1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-07842
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: John F. Mardula, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On, September 28, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines H
and E. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on October 16, 2007, and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on December 3, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
January 14, 2008 scheduling it for February 5, 2008. The hearing was held as
scheduled. During the hearing, I received three government exhibits, two Applicant
exhibits, one joint exhibit, and the testimony of three Applicant witnesses. At the
hearing’s close, the record was left open at Applicant’s request to allow her to submit an
additional exhibit. She did so within the allotted time, and I incorporated it into the
2
record. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 13, 2008. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations except subparagraphs 2. b. She is
a 43-year-old married woman with two children, ages 13 and 10, and an adult stepson.
She earned a bachelor of science degree in mechanical design technology in 1992, and
in 2001, she began working toward a master’s degree in the same field. She is six
credits short of completion.
Since graduating from college, Applicant has worked for several defense
contractors, and has continuously held a security clearance. (Tr. 42, Exhibit 1 at 29).
She has been working with her current employer since 2002 and is highly respected on
the job. A supervisor from a former job characterized her as a meticulous and top-notch
engineer (Tr. 20, 23). According to the division chief of her current company, their
customers have been very impressed with her work (Tr. 31).
Between 1979 and 1990, Applicant smoked marijuana four times. The first time
was in junior high school, the next two times were in college in the late 1980's, and the
fourth time was in 1990 (Exhibit 2 at 4).
Applicant did not use marijuana between 1990 and 1998 (Tr. 108). In December
1998, her mother died. Her corresponding grief combined with the stress of managing
her home while working at a job with a 160-mile per day commute, rendered her unable
to sleep (Tr. 47, 103, 111, Exhibit A). Applicant then resumed marijuana use, smoking it
two to three times per week to help her sleep (Tr. 54). During some of these occasions,
she purchased it. When asked at the hearing if she considered prescription medication
for her sleeping problem, she replied, “. . . my husband takes about seven pills and I
didn’t want to take pills . . .” (Tr. 115). 
Between January 1999 and July 2001, Applicant treated with various counselors
for grief counseling and stress management. From January to March 1999, she treated
with a counselor through a program her employer offered (Tr. 55). Approximately a year
later, she treated with a “regression therapist” for approximately two months (Tr. 55, 60
Exhibit A). It is unclear from the record what the field of regression therapy entails. 
Between June and July 2001, Applicant treated with a psychotherapist (Exhibit
C). She was diagnosed with, among other things, marijuana addiction. Applicant was
sincerely committed to controlling her addictive behaviors during the treatment (Id.).
After the 2001 counseling ended, Applicant used marijuana on two more
occasions; once during a January 2002 party, and once on a Saturday afternoon in
2005. During the last incident, she was house-sitting for a friend when she discovered a
3
discarded marijuana cigarette in an ashtray and decided, out of curiosity, to smoke it
(Tr. 107, Exhibit 3 at 2).
Currently, Applicant neither smokes marijuana nor intends to smoke it in the
future (Tr. 104, Exhibit B). She no longer associates with anyone who smokes
marijuana (Tr. 105).
In November 2006, Applicant completed a security clearance application. In
response to the question of whether she had used illegal drugs within the past seven
years, she answered “Yes,” and specified the number of times she used it, the time
periods, and the surrounding circumstances (Exhibit 1 at 29). She used the “Additional
Comments” section to elaborate upon information about her marijuana use that was not
specifically requested elsewhere in the application (Id. at 29). She answered “No” to
Question 24b. (Have you ever illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a
law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official, while possessing a security
clearance; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting the public safety?).
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security. Under Directive ¶
E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is responsible for presenting
“witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by
applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The Applicant has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision. 
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “use of an illegal 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,
4
rules, and regulations” (AG ¶ 24). Applicant smoked marijuana between 1979 and 1990,
resumed it in the late 1990s at a time when she possessed a security clearance, and
used it twice after attending counseling in 2001. She purchased it on some occasions.
AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” AG ¶ 25(c), “illegal drug possession, including cultivation,
processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution . . ,” AG ¶ 25(d), “diagnosis by
a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence,” and AG ¶ 25(g), “any illegal drug use
after being granted a clearance” apply.
Applicant’s disassociation from drug-using associates, and submission of a
statement of intent not to abuse any drugs in the future trigger the application of AG ¶
26(b)(1), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as [a]
disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts,” and AG ¶ 26(b)(4) “a signed
statement of intent [not to use illegal drugs] with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation.
I am not persuaded Applicant has mitigated the drug involvement security
concern. The period of heaviest usage occurred between 1999 and 2002 when she was
in her mid-thirties. Although she attributes this use to grief and anxiety related to her
mother’s death; the last use during this period, in January 2002, occurred at a party.
Moreover, she used marijuana on two occasions after receiving counseling for
marijuana addiction. I was particularly troubled by the circumstances surrounding the
second, post-counseling marijuana usage.
Applicant deserves credit for remaining drug-free for the past two and a half
years. This period of abstinence, however, is outweighed by the length of time of her
past marijuana use, her age during the heaviest use, her use while holding a clearance,
and her recurrence after receiving counseling. Applicant failed to mitigate the drug
involvement security concern.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 15). Here, the government alleges Applicant lied to an investigative
agent in 1993 when she said that her last use was in October 1990 (SOR subparagraph
2.a.), and falsified a 2006 security clearance application by answering “No” to Question
24b (SOR subparagraph 2.b). 
There is no record evidence that Applicant used drugs between October 1990
and October 1993 when the agent interviewed her. Consequently, the government
failed to prove any falsification occurred. 
Applicant asserts that she misread Question 24b. and thought she was only
supposed to answer “Yes” if she used marijuana while employed as a law enforcement
5
officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official. Given her comprehensive responses to the
other questions about drug use, I conclude her explanation was credible. None of the
personal conduct disqualifying conditions apply. 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(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) 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.”
I addressed these factors at the conclusion of the Drug Involvement section of
the decision. Applicant has not mitigated the drug involvement security concern.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
_________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge