The SOR is found at Item 1 of the File of Relevant Material. It is undated, but Item 4 (Applicant’s Answer      1
to the SOR) shows a date stamp of March 24, 2010, on the face of the SOR. It appears the original was date
stamped, but the file copy was not similarly stamped. On Item 4, Applicant apparently wrote in the March 31,
2010, in the blank date block in responding to the SOR. Inasmuch as his response was received by DOHA
on April 5, 2010, it can be concluded that his Answer was dated March 31, 2010.
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-08292
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
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, Safeguarding1
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 March 31, 2010, response, Applicant admitted the four allegations set forth
in the SOR and requested a determination based on the written record. On June 9,
2010, the Government submitted a brief prefacing its File of Relevant Material (FORM),
in which it argued that Applicant’s access to classified information is not clearly
 Item 6 (Applicant’s Responses to Interrogatories, dated Jan. 28, 2010) at 3.      2
 Id., at 4.      3
 Item 4 (Answer to the SOR, dated Mar. 31, 2010).      4
2
consistent with the national interest. Applicant received the FORM on June 25, 2010.
He did not respond to the FORM. DOHA assigned the case to me on September 21,
2010. Based on a full review of the submissions and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to
meet his burden of mitigating security concerns related to drug involvement. Clearance
denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 24-year-old employee of a defense contractor, for which he has
worked since 2007. He completed high school in 2004 and received an associate’s
degree in 2006. He is single and has no children.
Applicant has used marijuana since October 2004, a few months after he
completed secondary school. He continued to use marijuana after he completed a
security clearance application in September 2009. In his Personal Subject Interview, he
indicated that “[h]is drug use is a pattern, as he does not intend to quit using
marijuana.”  He later stated that “[s]ince my interview, I have stopped my consumption2
of the substance due to a surgery I recently had. My doctors advised me that it would
not be a good idea for my recovery process.”  Most recently, in his 2010 Answer to the3
SOR, he answered the allegation at  SOR ¶ 1.d (“You do not intend to quit using
marijuana”) by writing “I admit for medical purposes.”  In that same document, he4
admitted that he continued using marijuana after he completed his September 2009
security clearance application.
Applicant’s use of marijuana has varied from once a week to once a month. He
purchases marijuana from friends. He usually smokes the drug with a pipe. He has
never sold, distributed, or manufactured illegal drugs. He has never been diagnosed as
being a drug abuser or drug dependent. Applicant has never been arrested for his
marijuana involvement. He has never failed a drug test. 
In response to the SOR, Applicant provided no additional information. He did not
respond to the FORM. There is no explanation as to what “medical purposes” his
marijuana use serves, nor is there any indication of what surgery led to his doctor’s
warning that continued marijuana use might impede his recovery. There is no indication
marijuana has ever been prescribed by a medical practitioner. Applicant did not give a
reason why he has no intention to cease using the illegal substance.
 See Section 1072 of the National Defense Authorization Act 2008 (PL 110-181). Section 1072 indicates      5
that it amends 50 U.S.C. § 435b, but it is actually codified at 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b). This amendment provides
that “[A]fter January 1, 2008, the head of the Federal agency may not grant or renew a security clearance for
a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict (as defined in section 102(1)
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802).” In that amendment, a “covered person” is defined as “an
officer or employee of a contractor of a Federal agency.”
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      6
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
3
The Government noted that Applicant’s intent to continue using marijuana is
sufficient to trigger the statutory prohibition in 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b) against granting or
renewing security clearances to current unlawful users of controlled substances.  5
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.
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 a6
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  7
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.      8
 Id.      9
 AG  ¶ 24.      10
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      11
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      12
4
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 access8
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.9
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,10
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 a11
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  12
Applicant admitted he has used marijuana, a controlled substance, since about
October 2004. He admitted that he has purchased the drug. He also admitted that he
does not intend to stop using marijuana. Consequently, Drug Involvement Disqualifying
Condition AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse), AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia), and AG ¶ 25(h) (expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or
failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use) apply. With
disqualifying conditions raised, it is Applicant’s burden to provide evidence that would
mitigate the security concerns thus raised.
Applicant’s abuse of marijuana has been regular, on-going, and recent. While he
cites to “medical purposes” for his drug abuse, he failed to describe what those
5
purposes are or what, if any, medical necessity has been determined by a physician.
There is no evidence that his drug use was or has been prescribed by a physician.
Based on these facts, neither 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), nor AG ¶ 26(c) (abuse of
prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs
were prescribed, and abuse has since ended) applies. 
Applicant does not intend to quit using marijuana, obviating application of AG ¶
26(b) (a demonstrated intent not to abuse any 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; and (4) a
signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation).
There is no evidence that Applicant is in need of, ever considered, or has
undergone a prescribed drug treatment program. Therefore, ¶ 26(d) (satisfactory
completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including but not limited to
rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional) does not apply.
Applicant has used marijuana, an illegal drug, since October 2004. That use
continues to date. He does not intend to quit using the illegal drug. Continued illegal
drug use is sufficient to invoke 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b). Applicant’s on-going illegal drug
use, his intent regarding his future marijuana abuse, and the scant facts presented also
leave drug involvement security concerns unmitigated under the AG.
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. 
6
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. There are few relevant facts noted in the FORM. Applicant is an educated
young man. He has been steadily employed for three years. Applicant had some form
of surgery in 2009, but the nature of the procedure was not disclosed. He has used
marijuana with varying frequency for six years and does not intend to stop using it.
Applicant’s current unlawful use of a controlled substance is sufficient to trigger
application of 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b). Additionally, his past and current drug use, his on-
going drug purchases, his continued use of marijuana after completing a security
clearance application, and his intent to continue using the illegal drug sustain drug
involvement security concerns. In these cases, the burden is placed squarely on the
Applicant. Applicant failed to provide evidence of mitigation. Drug involvement security
concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied.     
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a - 1.d: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge