1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-03103
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Charles Swift, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant admitted frequent marijuana use during high school, and using it about
once a year between 1993 and 2007. He also admitted using a small amount of cocaine
offered by friends on two occasions between 2002 and 2008, one of which occurred
while visiting another country. He has abstained from any drug abuse for five years,
during which time he married, had a child, and changed his social environment. He
does not intend to abuse drugs in the future, and an expert psychologist provided a
positive prognosis. The evidence is sufficient to mitigate security concerns. Based upon
a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on October 6, 2011. On
September 11, 2012, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement) and E
(Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
2
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, effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on October 24, 2012, and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on November 19, 2012. The case was assigned to me on November 28, 2012. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on December 10, 2012, setting the case for January 22,
2013. Due to the unavailability of Applicant’s expert witness to appear on that date, I
granted his request for a two-day continuance. DOHA issued an Amended Notice of
Hearing on January 8, 2013, and I convened the hearing, as rescheduled, on January
24, 2013. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, which were admitted without
objection, and Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, a list of Government exhibits. Applicant offered
exhibits (AE) A and B, which were also admitted without objection and with his informed
consent. Two witnesses and Applicant testified on his behalf. I granted Applicant’s
request to leave the record open until February 7, 2013, to permit submission of
additional evidence. On February 1, 2013, Applicant submitted AE C, which was
admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
February 6, 2013, and the record closed as scheduled.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor for whom he has
worked since January 2008. He is married and has one young child. He is a high school
graduate, and earned about five semesters of college credit before leaving school to
begin working as a computer systems engineer. He has no military service and has
never held a security clearance. (GE 1; Tr. 54.) 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of all factual allegations
in the SOR, with some additional explanation and clarification. Applicant’s admissions
are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant began regular marijuana use around January 1992, while attending a
boarding school for his first two years of high school. He continued such use after
returning home to attend his local high school in his junior year and purchased
marijuana during that period. During January 1993, he and a friend were arrested and
charged for breaking into a building at a local community college. He revealed the
extent of his marijuana use and, as a result, the judge or his parents or both directed
him to attend an outpatient drug-treatment program. He attended and completed the
program from January to September 1993, and tested positive on a drug test at the
beginning of the program. After his treatment program, he smoked marijuana once or
twice a year due to peer pressure when it was offered to him at parties or nightclubs. He
last used marijuana in January 2007, when he decided to quit altogether after a friend
3
with whom he had smoked some fell off a boat and drowned. (AR; GE 1; GE 2; AE A;
Tr. 60-72, 86-87.)
Applicant used cocaine experimentally on two occasions, also due to peer
pressure when it was offered to him by friends. The first time was either in 2002 or
2006, at a nightclub during a trip to Peru. The second time was in a night club in Las
Vegas during March 2008. Applicant did not plan to use cocaine on either occasion, but
accepted and snorted one “line” each time when his friends encouraged him to do so.
There was no police or other law enforcement involvement on either occasion. (AR;
GE1; GE2; AE A; Tr. 66-68, 84-85, 91-92.)  
Applicant and his wife met in 2008, and married in September 2009. She does
not use any drugs and has never known him to do so since they have been together.
They no longer associate with anyone who uses drugs. He did not tell her about the
2008 cocaine use, and testified credibly that he has not abused any drugs since then.
He also testified credibly that he has no intention of ever abusing drugs in the future,
feeling that nothing good ever comes of it and not wanting to risk doing anything that
could hurt his wife or young daughter. (Tr. 36, 47-55, 67-73, 84-86, 90, 94-96.)
In January 2013, he was evaluated by a licensed clinical psychologist who
specializes in substance abuse issues, and was diagnosed with “Psychoactive
Substance Abuse NOS In Sustained Remission for four years.” The psychologist gave
him a excellent prognosis for continued abstinence, stating that recurrence was “highly
unlikely.” He said that Applicant’s occasional drug use between 1994 and 2008 would
be called a period of partial remission with brief relapse, and that such activity was
common during an early-life progressive process of recovery. (AE A; AE B; Tr. 26-45.) 
Applicant signed and submitted a “Statement of Intent to Refrain from Illegal
Drug Use.” The statement included his agreements to immediately report any drug
abuse to his facility security officer, and to automatic revocation of his clearance without
further process for any future drug abuse. (AE C.) He made a strong impression of
being a mature and responsible individual who is candid about his past mistakes and
sincere in his resolve not to repeat them. (Tr.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
4
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 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 potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified 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:
5
(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. The DCs raised by the evidence in this case include:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence.
Applicant admittedly purchased and used marijuana on a regular basis during the
early 1990s while in high school. He successfully completed an outpatient drug-
treatment program between January and September 1993, after testing positive for drug
abuse at the start of the program. From then until January 2007, he used marijuana
once or twice per year when it was offered to him by friends during social gatherings. In
either 2002 or 2006, and in 2008, he consumed a small amount of cocaine at the urging
of friends on two occasions. He has not abused any drug since that time. He does not
recall his exact diagnosis from 1993, but his 2013 diagnosis was “Psychoactive
Substance Abuse NOS in Sustained Remission for four years,” and would have been
“In Partial Remission with Brief Relapse” between 1993 and 2008. Accordingly, I find
that the abuse diagnosis dates back to his period of regular use before January 1993.
These facts support application of the foregoing DCs, and shift the burden to Applicant
to prove mitigation of resulting security concerns.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
6
(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;
(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 abuse of marijuana primarily occurred about 20 years ago, with only
brief relapses once or twice per year until January 2007. On that last occasion, a friend
of his died and he considers her marijuana use to have been a contributing factor in her
accidental death. He has not abused any drug since March 2008, and his evaluating
psychologist considers his infrequent use from 1993 until then, including his minor
experimentation with cocaine, to be indicative of a normal course of recovery. He no
longer attends parties involving illegal drug use and presented compelling evidence that
drug abuse is unlikely to recur. Substantial mitigation under AG ¶ 26(a) was accordingly
established.
Applicant no longer associates with the former friends or engages in recreational
activities where peer pressure to use drugs might exist. He has been abstinent since
March 2008, married a woman who uses no drugs, and had a child who is important to
him. He also submitted a statement of intent to never abuse drugs in the future with
automatic revocation for any violation. These facts establish additional mitigation under
AG ¶ 26(b).
The drug abuse in this case did not involve prescription drugs, so AG ¶ 26(c) has
no application to this decision. Applicant successfully completed an outpatient drug-
treatment program in 1993, and had only brief relapses between then and 2008. A
highly qualified substance abuse expert diagnosed him to be in full remission for four
years, and offered an excellent prognosis of “highly unlikely” recurrence. Applicant thus
demonstrated significant mitigation under AG ¶ 26(d).
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
7
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. The DC alleged by the Government and supported by some evidence is:
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group.
Applicant engaged in a pattern of behavior involving questionable judgment and
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that, if known, could have affected
his personal and professional standing. His cocaine use in Peru was illegal, but
occurred in a private setting with the knowledge only of the friends who offered him the
drug. That minimizes, but does not eliminate the possibility that such conduct could
serve as a basis for exploitation or pressure. Security concerns under AG ¶ 16(e) were
raised by these facts.
AG ¶ 17 describes conditions that could mitigate security concerns under the
Personal Conduct guideline. The MCs established by the evidence in this case are: 
(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; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. 
Applicant proved mitigation under AG ¶ 17(c) for the same reasons set forth
above concerning AG ¶ 26(a). The only evidence of his past drug abuse came from his
honest admissions. He successfully completed eight months of outpatient treatment
during 1993, with only occasional brief relapses between then and 2008. Since 2008, he
has married and started a family, completely changing the environment and
8
circumstances under which he formerly engaged in casual drug abuse. A well-qualified
medical professional opined in January 2013 that his behavior of concern is highly
unlikely to recur, and I agree with that prognosis. Applicant accordingly established
significant mitigation under AG ¶ 17(d). Finally, Applicant’s honest disclosure of his past
drug abuse to his wife, his employer, and the Government eliminated his potential
vulnerability for exploitation, manipulation, or duress from attempts to conceal it. This
demonstrates mitigation under AG ¶ 17(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 the 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. 
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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant had a significant
drug abuse problem in high school more than 20 years ago. His drug use between 1993
and 2008 was casual and infrequent, but of potential concern as a reflection of
disregard for known legal obligations. He decided more than five years ago that he had
no further use or desire for illegal drugs, and demonstrated a substantial period of
abstinence since then. He also married a woman with similar beliefs, had a child, and
started a responsible job. He demonstrated his present maturity and rehabilitation, while
honestly acknowledging his past mistakes, which minimizes any potential for coercion or
duress. After 1993, his only motivation for his occasional drug abuse was peer pressure
from friends with whom he no longer associates or cares to impress. The likelihood of
recurrence of drug abuse or other forms of irresponsibility is remote.  
Overall, the record evidence creates no doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. He fully met his burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising from his past drug involvement and personal conduct.
9
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge