1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-03462
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (e-QIP) dated October 16,
2008. On November 23, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under
Guideline H (Drug Involvement). 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 (Regulation), and the
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
On December 31, 2009, Applicant responded to the SOR. He admitted all four
allegations set forth in the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to
me on February 5, 2010. Department Counsel and Applicant agreed to a hearing date
of March 4, 2010. A notice of hearing was issued to that effect on February 18, 2010. I
convened the hearing as scheduled. Department Counsel offered two documents,
admitted as exhibits (Exs.) 1 and 2 without objection. Applicant gave testimony and
offered 12 documents, accepted into the record without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-
 Tr. 21. In the SOR, allegation (¶ 1.c reflects an admission by Applicant related to the sale of marijuana in      1
1995. During the hearing, Applicant corrected himself, noting that the incident occurred in 1999. (Transcript
at 21) The correction was noted and the allegation was amended accordingly.
 Tr. 26. Applicant was under 21 years of age at the time. He described an adjournment conditional of      2
dismissal as meaning the charge was dropped if he did not “get in trouble for a certain period of time, I don’t
know how long it was. . . .”
 Ex. 2 (Interrogatories, Investigation Interview, dated Dec. 9, 2008).       3
 Tr. 24.      4
 Id.      5
2
L.  One character witness appeared on his behalf. Applicant was given through March1
15, 2010, to submit any additional documentation. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding
was received on March 12, 2010. No additional documents were submitted for
consideration and the record was closed on March 26, 2010. Based on a review of the
testimony, transcript, and exhibits, I find Applicant met his burden mitigating the drug
involvement security concerns raised. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old calibration engineering assistant working for a
government contractor. He has worked for his present employer since January 2008. In
2002, he received an associate’s degree in applied sciences. He has worked primarily
in the technology field since that time. In December 2008, he earned a bachelor of
science degree in electrical engineering. Applicant is single and has no children. 
In high school, which he attended between 1993 and 1997, Applicant tried
marijuana, an illegal drug, with a friend who provided the drug. He used it a second time
before high school graduation. Between high school graduation and his completion of
community college in 2002, he used marijuana two more times.  
In 1999, as he was finishing his community college associate’s degree, Applicant
acquired some marijuana. He sold some to a friend. Months later, the friend was
arrested and gave Applicant’s name as the source of the drug. Applicant was arrested,
questioned, and charged with the criminal sale of marijuana. Applicant appeared in
court on the charge, but the matter was adjourned conditional of dismissal.  No2
punishment was imposed.3
Between 1999 and December 2007, Applicant used marijuana two last times
before quitting its use.  In sum, he used the drug six times. It is the only illegal drug he4
ever used, it was used simply for “fun,” and he has not used marijuana since.  Applicant5
no longer associates with the friend who informed on him or any other acquaintances
 Tr. 28.      6
 Id.      7
 The phrase “use of sale” apparently denotes the pursuit of drugs in order to sell them. It does not appear      8
to be a typographically erroneous transcription of the word “or.” 
 Tr. 29.      9
 Id.      10
 Tr. 30-33, 49.      11
 Tr. 31.      12
 Ex. B (Statement of Intent, undated)      13
 Tr. 35; Ex. C (Drug Screening, dated Feb. 23, 2010).      14
 Tr. 41-42.      15
 Tr. 37.      16
 Tr. 38.      17
3
who use drugs, although he may see them in town on occasion.  He also does not6
frequent venues where people engage in drug use.7
On December 9, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator. His past
marijuana use was candidly discussed. The interviewer noted that  “[Applicant] does not
intend on pursuing drugs for use of sale.  He cannot state, without question, that he will8
never use marijuana again.” In explaining why he thought the investigator arrived at this
assessment, Applicant stated that he initially was taken aback at the question. He
explained that he did not know how to respond, so he “just said that, you know, I don’t
intend to do that. . . .”  He also testified that he would willingly swear and affirm that he9
would never use marijuana again.  Applicant then repeatedly affirmed without10
equivocation that he would “never do it again.”   In making this affirmation, he testified11
that, “I’m 30 years old now, and I’m not interested in that any more.”  12
Applicant submitted a signed statement confirming his intent to abstain from
using drugs in full understanding that any violation may result in automatic revocation of
any security clearance granted.  He also submitted the results of a recent drug13
screening. It showed that there was no presence of drugs in his system.14
At work, Applicant has earned commendable performance ratings. He is
mentored by his manager and a senior peer. He is about to enter a graduate program
at a nearby college in the hopes of expanding his engineering expertise into
technology-related management.  Applicant performs charity work through his15
employer, which involves working with children.  He plans to do more volunteering16
within his community.  In his spare time, he enjoys hiking, camping, and photography.17
He and his brother like to work on computers. He does not now, nor has he ever felt,
 Tr. 40-41.      18
 Tr. 41.      19
 Tr. 46-47.      20
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      21
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      22
4
the need or counseling.  He has experienced no urges to use it again.  At the hearing,18 19
his father stated that Applicant never showed any evidence of drug use. Applicant’s
past drug use does not affect Applicant’s father’s opinion that Applicant is a trustworthy
and focused young man.20
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions
and mitigating conditions. 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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all
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.
The government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in
the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a21
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  22
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 the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
 Id.      23
 Id.      24
 AG ¶ 24.      25
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      26
 Id. at ¶ 24(b).      27
5
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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether access to sensitive information should23
be allowed must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information.24
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline H (Drug Involvement) is the
most pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to this adjudicative guideline that
could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would
mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Under Guideline H, 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.  “Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior25
altering substances, and include 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
inhalants and other substances.  “Drug abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a26
legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  27
Applicant admitted illegally using marijuana six times between the mid-1990s
and December 2007. He admitted having purchased the substance during that time. He
also admitted being arrested and charged for the sale of marijuana in 1999. These
admissions give rise to Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) (“any
drug abuse”) and AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia).
At the time of the hearing, Applicant was 30 years old. His drug use started as a
high school teenager and ended over two years ago. His drug use was sporadic and
highly infrequent. Since quitting drugs in December 2007, Applicant earned a bachelor’s
6
degree in a competitive technological field and started his current employment. His
performance at his present job has been commended. He has gained the confidence
and trust of his professional peers. He is now about to enter a graduate program in
order to expand his knowledge base and professional opportunities. Through his
employer, he has participated in community volunteerism and outreach through work
with children. His spare time is spent with family and enjoying healthy outdoor activities.
After being free from drug use for over two years, Applicant has had no urge to
return to drugs, nor does he have the intent to do so. He does not purposefully
associate with those who use drugs, nor does he frequent venues where drugs are
used. He credibly and plausibly explained why an investigator’s notation that his intent
to refrain from drug use appeared to be qualified. Applicant repeatedly affirmed his
intent not to use drugs in the future. Demonstrating maturity, he flatly stated that, at age
30, he is no longer interested in them. He signed a statement of intent to refrain from
drugs with a clause providing for the automatic revocation of any security clearance
granted should he return to drugs. Given the above considerations, Drug Use Mitigating
Conditions AG ¶ 26(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 AG¶ 26(b)
(a demonstrated intent not to abuse and drugs in the future, such 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) apply. In light of the
conditions raised, drug involvement security concerns are mitigated.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An 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 a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
7
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors.  On six occasions over about a decade, spanning from his teens to his late 20s,
Applicant used marijuana, an illegal drug. He purchased the drug on occasion and, in
1999, sold the substance in violation of the law. His use of the drug was simply for
amusement and socialization, it was not to quench an addiction. In 2007, he realized he
had outgrown his drug use and he quit. He has not had any urges to use marijuana or
any other drug since that time. He has distanced himself from individuals and venues
associated with drugs. Applicant now spends his free time in pursuit of healthier
activities, work-related assignments, and academic studies. Given his clearer
appreciation of the illegal nature of drugs, its potential impact on his health and career,
and  his more mature outlook, it is highly unlikely he will return to drug use. 
In the two years since quitting drugs, Applicant has demonstrated notable
academic, professional, and social achievements. Now 30, he has matured
considerably. His future focus is strictly depicted in terms of professional success and
continued scholastic study. Given the diligence and commitment he has shown at work
and at school, as well as his effortless cessation of a drug he only rarely used, there is
little likelihood that he would choose to return to drugs and jeopardize either his current
lifestyle or professional standing. Absent any indication he will again lapse in favor of
illegal drug use, and in light of his mitigation of drug involvement security concerns, the
evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to his eligibility and suitability for a
security clearance. Clearance granted.
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
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge