KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant has not successfully rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all
the evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-06635.a1
DATE: 03/28/2014
DATE: March 28, 2014
In Re:
-------- 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-06635
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 July
24, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense
2
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On January 21, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was granted a clearance following the submission of a security clearance
application (SCA) in June 2011.  After that, Applicant used marijuana twice.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s having smoked marijuana twice while holding a
security clearance raised concerns under Guideline H that she had not mitigated.  Noting that she
had declined to submit a reply to the File of Relevant Material (FORM), he stated that the evidence
left him with doubts about her suitability for a clearance.  He stated that there was nothing unusual
about the circumstances of Applicant’s use that would mitigate its seriousness.  
Discussion
Applicant argues that her two instances of experimentation with marijuana do not constitute
drug abuse.  However, the Directive defines drug abuse as “the illegal use of a drug,” and does not
distinguish between experimentation and more frequent or habitual uses.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶
24(b).  Moreover, Applicant’s first SCA explicitly states that “use of a controlled substance includes
. . . experimenting with . . . any controlled substance.”  Item 4 at 26.  Although frequency of use is
relevant in evaluating the security significance of such conduct, the Judge did not err in concluding
that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline H.  
Applicant states that she was not aware that she had been given a “full” clearance at the time
she smoked marijuana.  However, in her 2012 SCA and her reply to the SOR, she admitted to having
held a clearance at the time of her misconduct, although she stated that she believed it to have been
an interim clearance.  We find no error in the Judge’s finding on this matter.  At the very least,
Applicant’s having completed and submitted an SCA was sufficient to have placed her on notice that
any illegal use of drugs was inconsistent with holding a clearance.  See ISCR Case No. 09-00233
at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2009) (The applicant’s security significant conduct included two uses of
marijuana after having submitted an SCA).
Applicant cites to evidence that over two years have elapsed since her last use of marijuana,
as well as evidence of her youth at the time and that she has never been involved with the law.  A
Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record, and Applicant’s argument
3
on appeal is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07472 at 2 (App.
Bd. Feb. 24, 2011).  Given the record before him, and considering that Applicant provided no
response to the FORM, we cannot say that the Judge’s treatment of the evidence, including evidence
favorable to Applicant, was erroneous.    
Applicant challenges the Judge’s whole-person analysis, contending that he did not properly
weigh all of the factors listed in Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a).  We conclude that the Judge
considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision, which is the hallmark of a whole-
person analysis.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00311 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2014).  Applicant bears
the burden of persuasion as to mitigation, and a paucity of evidence on matters relevant and material
to a clearance decision is a proper matter for the Judge to consider in deciding whether she has met
her burden.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00270 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014).  
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; Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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