1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-11212
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 23, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines
H and E on June 3, 2009. 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 received the SOR and answered it in writing on June 30, 2009 and
again on July 20, 2009. He requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA
GE 1; Tr. 28, 45.1
GE 1; GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 41-43, 49-51.2
2
received the request on July 23, 2009. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on August 31, 2009, and I received the case assignment on September 3, 2009. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on September 25, 2009, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on October 20, 2009. The government offered three exhibits (GE) 1 through
3, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and four
witnesses testified on his behalf. He submitted three exhibits (AE) A through C, which
were received and admitted into evidence without objection. The record closed on
October 20, 2009. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 28,
2009.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.b, and 2.a of the SOR, with explanations. He also provided additional information to
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.  
Applicant, who is 28 years old, works as a graduate research assistant at a state
university. In this position, he also works as a project team leader for a Department of
Defense contractor. Applicant began his work as a research assistant six years ago and
began working on a government contract more than 18 months ago.  1
Applicant was born in Taiwan and emigrated from Taiwan to the United States in
1990 with his parents. He became a United States citizen in 1999 and holds a United
States passport. Applicant graduated from high school in 1999. He attended college and
graduated in 2003 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He received a
master’s degree in aerospace engineering in 2005, and is currently working towards a
Ph.D in aerospace system design. He anticipates receiving his Ph.D in 2010.
Applicant is engaged. He began dating his fiancee in 2005. They plan to marry in
September 2010. He does not have any children.
As a college student, at age 20, Applicant first used marijuana while on a college
break. Applicant and his long-time childhood friend drove to his friend’s girlfriend’s
house to watch TV. During the evening, his friend asked him if he wanted to try
marijuana. Applicant took four or five puffs from a bong, as he was curious about
marijuana. Over the next six years, Applicant used marijuana about four additional
times. He smoked marijuana once or twice, ate a brownie with marijuana, and used a
smoking bowl maybe twice. He last used marijuana in the summer of 2007.2
Applicant never purchased marijuana for his use or for use by others. He has
never been provided anything in exchange for marijuana and does not possess any
drug paraphernalia. He last used marijuana with his girlfriend in the summer of 2007.
Tr. 47, 52, 59, 64.3
Id. 44, 55-57, 61-62.4
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 55, 63.5
AE A; AE B; AE C; Tr. 13-36.6
3
Their upstairs neighbor provided the marijuana to them. He sees his neighbor in the
driveway, but otherwise he does not have any contact with this neighbor. His girlfriend
no longer smokes marijuana. To his knowledge, his girlfriend never purchased
marijuana.3
Applicant’s childhood friend still uses marijuana. Applicant served as his friend’s
best man when his friend married in September 2009. To Applicant’s knowledge,
marijuana was not at the wedding reception. He did observe marijuana at the bachelor
party for his friend. Applicant did not use any marijuana at the party, but he believed six
or seven individuals of the twelve who attended did use marijuana. Following his
decision not to use marijuana, Applicant declined marijuana offers from his friend. His
friend no longer offers him marijuana. Because he lives several hundred miles from his
childhood friend, he sees him on rare occasions, usually when Applicant visits his
parents. Before the wedding and bachelor party, Applicant has not seen his friend since
late December 2008 or early January 2009.4
When he completed his e-QIP, Applicant acknowledged his past marijuana use,
listing his estimate of his use. At the hearing, Applicant stated that he had no future
intent to use marijuana or any other illegal drug. He has never been arrested for drugs
or treated for drug problems. Applicant’s employer has a zero tolerance policy for drug
use at work, which he has not violated.5
Four friends and co-workers testified on Applicant’s behalf. They have known
each other between one and five years. All work with him and associate with him
outside of work. Each describe Applicant as hardworking, reliable, dependable, truthful,
ethical, and highly trustworthy. Applicant provided each with basic information about his
past drug use and explained that his past drug use was the reason for the hearing.
Applicant does not discuss using drugs as a social activity, and has never come to work
smelling of marijuana. His witnesses have not observed him smoking marijuana. Each
states that he follows company rules concerning the handling of proprietary information
and sensitive information. His associates at work do not use drugs. A co-worker and his
supervisor wrote letters of recommendation, which also reiterate his reliability,
dependability, and trustworthiness. Applicant is an exemplary worker and can be trusted
to comply with company procedures for handling propriety information. Applicant’s
academic advisor and the director of his laboratory opines that Applicant is candid and
honest. He obeys “all the facets of the rules and guidelines set by the school.” Applicant
can be entrusted with proprietary information and to the best of his knowledge.
Applicant has never been accused or suspected of improperly handling such
information.   6
4
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 used 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. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
5
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds
identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of
1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. In this case, the following disqualifying conditions may apply:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); and
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.
Applicant admitted in his e-QIP, answers to interrogatories, and testimony that he
used marijuana on five or six occasions between 2001 and 2007. Although he has
never purchased marijuana or any other illegal drug, to use marijuana he had to
possess it. The government has established its prima facie case under Guideline H.
Under AG ¶ 26, Applicant may mitigate the government’s security concerns
through the following conditions:
(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;
and
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
6
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation.
Applicant last used marijuana more than two years ago. Although his use of
marijuana was infrequent, his use was intentional and not under unusual circumstances.
Because he decided to use marijuana more than once, AG 26(a) is not applicable.
Applicant stopped using marijuana two years ago and has expressed an intent
not to use marijuana or other illegal drugs in the future. Applicant has been honest and
open about his past marijuana use. The government became aware of his marijuana
use when he acknowledged it on his e-QIP. Because of his truthfulness, I find his
statement that he will not use drugs in the future credible. Applicant has mitigated the
government’s security concerns under Guideline H.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
Under AG ¶ 16, the following conditions could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying:
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity. 
7
Applicant’s past drug use creates a vulnerability for exploitation, manipulation, or
duress. He continues to sporadically associate with his childhood friend who continues
to use marijuana, an illegal substance. The government has established the applicability
of the above disqualifying conditions under Guideline E.
Under AG ¶ 17, Applicant could mitigate the government’s security concerns
under the following conditions:
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules
and regulations.
Applicant has been forthright and truthful about his past, infrequent marijuana
use. He is not addicted to marijuana; thus, he has no need for counseling. He, however,
decided not to use marijuana two years ago and will not use it in the future. Because of
his truthfulness and openness about his past drug use, I find his statements about when
he stopped using marijuana and about his future intent credible.
Applicant continues to associate with his childhood friend, an individual who still
uses marijuana. Applicant does not spend much time with his friend, in part because
they live many miles from each other. Marijuana use is not the basis for their friendship
and is not the reason they visit with each other. His childhood friend introduced
Applicant to marijuana. The friend now respects Applicant’s decision not to use
marijuana and does not press Applicant to participate. While his friend still uses
marijuana, Applicant’s continued association with his childhood friend does not caste
doubt upon the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to
comply with rules and regulations. Applicant complies with his workplace rules on
handling proprietary information. His witnesses describe him as trustworthy, reliable,
dependable, and ethical. In weighing all the evidence, I find that Applicant has mitigated
the government’s security concerns about his personal conduct as related to his past
drug use.  
 
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 an applicant’s
8
conduct and all relevant 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) the 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept. The decision to grant or deny a security
clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and
unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record,
not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then
whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but on a
reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus
exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
used marijuana infrequently as a college and graduate student. His childhood friend of
many years introduced him to marijuana because Applicant was curious about it. Other
than his infrequent use of marijuana, Applicant is a model young adult working towards
the American dream. He immigrated to the United States with his parents when he was
nine years old. He became a citizen in 1999, about the time he graduated from high
school. He attended college, graduating in 2003 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
engineering.  He immediately enrolled in graduated school, where he continues to work
and study. Two years after his college graduation, he received his master’s degree and
is currently working on his Ph.D. His co-workers, supervisor, and academic advisor
speak highly of him. All of them describe him as honest and trustworthy. He is
dependable and reliable with a strong work ethic. He is planning to marry his long-term
girlfriend in 2010. He still associates with his childhood friend, who continues to use
marijuana. This association does not raise a security concern because the friendship is
not based on marijuana use, but bonds established over a long period of time. His friend
understands and respects Applicant’s wishes not to use marijuana. Their friendship is
many years old and will continue into the future, but with fewer contacts because they
live many miles apart and have different lives and responsibilities.
9
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising about his past drug use and
personal conduct related to his past drug use under Guidelines H and E.
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, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge