1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-00255
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Because of the frequency and scope of his marijuana use over almost a 13-year
period, Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence in mitigation and reform to
warrant a finding in his favor under the drug involvement guideline. Eligibility for access
to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations processing
(eQIP) (SCA, Item 4) on August 25, 2009. He was interviewed by an investigator from
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on October 6, 2009. The interview appears
in his Interrogatory Answers (Item 5) dated April 15, 2010. Applicant also agreed in Item
5 that the investigator’s summary of his October 2009 interview could be used in a
security clearance hearing to determine his security suitability.
On June 26, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
security concerns under drug involvement (Guideline H). The action was taken pursuant
to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
2
(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) implemented by the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted his notarized answer (Item 3) to the SOR on August 9, 2010.
A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s
evidence in support of the allegations of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on September
9, 2010. He received the FORM on September 17, 2010. In an attachment to the
FORM, Applicant was advised he could object to the information in the FORM or submit
additional information in explanation or extenuation. His response was due on October
19, 2010. No response was received. The case was assigned to me on November 19,
2010. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR identifies two allegations under the drug involvement guideline. In his
answer, Applicant admitted both allegations and elected to have his case decided on an
administrative record. He acknowledged he exercised poor judgment in purchasing and
using marijuana. He concluded his answer with his intention not to purchase or use any
drug in the future. 
Applicant is 32 years old. He is married and has two children, ages seven and
one. He has been employed as a logistics coordinator since August 2009. He seeks a
secret security clearance. 
Applicant was interviewed in October 2009. He was about 16 years old when he
first used marijuana in 1994 or 1995 and felt nothing. (Item 5) Six months later he tried
marijuana at a party because of peer pressure. 
From 1996 to 2002 (ages 18 to 24), Applicant used marijuana about 50 to 75
times. He noted that he never smoked on a regular basis. At times, he would go for
several months without smoking. (Id.) He lived in a rural area at the time, and smoking
marijuana in cars with friends was fun, and it helped fill otherwise idle time. He smoked
while his wife was pregnant, but she did not mind because he did not use the drug
habitually. (AE 5)
From 2002 to 2004, Applicant used marijuana between 30 and 40 times.
Applicant used marijuana in 2002 to help him forget about a death in the family. From
2005 to March 2009, Applicant used marijuana about 20 times. Within the year before
March 2009, he used marijuana seven or eight times. He used marijuana to ease the
loss of his sister’s child in May 2005, and the loss of a friend in October 2005. He did
not feel pressure to use marijuana, but because the drug was available, he used it. His
last use of marijuana was in March 2009 with friends. He enjoyed using the drug
because it was “a social thing to do.” (Id.) Applicant stopped using marijuana because
his job was ending in July 2009, and he would possibly be administered drug tests in
3
any new job he found. (Id.) He was aware that marijuana use while holding a security
clearance was grounds for revocation of his clearance, so he was not going to use any
drugs in the future. 
Applicant paid $5 for marijuana sometimes, and other times the drug was given
to him. He never sold or trafficked in drugs. He was never charged with any drug-related
crime. Marijuana has never negatively affected his education, employment or social life.
(Id.) 
Character Evidence
Applicant furnished no information about his employment. He supplied no
information about how he maintains his abstinence from drug use. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions that are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility
for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision
that is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings
together all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, in making a decision. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 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 the potential, rather than actual, risk of
compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., the 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
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern attached to drug
involvement:
4
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.
The disqualifying conditions under ¶ 25 that apply are:
AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug use); and 
AG ¶ 25(c) (Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug
paraphernalia).
Applicant used marijuana from 1996 to March 2009. While his use may not have
been habitual, it was more than experimental or sporadic. As a teenager, he initially
used the drug because of peer pressure. He used the drug as a young adult because it
was a way of creating merriment with friends who lived in a rural area. He used it when
coping with a family loss and while his wife was pregnant. Sometimes he purchased the
drug, and sometimes friends provided him with the drug. He used the drug because it
was the social thing to do and he enjoyed it. Both AG ¶¶ 25(a) and 25(c) are applicable. 
The two relevant mitigating conditions under ¶ 26 of the drug involvement
guideline are: 
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); and
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 are used); 
(3) (an appropriate period of abstinence, and a signed statement of intent
with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation); and 
(4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation). 
Even though Applicant claims he never used marijuana habitually, the record
indicates he enjoyed using the drug because it was the social thing to do, and he liked
the drug. He used the drug with friends. He used the drug to cope with traumatic events
and also during his wife’s pregnancy. There is nothing unusual about the circumstances
5
of Applicant’s marijuana use that precludes a recurrence of drug use in the future. Given
the almost 13-year period of use, particularly in the variety of circumstances he used the
drug, stronger evidence in mitigation should be advanced by Applicant to justify
complete confidence he will forego all drug use in the future. 
Applicant stopped using marijuana in March 2009 because he did not want to
produce a positive drug test result in his new employment. The record does not indicate
whether he has to take drug tests. There is no evidence that Applicant has severed his
ties with his drug-using associates and contacts. The record does not disclose any
evidence establishing that Applicant has changed or avoided the environment where
drugs are used. With no character evidence or a signed statement of intent from
Applicant agreeing to an automatic revocation of his clearance for any violation, AG ¶¶
26(a) and 26(b) have not been established. Applicant has not provided sufficient
mitigating evidence to overcome his 13-year history of purchase and use of marijuana. 
Whole-Person Concept
This recommended decision must be an overall commonsense judgment based
upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the general factors of the whole-person
concept. Those factors include:
(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 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. 
I have evaluated the facts of this case in conjunction with the disqualifying and
mitigating conditions of the AG. I have found against Applicant under the drug
involvement guideline. I have also assessed this case under the nine general factors of
the whole-person concept.
AppIicant began his illegal use of marijuana in about 1996. Generally, a person’s
teenage marijuana use can be mitigated after he becomes an adult, and decides to stop
drug use in the maturation process, and because drug use is against the law. However,
Applicant kept using marijuana occasionally until he was 30 years old, or about 10 years
after becoming an adult. Judging by the totality of the circumstances, a long record of
drug use warrants a significant record of abstinence coupled with a shift in the
surrounding circumstances that facilitates the past drug purchase and use. I am not
convinced the change has taken place. Accordingly, Applicant has not met his ultimate
burden of persuasion in showing that he is eligible for a security clearance. 
6
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 Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge