1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-04235
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 (SCA) on April 21, 2009,
which was re-signed on October 16, 2009. On January 19, 2010, 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 (Directive), and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).
In a January 22, 2010, response, Applicant admitted the two allegations set forth
in the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on March 7,
2010. The parties proposed a hearing date of May 4, 2010. A notice setting that date
for the hearing was issued on April 13, 2010. I convened the hearing as scheduled.
Applicant gave testimony, introduced one witness, and presented six documents. The
documents were accepted into evidence without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-F.
Department Counsel offered two documents, which were admitted as exhibits (Exs.) 1-2
without objection. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on May 11, 2010,
and the record was closed. Based on a full review of the testimony, submissions, and
 Tr. 12.      1
 Tr. 13-14. Applicant and his college roommate now live in different cities. At most, they exchange the      2
occasional on-line note.
 Tr. 14. Applicant has no friends who are drug dealers and he was never involved in a drug sale.      3
 Tr. 17.      4
 Tr. 26. As noted by the Government, Applicant’s roommate “was really the hub for [Applicant’s] drug      5
involvement.” Tr. 27.
 Tr. 16, 29. Consequently, Applicant did not want to fall prey to the drug in a similar manner.       6
 Tr. 16-17.      7
2
exhibits, I find Applicant met his burden of mitigating security concerns related to the
guideline raised. Clearance granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 26-year-old software engineer working for a defense contractor.
He has worked for his present employer for approximately 14 months. Applicant has a
bachelor’s degree in computer science. He is single and has no children.
Applicant had never used illegal drugs until after an “ugly breakup” during his
senior year of college. With his youthful romance at an end, he succumbed to trying
marijuana offered by some friends in September 2006.  He eventually began using1
marijuana socially, about once a week with his roommate.  Usually, Applicant’s2
roommate purchased the marijuana and Applicant would give him some money toward
the purchase.   When he started dating his current girlfriend toward the end of 2006,3
the couple tried marijuana together. After trying it a couple of times, however, his
girlfriend decided she did not like it. She has not used any illegal drugs since that time. 
After graduation in 2007, Applicant continued using marijuana, although his use
became less frequent.  He moved out of the apartment he shared with his college4
roommate in the autumn of 2008, triggering a marked decline in his already diminishing
marijuana use.  He then moved in with his parents. In early 2009, he left his first post-5
graduate job. While searching for a new job in late January and February 2009,
Applicant quit using marijuana. He did so for a number of reasons. First, he realized it
was time to lead a mature and professional lifestyle. Second, his girlfriend disapproved
of drugs. Third, he witnessed his former roommate increase his own marijuana use to
the point that he became so depressed and dependent that he was no longer “socially
operable.”  Fourth, Applicant did not want drug use to similarly jeopardize his own6
future. He views his decision to quit marijuana as “a lifestyle change,” and he has “no
desire to ever use it again.“7
Although he never felt addicted to the drug, Applicant made changes in his life to
promote a healthy, drug-free lifestyle. In October 2009, he moved in with his girlfriend,
who will not tolerate drugs in her home and who has not seen any evidence that
 Tr. 33, 36. Applicant’s girlfriend conceded that should Applicant ever return to drugs, that return would be      8
a genuine “issue” testing their relationship.
 Tr. 35. Applicant’s girlfriend also notes that Applicant does not associate with those using drugs. Tr. 37.      9
She believes Applicant’s current lifestyle “is a permanent change for him in terms of growing up and being an
adult.” Tr. 35-36.
 Tr. 28. Applicant admits he attended a Halloween party in 2009 where marijuana was used, but notes that      10
he “stayed away from it.”
 Tr. 30.      11
 Id.      12
 Tr. 19.      13
 Tr. 38.      14
 Id.      15
 Tr. 19-21; Exs. B-C.      16
 See, e.g., Ex. 1; Tr. 37.      17
 See, e.g., Tr. 38-39.      18
3
Applicant currently uses drugs.  She states that since he quit using marijuana and8
concentrated on a healthy lifestyle that Applicant has “shown a greater degree of
responsibility” and focus.  Applicant has kept his contact with his former roommate to a9
minimum and discontinued relationships with his roommate’s friends. He does not
associate with those who use illegal drugs.  Instead of lounging at home as before, he10
now devotes his spare time to rigorous physical activities, such as kayaking, running,
swimming, working out with a personal trainer, and playing various sports. Applicant
participates in these activities with a friend and mentor who is in the U.S. Army
Reserve.  Applicant follows a disciplined diet, concentrating on only consuming things11
that have a positive impact on his body.  He has “never been more confident about12
[himself], and that really helps [him] keep away from . . . losers. . . .”  Today, he finds it13
hard to believe he ever felt the need to use marijuana.  14
Applicant also devotes his time and energy to the job he started in April 2009,
which he “loves” and where he is a valued employee.  At work, he has received15
impressive performance reviews.  He recently received a 9% pay raise. Applicant has16
earned the trust and confidence of his supervisor. He has been active in his company’s
volunteer activities within the local community. Applicant understands how incompatible
marijuana is to the mature life he now leads.
In completing his SCA, Applicant fully disclosed his past marijuana use,
providing the foundation for the SOR allegations at issue.  He expresses credible17
contrition over his past illegal marijuana use.  Applicant has signed a statement of18
intent not to use illegal drugs in the future that includes a clause providing for the
automatic revocation of any security clearance he might be granted should he use any
 Ex. F (Statement of Intent, dated May 4, 2010).      19
 Tr. 20; Ex. D.      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
illegal drug or drugs in the future.  He offered into evidence the results of a urinalysis19
that show he is not presently using marijuana.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 AG 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 safeguard
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
 Id.      23
 Id.      24
 AG  ¶ 24.      25
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      26
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      27
5
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 an applicant should be allowed access23
to sensitive information 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 AG 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
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 behavior altering substances,25
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 a legal drug in a26
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  27
Applicant admitted he used marijuana from about September 2006 until he quit
in about February 2009.  During that time, he contributed toward the purchase of the
substance. Consequently, Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition 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)
apply.
Applicant admits that he used marijuana for about two and a half years, starting
in about September 2006. He started using the substance during his senior year in
college, after a romance soured and his roommate influenced him to use the drug with
him. By the time he moved out of the apartment he shared with his roommate in the
autumn of 2008, he had already decreased his drug use which, up to that point,
6
consisted of using marijuana about once a week. By February 2009, Applicant had quit
using marijuana. His decision to cease using marijuana was based in part on his
roommate’s personal decline due to marijuana abuse and also on his girlfriend’s firm
disapproval of drugs. 
Applicant’s ultimate decision to quit using marijuana, however, was the result of
genuine maturation. Set on behaving like an adult in a professional environment, he
realized drugs were totally incompatible with the lifestyle he wished to lead. Drug free
for nearly 17 months after 28 months of marijuana abuse, Applicant has demonstrated
his resolve to eschew drugs. He now lives with his girlfriend, who will not permit drugs in
their home. Applicant no longer associates with those who use drugs and avoids people
using them in public or social settings. His contact with his former roommate is limited
to occasional internet messages. He concentrates on physical activity, diet, and
exercise during his free time. As a result, he is now fit and positive in his outlook. At
work, he has excelled in his field. He can no longer conceive of a life under the
influence of drugs and is committed to his new drug-free life. A urinalysis confirms that
he is currently free of marijuana, and he has signed a statement of intent with automatic
revocation of any security clearance granted should he again abuse drugs. Based on
these facts, Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition 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), as well as AG ¶ 26 (b)(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) apply. Consequently,
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. Applicant is a highly credible, mature, and direct young man. He is intelligent,
well-educated, and successful. When completing his SCA, he honestly disclosed his
past marijuana use, which occurred between his senior year of college in the autumn of
2006 until the beginning of 2009. During the hearing, he cogently articulated how he
matured between 2008 and early 2009. He also credibly depicted his decision to quit
using marijuana. His girlfriend, who was both credible and obviously against the use of
drugs, corroborated Applicant’s testimony. 
Witnessing his roommate’s decline over the abuse of drugs, Applicant learned
first hand how incompatible marijuana was with the adult lifestyle to which he aspired,
and how it could jeopardize both his relationship and his future. In quitting marijuana,
he refocused on personal responsibility and physical health. His maturation and lifestyle
transition have brought him personal and professional satisfaction. Although nearly 17
months of abstinence may seem brief, it is a significant period in the life of a 26 year
old. This is especially true given Applicant’s consistent candor, his age at the time, his
ease at quitting the marijuana, the fact that his drug use was limited to a 28 month span
of time, and the fact that his marijuana abuse began to wane shortly after college
graduation.
Applicant demonstrated that he is currently drug free through urinalysis and
credible testimony. He has genuinely and contritely apologized for his past drug use
and contributions toward its purchase. He has no intent to use or purchase marijuana or
any illegal drugs in the future. He signed a statement of intent with automatic revocation
of any security clearance granted should he ever abuse drugs again. Given Applicant’s
maturity and to his current lifestyle, it seems highly unlikely that he will ever again abuse
illegal drugs. Drug involvement security concerns are mitigated. 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
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge