1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-08056
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
In view of Applicant’s regular marijuana use from July 2003 to January 2010, she
bears a heavy burden of persuasion to show that she has no intention of resuming
marijuana use. She has not presented sufficient evidence to establish she will forego all
drug use in the future. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP, GE 1) on July 19, 2010. She was interviewed by an investigator
from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on August 18, 2010. (GE 6) In her
interrogatory answers submitted to the Government on November 18, 2010, Applicant
agreed with the investigator’s summary of her August 2010 interview, and that it could
be used in a security clearance hearing to determine her security suitability.
(Interrogatory answers, GE 6)
On December 30, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
security concerns under drug involvement (Guideline H). The action was taken pursuant
2
to Executive Order 10865, 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 (AG) implemented by the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted her notarized answer to the SOR on January 4, 2011. 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 February 2, 2011.
She received the FORM on February 9, 2011. In an attachment to the FORM, Applicant
was advised she could object to the information in the FORM or submit additional
information in explanation or extenuation. Her response was due on March 11, 2011.
No response was received. The case file was assigned to me on April 27, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists three allegations under drug involvement. Applicant admitted all
three allegations. She is 62 years old, divorced and has one child, 32 years old. In
March 1985, she was awarded a bachelor’s degree in an unidentified field. She has
been employed as a purchasing manager by a defense contractor since June 2007.
From May 1999 to January 2007, Applicant was a commodity manager.
Applicant was interviewed by an OPM investigator on August 18, 2010 about her
drug use that she disclosed in her e-QIP. Applicant used marijuana from July 2003 to
January 2010. She ingested the drug through a pipe approximately twice a week. She
used the drug to relax while she was watching television. She also purchased the drug,
but did not indicate the number times. She tried to grow the drug because she did not
want to purchase it. She indicated she was not dependent on the drug. She stopped
using the drug because it interfered with her work. Applicant has never tried to
manufacture, sell, or traffic the drug. 
Applicant has been employed as a purchasing manager for over four years. She
did not provide evidence about her job performance. She did not provide any evidence
concerning her lifestyle away from the job, particularly independent evidence that shows
why Applicant turned away from marijuana use after more than six years. 
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, which 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 commonsense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings
3
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 ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern attached 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.
From July 2003 to January 2010, Applicant regularly used marijuana. Because of
her more than six-year period of use, it is fair to infer she enjoyed the drug’s effect. It is
also fair to infer that she purchased the drug on a regular basis. Trying to grow the
marijuana plant in 2009 suggests that Applicant was uneasy about purchasing the drug.
AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug use) applies. In order for the user to ingest marijuana, the user
has to possess the illegal drug. AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia) also applies. 
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). 
4
Using marijuana for over six years at a frequency of twice a week constitutes
regular illegal drug use. The marijuana use did not end until 16 months ago. Applicant’s
past marijuana use continues to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness,
and good judgment. AG ¶ 26(a) does not apply.
Regular use of marijuana for over six years calls for more than a simple
unsupported statement that a person has no intention to resume marijuana use in the
future. The evidence does not convince me that Applicant has severed her ties from her
drug suppliers. Applicant may have changed her environment where drugs are used,
but she has not produced independent evidence to establish this change.
The Directive does not define the time required to satisfy an appropriate period of
abstinence from illegal drug use. Suffice it to say that a six-year period of regular drug
use cannot easily be mitigated without substantiating evidence from independent
sources regarding this element and the other three elements of AG ¶ 26(b). Having
carefully considered the evidence that Applicant has furnished under AG ¶¶ 26(a) and
26(b), her use and purchase of marijuana has not been mitigated. 
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:
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 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.
Applicant is 62 years old. She received a bachelor’s degree in 1985. She has
been working as a purchasing manager at her current job since July 2007. For more
than three years at her previous job, and for more than three years at her present job,
she has engaged in the illegal use of marijuana. The frequency of use was
approximately twice a week. She found the drug to be relaxing as she watched
television. (AG ¶ 2(a)(1), AG ¶ 2(a)(2), (AG ¶ 2(a)(3)) Applicant was between 54 and 61
years old when she voluntarily used the drug. (AG ¶ 2(a)(4), AG ¶ 2(a)(5))
5
AG ¶ 2(a)(6) applies on a limited basis because Applicant has indicated that she
stopped using marijuana in January 2010. However, Applicant has provided no other
behavioral changes that could support her claims of a drug free lifestyle. Even though
the potential for pressure or duress is nonexistent under AG ¶ 2(a)(8) because of
Applicant’s admissions to the OPM investigator and DOHA during the security
investigation, the absence of independent evidence to show abstinence precludes a
decision in Applicant’s favor under the drug involvement guideline. Given the period of
Applicant’s illegal drug purchases and use, insufficient time has passed to justifiably
conclude there will be no recurrence of drug use in the future. (AG ¶ 2(a)(9))
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 through 1.c 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