Item 4.1
Items 1 and 2.2
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-----------, ------- ------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-04560
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant used marijuana regularly from June 1999 to March 2009, purchasing it
about 20 times while in college, when he also experimented with two other drugs. He
says he stopped in March 2009 because drug use would hurt his career ambitions. He
provided no evidence of counseling or treatment, and minimal other evidence of
rehabilitation. No other evidence of good character or reliability was offered in
mitigation. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on April 6, 2009.1
On March 24, 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).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,2
Item 3.3
The Government submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Item 4.5
Item 4 at 46; Item 5 at 5.6
2
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 effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued
after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 10, 2010, and requested that his
case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.3
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on June 15, 2010. A
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and4
he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on June 29, 2010, and returned it to DOHA. On July 22, 2010, Applicant submitted his
written response to the FORM, and made no objection to consideration of any evidence
submitted by Department Counsel. On July 27, 2010, Department Counsel initialed a
memorandum to indicate that he had no objection to the admissibility of Applicant’s
response to the FORM. I received the case assignment on August 6, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 27-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he was hired
in May 2006. He has no military service. This is his first application for a security
clearance. He is single, and has no children. He earned a bachelor’s degree in
International Business Administration in 2005, and has taken some courses toward a
master’s degree.  In his response to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations in the5
SOR. Applicant’s admissions, including his responses to the SOR, and to DOHA
interrogatories, are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant began smoking marijuana with friends in June 1999, while he was 16
years old and in high school. He used the drug habitually during his later high school
and college years. While in college, he purchased marijuana approximately 20 times.
He also illegally used cocaine three times between April 2002 and June 2004, and
hallucinogenic (psilocybin) mushrooms once during October 2003. On May 7, 2009, he
told an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that his marijuana
use decreased to about four times per month after he graduated from college in
December 2005, and that his last use was on March 17, 2009.  There is no evidence of6
drug use after that date, and Applicant claims that he stopped using drugs after that
Item 3; Item 5 at 5; Response to FORM.7
Item 5 at 5.8
3
date because he needed to grow up and realized that drug use could negatively impact
his career ambitions.  7
Applicant has never sought or undergone counseling, treatment, or a chemical-
dependency evaluation. He said, in his response to the FORM, that he has partially
dissociated from the friends with whom he used “substances” in the past, and now
avoids “social functions or public concerts, where drugs are expected to be utilized.” He
included a signed statement of intent to abstain from future drug use, although he made
no mention of automatic revocation for any violation. He told the OPM investigator that
nothing about his past conduct, including drug abuse, could be used to coerce or
blackmail him, and that his friends are aware of it. However, he also said that his
parents are unaware of his drug abuse.8
Applicant submitted no other evidence describing his character, trustworthiness,
or work performance. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in
person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.
The administrative judge must consider all available, 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 the 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.
4
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
(1) 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
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs raised by the evidence in this case include:
5
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); and 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
(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;
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;
and
(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.
Applicant’s use of cocaine and hallucinogenic mushrooms was infrequent and
occurred more than six years ago. Standing alone, these incidents could be considered
to be mitigated under AG ¶ 26(a). However, they do not stand alone, and must be
considered in light of Applicant’s frequent and regular abuse of marijuana from June
1999 to March 2009. This behavior continued until only a few weeks before he certified
and submitted his security clearance application, and his only explanation for quitting
was the potential adverse effect on that clearance and his professional ambitions. He
regularly abused marijuana during his first three years of employment by the defense
contractor, and failed to persuasively demonstrate that such conduct is unlikely to recur
or does not cast doubt on his current trustworthiness or good judgment. His recent
abstinence, assuming that his self-serving denial of use since March 2009 is true, forms
a foundation for potential future application of this mitigating condition but the weight of
evidence does not yet support it.
6
Applicant said that he has tried to disassociate from drug-using friends and
contacts, but has not completely done so. He further said that he has tried to avoid
various environments where he formerly used marijuana. The evidence indicates that
he has been abstinent since March 17, 2009. He attempted, but failed, to submit a
statement of intent with automatic revocation for any violation. These facts, if true, begin
to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 26(b). However, when balanced against a ten-year
period of regular, even habitual, marijuana use starting at age 16, and only ending in
connection with seeking approval of this security clearance, they are insufficient to
support a reasonable finding of demonstrated intent not to abuse drugs in the future,
once such a clearance was in hand. There is no hard and fast rule concerning how long
“an appropriate period of abstinence” is, but Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof
that his recent abstinence suffices under all the circumstances.
The drug abuse in this case did not involve prescription drugs, so AG ¶ 26(c) has
no bearing on this decision. Applicant has not participated in any drug treatment
program, or even been evaluated to determine whether his drug abuse or potential
dependence would warrant such treatment. No favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional was provided, so no mitigation was established under AG ¶ 26(d).
 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The 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 eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.     
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an educated and
experienced adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that
underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. He spent ten years regularly
smoking marijuana with blatant disregard for the law prohibiting such conduct. He
demonstrated that he knew this behavior was wrongful by keeping his parents ignorant
of it. He continued abusing marijuana after leaving college, and for three years while
7
working for his current employer. He failed to convincingly demonstrate that he would
not return to using marijuana if it would not limit his being granted a clearance. His
recent abstinence and lifestyle changes form a good beginning toward demonstrating
rehabilitation, but are too recent to sufficiently demonstrate that his drug problems are
unlikely to continue or recur. Applicant kept information about his drug use from his
parents, and failed to demonstrate that the resulting potential for coercion or exploitation
should be of no concern. His abstinence since March 2009 is a good start toward
mitigating the concerns arising from his decade of regular drug abuse, but more such
lawful behavior, while not under scrutiny for a pending clearance application, is
necessary to alleviate those concerns. 
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his drug involvement. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 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 the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge