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 adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-06222
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Richard Murray, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 8 March 2010 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
H, Drug Involvement.  Applicant timely answered, and requested a hearing. DOHA1
assigned the case to me 3 May 2010, and I convened a hearing 8 June 2010. DOHA
received the transcript (Tr.) 17 June 2010.
 
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 24-year-old mechanical engineer
employed by a defense contractor since June 2009, the month after he graduated from
The Government did not allege this omission as a falsification under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and I2
have not considered it as such. I have, however, considered it on the issue of Applicant’s credibility and his
reputation for honesty and trustworthiness.
2
college. He has not previously held a clearance. He currently lives at home with his
mother in the house he grew up in. His father died the day before his graduation.
Applicant used marijuana about 100 times between October 2007 and December
2008, during his last two years in college. He mostly used on weekends in social
settings. He also bought marijuana a handful of times. He stopped using marijuana in
December 2008 because he realized he would soon be interviewing for jobs and would
be entering the business world where drug use is not acceptable.
After graduation in May 2009, Applicant remained in his apartment at school
before moving back home permanently. In June 2009, he and his roommates had a
party, during which he was passed a marijuana cigarette. He took a hit of marijuana,
and immediately realized the terrible mistake he made: that he could jeopardize his
post-college life. He has not used marijuana since.
Applicant’s current employer, which has a zero-tolerance drug policy, made him
a job offer in May 2009, conditioned on his obtaining a clearance (Tr. 56). In late June
2009, he completed his clearance application (GE 1). He disclosed that he had used
marijuana one or two times per week in social settings on weekends, from October
2007 to December 2008. He estimated he used marijuana 100 times. He did not
disclose his June 2009 use of marijuana until his subject interview in July 2009 (GE 2).
Applicant was apparently not asked why he omitted this June 2009 marijuana
use from his clearance application during his subject interview. At hearing (Tr. 33, 45),
he stated that he was so focused on other aspects of the application that he overlooked
his one-time use in June 2009. This statement is simply unbelievable. To think that an
event in early June that caused such a visceral reaction in Applicant that he foreswore
further use did not cause a similar visceral reaction when he read the drug question on
the application defies common sense. I conclude that applicant deliberately omitted this
information from his application.2
There is no record evidence of physiological or psychological impairment as a
result of Applicant’s marijuana use. Applicant stopped using marijuana in June 2009
because he realized that continued marijuana use was inconsistent with the
professional career he hoped for. He has not used since. After college, Applicant moved
back home to live with his mother. He no longer associates with any of the college
mates he used marijuana with. He does not intend to use marijuana in the future,
although he might if it were legalized (GE 2). He states (Tr. 76) that he included in his
answer a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any
violation. However, the included statement does not meet the requirement of the
Directive. While Applicant states that he does not intend to use marijuana in the future,
he only acknowledges that he is “aware of the consequences, both legal and social, for
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
3
using illegal drugs in the future.” This states no more than what he was aware of at all
times he was using marijuana. It cannot be read as agreeing to automatic revocation of
his clearance if he uses illegal drugs in the future.
Applicant’s facility security officer, his mother, and two work references (AE A, B)
all consider him honest and trustworthy and recommend him for his clearance. Each of
them is aware that Applicant used marijuana in college. None of them appears to be
aware of the full extent of his use in college or his June 2009 use. Indeed, Applicant
stated (GE 2, Tr. 50) that his mother was probably not aware of the full extent of his
use.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) 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 AG ¶ 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 adjudicative guideline is Guideline H (Drug
Involvement).
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 substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, it
establishes a valid 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.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H, by
demonstrating Applicant’s use and purchase of marijuana between October 2007 and
¶ 25 (a) any drug abuse ; (c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,4
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
¶  26 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that5
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 drug6
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.
4
June 2009.  However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns, by demonstrating that4
the use was under circumstances unlikely to recur,  and further demonstrating intent to5
not abuse drugs in the future.  While Applicant’s use is fairly characterized as “frequent6
and recent,” these terms have less meaning under the adjudicative criteria, where the
language “the behavior happened so long ago. . .” [¶ 26.(a)], is used in the disjunctive
with language that clearly applies to Applicant. Further,  his marijuana use was confined
to the college environment. He is no longer in that environment and no longer
associates with the people he used marijuana with. Finally, while his abstention from
marijuana use since June 2009 might not necessarily constitute an appropriate period of
abstinence, given the brief period of marijuana use by Applicant and his change in
environment—both physical (returning home) and psychological (career versus
school)—I conclude that this abstinence is appropriate [¶ 26.(b)]. While he did not
execute the sworn statement of intent, he is aware of the consequences of further illegal
drug use. On this record, it is extremely unlikely that Applicant would return to illegal
drug use. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H for Applicant.
This conclusion is consistent with a whole person analysis. However, there are
troubling aspects of this case that must be addressed. I did not find Applicant a
particularly credible witness. I found his testimony hesitant and evasive. There are
inconsistencies between the drug use he reported on his clearance application and what
he reported during his subject interview. He deliberately omitted his June 2009
marijuana use from his clearance application, and did not fully disclose the nature and
extent of his marijuana use to his mother and his character references. Nevertheless,
these concerns are not an independent basis for denying Applicant’s clearance, and I
am persuaded he intends to remain drug free.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-b: For Applicant
5
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge