Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-E. AE E was1
timely received post hearing.
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
DoD on 1 September 2006. 
At which, Department Counsel withdrew the Guideline E allegations (Tr. 15).3
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-04712
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is granted.1
On 7 December 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns under Guidelines H, Drug
Involvement, and E, Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely answered, requesting a2
hearing before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned
the case to me 7 February 2013, and I convened a hearing 9 April 2013.  DOHA3
received the transcript (Tr.) 16 April 2013. 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 34-year-old tech support
technologist employed by a defense contractor since July 2000. He seeks to retain the
clearance he obtained in March 2005, the first he ever had.
 
Between 1996 and December 2008, Applicant used marijuana at varying
frequencies, an estimated 3,000 times (SOR 1.a). Between October 2004 and October
2008, he purchased user amounts of marijuana (SOR 1.b). He also experimented with
cocaine about four times between December 2004 and December 2006 (SOR 1.d).
Cocaine made him ill each time he tried it. All the illegal drug use that occurred after
March 2005 occurred while Applicant held a clearance (SOR 1.c, 1,e). Applicant fully
disclosed his drug use on his January 2012 clearance application (GE 1).
Applicant began using marijuana in 1996, during his senior year in high school.
He continued to use marijuana after high school, while in community college, and
afterward.
Since June 1998, Applicant has been employed in computer support for several
employers, each of whom are federal contractors. In May 1999, Applicant went to work
for a computer support company, detailed to support his current employer, who hired
him directly in July 2000. He has been employed there since, working exclusively in
company-controlled buildings.
In September 2003, Applicant’s company nominated him for a clearance, and
Applicant completed his first clearance application (GE 4). He reported using marijuana
numerous times between January 1997 and September 2003. He provided greater
detail about his marijuana use on his January 2004 sworn statement, and stated an
intent to refrain from marijuana use in the future because he had matured and was now
focused on his career (GE 3).
 Applicant received his clearance in March 2005, but the only change in
Applicant’s employment was that his company badge changed from yellow to red in
color. He was assigned the same kind of work that he had been assigned since 2000,
and did not have access to classified information.
In 2005, Applicant resumed using marijuana and began using it more frequently
than he had previously, daily or nearly daily. During this time, he bought marijuana on
occasion for his personal consumption. He mostly used marijuana at home, but
occasionally he used with friends.
In July 2007, Applicant’s father died. Applicant had worked part-time for his
father’s heating and air conditioning company since about October 2000. In 2008,
Applicant began working on classified contracts for his company, and began having
access to classified material. Applicant came to realize that he was putting both his job
and classified information at risk by continuing to use marijuana, so he stopped using
3
marijuana in May 2008, except for a last celebratory—and admittedly stupid—time at a
holiday party in December 2008. In January 2012, Applicant’s clearance came up for
periodic reinvestigation and for an upgrade in access, and he completed his second
clearance application, again reporting all his drug involvement.
 
Applicant’s performance appraisals the last four years (2009-2012) have been
excellent (AE A). Since October 2008, Applicant has been recognized by his company
28 times for his work performance—six achievement awards for extraordinary
contributions and 22 spot awards for outstanding performance (AE B). Spot awards
come with a cash incentive payment. Applicant’s security manager since August 2010,
who nominated Applicant for two of his cash awards, noted both Applicant’s outstanding
computer support for him for the last two-plus years and his extreme remorse over his
past drug use (AE C). In March 2013, Applicant voluntarily obtained a standard drug
screen, which came back negative for any illegal drugs (AE D). Applicant has provided
a signed statement of intent concerning future drug use as contemplated by the
Directive (AE E).
Applicant has no ongoing contact with any of the people with whom he used
illegal drugs. When he first stopped using illegal drugs, he was offered—and
refused—marijuana, but over time he stopped seeing these people because he realized
they were not going to change, and he did not want to be exposed to the risk of being
associated with illegal drug users.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to be considered in evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must
assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the
facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial
commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The presence or absence
of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against an applicant.
However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be
measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial
of access to classified information. 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 something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, it establishes a baseline case against granting a
clearance. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, an 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
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶25 (a) any drug abuse ; (c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,5
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; (g) any illegal drug abuse after being granted a
security clearance;
¶ 26 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that6
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 drug7
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
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H, by
demonstrating Applicant’s extensive illegal drug abuse between 1996 and December
2008, during a time he used them while holding a clearance.  However, Applicant5
mitigated the security concerns. Without minimizing the security significance his illegal
drug abuse, and drug abuse after being granted a clearance, the important fact is that
Applicant had never had access to classified information, and thus did not fully
recognize the risk to which he was exposing himself and classified information. When
he was transferred to a job that required him to have access to classified information, he
began to realize the risk that continued marijuana use subjected himself to, and he
stopped his illegal marijuana use—except for one relapse at a Christmas party in
December 2008.
Drug involvement mitigating conditions give substantial support to Applicant. His
illegal drug abuse was frequent, and covered an extensive time period. However, his
last illegal drug use was December 2008, over four years ago.  Further, he6
demonstrated intent to not abuse drugs in the future by abstaining altogether for more
than four years, disassociating himself from drug using contacts and avoiding the
environments where he used with friends, and stating a willingness to sign—and then
signing—the statement of intent contemplated by the Directive.  I conclude Applicant is7
unlikely to abuse illegal drugs in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H for
Applicant.
5
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: WITHDRAWN
Conclusion
Under 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