KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant cited to no evidence that he would have submitted had he been represented
by counsel.  Applicant was not denied the due process afforded by the Directive.  Applicant cites
to evidence that his security-significant conduct ended in 2009. The Judge acknowledged the
lapse of time.  However, Applicant’s conduct, viewed cumulatively, and taking into account a
weapons conviction, supports the Judge’s adverse conclusion.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-09876.a1
DATE: 09/06/2013
DATE: September 6, 2013 
In Re:
--------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-09876
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
January 15, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 31, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant was denied due process
and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent
with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Federal contractor.  He began working for his current
employer in 2010, submitting his application for a security clearance in December of that year.  
Applicant has a history of drug abuse and criminal conduct.  He used marijuana multiple
times daily from January 2000 through September 2009.  He tested positive for marijuana on a
random drug test, resulting in his being fired from his job.  In 2007, he was cited by a sheriff for
marijuana possession.  He appeared in court and the charge was dismissed.
In 2009, Applicant was stopped by the highway patrol.  The officer confiscated a handgun.
Applicant pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful carrying and possession of a loaded
firearm in a public place.  The court sentenced Applicant to 48 hours confinement and three years
of probation.  He completed the probation in September 2012.  
At the hearing, Applicant stated that he was no longer a misguided youth and that he intends
not to use drugs again.  He signed a statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any subsequent violation.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under both Guidelines
alleged in the SOR.  He also concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate these concerns.  He
noted favorable evidence, such as Applicant’s statement of intent and that he disclosed his drug use
in completing his clearance application.  However, the Judge stated that Applicant’s history of
security-significant conduct included daily drug use for nearly a decade and a conviction for a
firearm offense that resulted in his being incarcerated.  The Judge stated that Applicant’s conduct
raises serious doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the result of his case might have been different if he had been
represented by counsel.  DOHA gave Applicant pre-hearing guidance that advised him of his right
to counsel, his right to submit evidence, etc.  At the beginning of the hearing, the Judge queried
Applicant about his capacity to represent himself, concluding that Applicant was able to do so.  Tr.
at 10-12.  In addition, Department Counsel provided Applicant with some assistance in preparing
a document for submission into evidence.  Tr. at 33-34.  Applicant has cited to no evidence that he
would have submitted had he been represented by counsel.  We conclude that Applicant was not
denied the due process afforded by the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07352 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jul. 28, 2009).  
Applicant cites to evidence that his security-significant conduct ended in September 2009.
He argues that enough time has elapsed so as to demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself.  The
Judge acknowledged the lapse of time, as well as other evidence favorable to Applicant.  However,
Applicant’s conduct, viewed cumulatively and taking into account his weapons conviction, supports
the Judge’s adverse conclusion.  Applicant has advanced an alternative interpretation of the
evidence, but that is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence or
reached an erroneous conclusion regarding the ultimate issue in the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
08-08944 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2009).  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board