KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable. 
Favorable decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-05893.a1
DATE: 09/14/2010
DATE: September 14, 2010
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-05893
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 5, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On June 4, 2010, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s application
of the pertinent mitigating conditions is unsupported by the record evidence and whether the Judge’s
whole-person analysis is unsupported by the record evidence.  Consistent with the following
discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a
Defense contractor, seeking a security clearance in connection with his job.  Applicant smoked
marijuana with varying frequency from around 2003 to at least May 2009.  He has not used
marijuana since May 2009.  His usage was on average once a year, with the greater frequency
having occurred at the beginning.  He has stated that he intends to abstain from the use of marijuana
in the future, irrespective of whether he gets a security clearance.  He also stated that his career is
important to him and it is a sufficient reason to stop using marijuana.
In deciding the case in Applicant’s favor, the Judge stated that Applicant’s usage of
marijuana was not frequent and that he had abstained from such usage for nearly a year at the time
of the decision.  He also stated that Applicant’s excellent job evaluations lend credence to his
intention not to use marijuana in the future.  
The record evidence, viewed as a whole, is sufficient to support a favorable whole-person
analysis.  The Judge’s ultimate decision is sustainable.  The Board need not agree with a Judge’s
decision in order to find it sustainable.  See  ISCR Case No. 08-06856 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 21, 2010).
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                  
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board