would stop using marijuana if she was confronted at work about
her use or if her company randomly tested employees for drug use.  When asked to confirm the
accuracy of the Report of Investigation (ROI) of the Personal Subject Interview, Applicant did not
dispute any of the information in the report but provided supplemental information to provide the
     Executive Order No. 10865 § 7.2
3
context for her use and to clarify that the marijuana use “was/and is strictly recreational in nature.”
Her husband purchases the marijuana for their mutual use.  (Exhibit 4) 
In response to the SOR she admitted marijuana use to June 2007.  (SOR 1.a.)  She also
admitted she continued drug use after she had completed her security clearance application until June
2007.  (SOR 1.b.)   Finally, she acknowledged she previously stated she would stop using marijuana
only if she was confronted at work about her drug use or if her company randomly tested employees
for drug use.  (SOR 1.c.)   
In July 2007 she denied she was currently using unlawful drugs, but stated she only stopped
drug use in July 2007 because of her concern over her company’s needs for her to have a security
clearance.  She denied she was ever addicted to marijuana use or diagnosed with drug dependence
by a medical professional.  She pledged not to use marijuana if she is granted a security clearance.
(Answer, Exhibit 2) (SOR 1.d.)  She provided no evidence of good character from her community
or work place.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider in evaluating an
individual's security eligibility.  The guidelines  are divided into conditions that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying and conditions that could mitigate security concerns.  In deciding
whether  to grant or continue an individual's access to classified information, the mere presence or
absence of any adjudication policy condition is not decisive. 
 The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate
that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant's access to
classified information.  Then the Applicant presents evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate in order  to overcome the doubts raised by the Government, and to demonstrate persuasively
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the clearance.  Under the
provisions of Executive Order 10865, as amended, and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue
an applicant's security clearance may be made only after an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly
consistent with the national interest. 
In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense determination, an administrative
judge may draw those inferences and conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the
evidence of record.  Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 specifically provides industrial security
clearance decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination
as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”   A decision to deny a security clearance does not2
determine allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism, rather it concludes the applicant has not met the strict
guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense established to issue a security clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline H: Drug Use
4
24.  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 judgment and because it raises questions about a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
The government established security concerns under drug use disqualifying conditions as
detailed in  ¶ 25.(a), any drug abuse (Drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as
amended, e.g. marijuana or cannabis).  Applicant admitted that use of illegal drugs can raise
questions about an individual’s trustworthiness and reliability.  Nevertheless, she continued her
infrequent marijuana use from 2002 to June 2007.  Thus, under 25.(h) both in her interview in 2006
and in her interrogatories in June 2007, she indicated  her “intent to continue illegal drug use.” Even
in July 2007 in her answer she failed to “clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.”
Her only reason for her recent decision to discontinue her marijuana use was because of her
company’s needs for her to have a security clearance.  She continued to express a casual attitude
towards illegal drug use as she personally believes such drug use is similar to having a glass of wine.
She did not acknowledge the difference between illegal drug use and legal alcohol use.  
However, the government failed to establish security concerns under SOR 1.d. under 10
U.S.C. 986 as there was no evidence that she continues to be an unlawful user of, or was addicted
to, a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802).  
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence
of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against her. It is possible to mitigate
security concerns under this guideline:  ¶26. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns
include: ¶26.(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  Her recent use to June 2007 does not meet this test.
Applicant only took steps on the path to remain drug free in July 2007.  This recent statement of
intent does not yet meet the test under MC ¶26.(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in
the future, scuh 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. 
One cannot yet conclude with certainty that her illegal drug use is unlikely to recur as she is
still married to her husband with whom she used marijuana, she has not changed the environment
where she used drugs, and neither has there been an “appropriate” period of abstinence.  While the
term “appropriate” is ambiguous, a commitment of very short duration since July 2007 clearly cannot
meet the appropriate test.  While she claims an intent not to use illegal drugs in the future, such a
promise does not meet the technical requirements of MC ¶ 26.(b)(4).  Thus, doubt does persist over
her reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  While she asks for consideration for her honesty
and candor, her persistence in continuing her drug use even after she was alerted to security concerns
over drug use shows poor judgment in a person with her maturity and education.  
Whole Person Analysis
5
In evaluating her under the “whole person” standard, I note she provided no supplemental
information on her employment record or community involvement, nor did she provide any character
reference letters.  However, she is a highly educated women with a master’s degree and of an age
where she can be held responsible for her decisions to engage in illegal drug use on a repeated basis
from 2002 to 2007 and continued her illegal drug use during the period that she was seeking a
security clearance.  She continues her ties to her husband with whom she used drugs.  
Consequently, after looking at her as a whole person and considering the Adjudicative
Process factors and the Adjudicative Guidelines, I rule against Applicant on subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b.,
and 1.c., but for Applicant on subparagraph 1.d. under SOR Paragraph 1.
FORMAL FINDINGS
After reviewing the allegations of the SOR in the context of the Adjudicative Guidelines in
Enclosure 2 and the factors set forth under the Adjudicative Process section, I make the following
formal findings:
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: 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 the Applicant.  Clearance is
denied.
Kathryn Moen Braeman
Administrative Judge