1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07662
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Phillip J. Katauskas, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
 
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concern that was generated by her history of
illegal drug use. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On January 25, 2012, 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,
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 answered the SOR on March 1, 2012, admitting the allegations. She
requested a hearing, and the case was assigned to me on April 13, 2012. On April 30,
2012, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for May 16, 2012. The
Applicant has never smoked marijuana around her daughter. (Tr. 24)1
2
hearing was conducted as scheduled. I received three Government exhibits (GE 1-3),
six Applicant exhibits (AE A-F) , and Applicant’s testimony. The transcript was received
on May 23, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 48-year-old, single woman with one child, age 18. Applicant
worked her way through college in the mid-1980s, earning a bachelor’s of general
studies in engineering and business in 1987. She earned a master’s of business degree
in the field of information systems in 2006.
Applicant has worked in the information technology and business development
field since 1990. Since then, her responsibilities have progressively increased.
Currently, she is the business development manager for a company that has some
government clients. (Tr. 20) This is her first application for a security clearance. (Tr. 25)
Applicant is highly respected on the job and among her friends. According to a
friend and former coworker, Applicant has an “open and direct” personality and is
“honest to a fault.” (AE A) According to another friend, Applicant, a single parent,
successfully balanced her career with raising her daughter, currently on the dean’s list
in college. (GE C) 
During Applicant’s daughter’s childhood, she was actively involved in her
extracurricular activities. For example, she was an avid “soccer mom” who served as
the soccer team travel manager. (Tr. 23) Although the father of Applicant’s child steadily
paid child support, he has a limited relationship with her.
Applicant used marijuana from her mid-teens in the early 1980s to 2009. She
started in high school. (Tr. 22) She stopped briefly while in college after getting a job as
a delivery driver. Since finishing college, Applicant has occasionally smoked marijuana
at a jazz festival, held annually, with old friends with whom she would run into at the
festival. (Tr. 24) She characterizes her marijuana use as rare because she did not go to
the jazz festival every year, and she sometimes went with her daughter.  Applicant1
never purchased the marijuana on the occasions she used it at the jazz festival.
Instead, she would typically share a cigarette with two or three people. (GE 2 at 5)
Since Appellant’s daughter was born in 1993, she “could count on one hand” the
amount of times that she has used marijuana. (Tr. 24) Applicant’s last use of marijuana
was in 2009. 
Applicant used cocaine twice in her life. The first time was in the mid-1980s, and
the most recent time was in 2004 with an ex-boyfriend. (Tr. 24)  She had an adverse
physical reaction on both occasions.  Applicant executed an affidavit swearing not to
use marijuana or any other illegal drugs in the future. 
3
Policies
In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are
required to be considered 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. 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.” 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “use of an illegal 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,” (AG ¶ 24) Applicant’s use of marijuana and cocaine triggers the
application of AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse.”
Applicant’s drug use was infrequent, and she has executed an affidavit promising
never to use illegal drugs again. AG ¶ 26(a), “the behavior . . . was so infrequent . . .
that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” and AG ¶ 26(b)(4), “a demonstrated intent not to
abuse any drugs in the future, such as . . . a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation,” apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
4
(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.
Applicant’s involvement with illegal drugs cannot be characterized as youthful
experimentation. She used cocaine once within the past ten years, and used marijuana
as recently as 2009. Conversely, the cocaine use in 2004 represented the only time she
has used it since 1990, and she has used marijuana less than five times in the past 18
years. Applicant asserts that she will never abuse illegal drugs again. The infrequency
of Applicant’s drug use, her success on the job, and her success in raising her
daughter, a college honor student, bolster the credibility of this assertion. I conclude that
the recency of the drug use is outweighed by its infrequency. Upon considering this
case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated
the security concern.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge