Consisting of the Government exhibits (GE) 1-3 and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-P .1
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive (DoD) 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within DoD on September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-03602
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Marc G. Laverdiere, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Virginia M. Gomez, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is granted.1
On 27 September 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns under Guideline
H, Drug Involvement.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, and requested a hearing.2
DOHA assigned the case to me 2 November 2010, and I convened a hearing 30
November 2010. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 7 December 2010.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.a. She is a 30-year-old
disaster assistance support program training coordinator employed by a defense
contractor since January 2010. She has never had a clearance.
When Applicant applied for a clearance in January 2010 (GE 1), she reported a
history of marijuana use from January 2003 to October 2009 (within the last seven
years). She also reported cocaine use from March 2004 to August 2005. She discussed
her drug use with a Government investigator in March 2010 (GE 2) and responded to
Government interrogatories in September 2010 (GE 3).
Applicant began using marijuana in summer 1999, just before she started
college. She estimates she used marijuana about four times per year while in college,
but because she was a two-sport competitive athlete during college, most of her
marijuana use occurred during summer, or at end-of-season sports parties. After
college, her marijuana use ranged from twice a month to once or twice a year (Tr. 32).
She bought user amounts of marijuana four times, spending $40-50 each time, although
she may have spent $100 on one occasion. She last used marijuana on Halloween
2009. She stopped because she realized her marijuana use was irresponsible and
childish, and she thought it was time to start living an adult lifestyle.
Applicant used cocaine five times total on two occasions, one in 2004 and one in
2005. In late 2003, she had moved to a different city to pursue a career in emergency
preparedness. She had an unpaid internship for a few months, and then worked at a
restaurant for 18 months to earn a living. She did not have any friends in the area and
was lonely. Some of her coworkers at the restaurant encouraged her to try cocaine,
which she did in 2004. She tried it again in 2005, which was when she realized she did
not want to be part of the crowd that used cocaine. She stopped using cocaine and no
longer sees any of the coworkers with whom she used the drug.
Applicant got engaged to be married in December 2009. She and her fiancé
began dating in 2006, but broke up in early 2009—in part over her fiance’s opposition to
her marijuana use (AE N). They did not get together again until after she decided she
wanted to live a drug-free lifestyle. In late 2009, she sought psychological counseling for
career and relationship issues, and her past drug use. Her psychologist found she did
not have a substance abuse problem and concluded that Applicant was committed to a
healthy lifestyle, both for personal and professional reasons (AE F).
Applicant had an excellent academic record in graduate school (AE A), received
special recognition when she was employed by a state (AE B) and a county (AE C)
government. She had an outstanding performance rating (4.75/5.0) with the county
government (AE E). Applicant’s personal and professional references, both past and
present, consider her honest and trustworthy. They recommend her for her clearance
although one (AE H) recites no knowledge of her drug history and the rest (AE G, I, J,
K, L, and M) record only that they are aware she has a drug history. Applicant has
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶25.(a) any drug abuse ; (c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,4
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
3
executed a statement of intent to not use drugs as contemplated by the Directive (AE
O). She credibly testified that she intends to abstain from drug use in the future.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. 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, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to 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 required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding 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 sporadic marijuana use and purchase between summer 1999
and October 2009, and her cocaine use in 2004 and 2005.  However, Applicant4
mitigated the security concerns. Applicant last used cocaine over five years ago; she
last used marijuana over a year ago. Her drug use was infrequent, and the cocaine
occurred under circumstances unlikely to recur. Given her excellent academic and work
records, her drug use does not cast doubt on her judgment, reliability, or
¶ 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
trustworthiness.  Further, she has demonstrated intent to not abuse drugs in the future5
by her abstinence, by no longer associating with her drug-using associates, and
avoiding the environment where drugs were used.  Finally, she executed the statement6
of intent contemplated by the Directive. Most important, her recent engagement gives
her very strong reasons for maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, stronger perhaps than her
need to keep a clearance. Applicant is unlikely to use drugs in the future. Accordingly, I
resolve Guideline H for Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-c: For Applicant
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