KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant used marijuana five times.  The Judge’s erroneous conclusion that the
government failed to establish a case for disqualification is harmless in this case. Favorable
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-18096.a1
DATE: 04/04/2008
DATE: April 4, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18096
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
“(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is1
unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement;
   (b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using
associates; (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;” Directive ¶¶ E2.26(a) and
26(b). 
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 31, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On November 29, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., granted
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s application
of Guideline H disqualifying and mitigating conditions was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant is 23 years old.  He used marijuana five times between July 2005 and December
2006–four times during college and once after he began working.  After his last usage, Applicant
realized that his decision to use drugs was a bad one, and he resolved never to use illegal drugs
again.  Applicant was honest about his drug usage on his security clearance application and in his
interview with an investigator.  Applicant is pursuing a master’s degree and is highly thought of by
his employer. 
The Judge concluded that “[t]he government failed to establish a case for disqualification
under Guideline H.”  Department Counsel argues that conclusion is in error.  Department Counsel’s
argument has merit.  Applicant admitted his drug abuse, and the Directive states that “any drug
abuse” is sufficient to raise a security concern.  See Directive ¶ E2.25(a).  Thus, the government’s
security concern against him was established.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-22515 at 2 (App. Bd.
Dec. 7, 2007).  The burden then shifted to Applicant to provide evidence of mitigation.
Department Counsel also contends that the Judge’s application of mitigating conditions is
in error.  Department Counsel’s contention in this regard lacks merit. The Judge reasonably
explained why  he applied Guideline H mitigating conditions ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b).   The Judge based1
his conclusions on record evidence such as the infrequency and the circumstances of the drug use.
The Judge also considered changes in Applicant’s life, including his career and his pursuit of a
master’s degree.
While the Judge’s conclusion that the government did not establish a case against Applicant
was error, that error is harmless, because the Judge went on to apply mitigating factors in order to
The Board also need not agree with the Judge’s characterizations, e.g., “denying a clearance for a 23-year-old2
who used marijuana five times defies common sense.” 
3
mitigate the security concerns raised by Applicant’s drug use.  The Board need not agree with the
Judge’s decision to find it sustainable.   2
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin     
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board