1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07068
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I deny Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on March 2, 2010. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on February 8, 2011, detailing security
concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline E, personal conduct, that
provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny him a security clearance. The
action was taken under 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 For Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Item 1; Item 5; Item 6.1
Item 5; Item 6.2
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 20, 2011. He submitted
a notarized, written response to the SOR allegations dated May 27, 2011, and
requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on June 28, 2011. Applicant received the FORM on July 24,
2011. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response. DOHA assigned
this case to me on September 27, 2011. The Government submitted six exhibits, which
have been marked as Items 1-6 and admitted into the record. The SOR has been
marked as Item 1.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After
a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following
additional findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 21 years old, works part time for a Department of Defense
contractor as a junior contract associate. He began this position in January 2009. He
also worked in a landscaping job during the summer of 2010. Applicant anticipated
graduating from college in May 2011, after three years. He is single and has a limited
work history.1
Applicant began experimenting with marijuana in 2005, as a high school
freshman. During his fours years of high school, he smoked marijuana approximately
six times at social events. His marijuana usage increased during his first two years of
college. He smoked it two to eight times a month, generally at social events, such as
parties. His marijuana use declined in 2010. He last used marijuana in November 2010
after he completed his e-QIP and after advising the security clearance investigator in
May 2010 that he did not intend to smoke marijuana again. He purchased marijuana a
few times, but generally received the marijuana he smoked from friends.2
While a college student, Applicant experimented with other illegal drugs, primarily
in 2009. He used one hallucinogenic mushroom in October 2009, ecstacy once in
March 2010, Adderall once in 2007 and once in May 2010 when studying, and
prescription strength pain killers, without a prescription, five to seven times in 2009. His
experimentation with drugs did not impact his grades at school. Applicant has never
been arrested for drug use nor has he received treatment for drug problems. Applicant
Id.3
3
has not indicated that he no longer associates with his friends who use drugs. In his
answers to interrogatories, he stated that he did not intend to use drugs in the future.3
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
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 an 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.
 
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).  
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. I have considered disqualifying factors AG ¶ 25(a) through 20(h), and the
following are potentially applicable:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and,
(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.
Applicant experimented with marijuana as a high school student and smoked it
regularly in college. He also experimented with hallucinogenic mushrooms and ecstacy
while in college. He used pain killers and Adderall without a prescription, which is illegal.
To use these drugs, he possessed them. He occasionally purchased marijuana for his
use. Although he stated in May 2010 that he did not intend to use marijuana again, he
5
continued to use it until November 2010. The above disqualifying conditions apply in this
case.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 26(a) through 26(d), and the following are potentially
applicable:
(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 last use of marijuana was less than one year ago. His drug use
occurred regularly from 2005 through 2010. Thus, his drug use cannot be considered
long ago or infrequent. While he told the security clearance investigator in May 2010
that he did not intend to smoke marijuana or use any other drugs again, he continued to
smoke marijuana until November 2010. Since he used marijuana after he expressed an
intent not to do so in May 2010, his statement that he does not intend to use drugs in
the future is unreliable. It is unknown if he continues to associate with individuals who
use drugs. He has not signed a statement of intent. Based on the facts of this case, he
has not mitigated the security concerns raised about his drug use.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
6
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. I have considered disqualifying factors AG ¶ 16(a) through 16(g), and the
following are potentially applicable:
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of
client confidentiality, release of proprietary information,
unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information:
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the
workplace; 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and,
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer's time or resources.
Applicant’s use of marijuana after he completed his e-QIP in March 2010 and
after expressing an intent not to use drugs to the security clearance investigator reflects
poor judgment by him. During the investigation process, he became aware that the use
of drugs is a concern to the Government, yet he continued to smoke marijuana. AG ¶
16(d) applies.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of
7
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability; and,
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules
and regulations.
Under the facts of this case, none of the above mitigating conditions apply.
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns about his personal conduct under
Guideline E.
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 an 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. 
8
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
anticipated graduating from college in three years. His academic performance is
excellent. He has not been arrested for criminal conduct or any other conduct. However,
he started experimenting with marijuana as a high school student. In college, he
increased his marijuana use and experimented with other drugs. His last marijuana use
occurred less than a year ago and after he explicitly told the security clearance
investigator that he did not intend to use marijuana again. This subsequent use of
marijuana made his more recent statement not to use drugs in the future unreliable. He
has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he intends to abstain from drug use in
the future and that he has changed his lifestyle.
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
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 and
personal conduct under Guidelines E and F.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge