DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (RAG) effective within DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-01168
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 9 July 2009 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
H.  Applicant answered the SOR 31 July 2009 and requested a hearing. DOHA1
assigned the case to me 31 August 2009 and I convened a hearing 22 September
2009. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 30 September 2009.
 
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 23-year-old business operations
analyst employed by a defense contractor since August 2008. He has not previously
held a clearance.
2
Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about November 2002 to
July 2008. He began using marijuana during his junior year in high school, but most of
his marijuana use occurred during college. He used after college in June and July 2008.
During his marijuana use, he occasionally contributed to its purchase. He stopped using
marijuana in July 2008, just before being offered a job by his current employer. He
decided that marijuana use was inconsistent with his career goals. Before then, he had
been relatively unfocused about his career path.
Applicant also experimented with hallucinogenic mushrooms in April and
September 2008. In September 2008, he realized almost immediately how stupid his
conduct was. He has not used mushrooms since.
In 2008, Applicant had an injury and unrelated surgery for which he was given
two prescription painkillers. He and his friends experimented with smoking one of the
painkillers and inhaling the other. In March 2009, while on vacation with a friend, he
used a prescription stimulant (routinely used to treat attention deficit disorder) to help
him stay awake while going out to party.
When Applicant received his company security brief and completed his clearance
application in September 2008, he realized that his past drug use could be a security
concern. He immediately went to his supervisor to inform him of the drug abuse history,
so the company would not continue to invest time and money in him if the drug abuse
was considered disqualifying for his clearance. His supervisor told him to simply
disclose the full extent of his drug use. Applicant. He followed that advice and fully
disclosed the extent of his drug use on his clearance application (GE 1). His supervisor
confirmed that Applicant was completely forthcoming about his drug use, as well as
praising his work quality and his safeguarding of proprietary information.
Applicant lives in a group house with three women, who do not use marijuana,
and two men, who do. One of the men is also a college friend.
Policies
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline H
(Drug Involvement).
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶25.(a) any drug abuse ; (c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,3
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
¶ 26.(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that4
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment [Emphasis supplied];
¶ 26.(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug5
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.
3
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H, by
demonstrating Applicant’s use of marijuana and other drugs between November 2002
and March 2009.  However, Applicant has only partially mitigated the security concerns.3
Regarding his experimental use of prescription painkillers, adderall, and hallucinogenic
mushrooms, he demonstrated that the use was under circumstances unlikely to recur,4
and further demonstrated intent to not abuse these drugs in the future.  While5
Applicant’s use of these drugs is fairly characterized as “recent,” this term has less
meaning under the new adjudicative criteria, where the corresponding language “the
behavior happened so long ago. . .” [¶ 26.(a)], is used in the disjunctive with language
that clearly applies to Applicant. In addition, his experimental drug abuse was
infrequent. Nevertheless, Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by this
drug abuse. Notwithstanding that college may be a more relaxed environment than the
workplace, Applicant’s abuse of these drugs began when he was a second-semester
senior, at a time when he should have begun thinking of his life after college. Yet, he
tried mushrooms and non-standard uses of prescription medication, and let his friends
try those non-standard uses as well. Even after leaving college, and having made the
4
decision to cease marijuana use, he used mushrooms again in September 2008, after
being hired by his employer, if not after completing his clearance application and
security briefing. Finally, after his security briefing, and with full knowledge of the
implications for his clearance, he abused adderall in March 2009.
Applicant also failed to mitigate the security concerns over his marijuana use.
That use was regular, if not frequent. Like his experimental use of other drugs,
Applicant’s use of marijuana was recent. Unlike that use, his marijuana use was not
infrequent overall, and not under unusual circumstances. Further, his continued
residence with marijuana users raises concern. He has not dissociated himself from
drug using associates and contacts, changed or avoided environments where drugs are
used, or had an appropriate period of abstinence. He has executed no signed statement
of intent to refrain from marijuana use. The fact that he lives with three female
housemates who do not use marijuana does not mitigate the fact that he lives with two
other male housemates who do. Without some corroboration of either his abstention or
his refusal of offered marijuana, I do not consider his year-plus abstinence from
marijuana use an appropriate period of abstinence. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H
against Applicant
Additionally, this conclusion is completely consistent with a whole person
analysis. Although the quality of his work, his handling of proprietary information, and
his recognition that the workplace is a different environment from college—with different
expectations and responsibilities—support his eligibility for access to classified
information, these factors do not overcome the negative inferences of his marijuana use
and experimental abuse of drugs after entering the workforce.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-f: Against Applicant
Conclusion
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 denied. 
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge