See DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended, Section E3.1.2.2.1
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended. See also Directive, Section E3.1.1.2
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-07777
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has used marijuana for 43 years, most recently in August 2013. He
also intends to continue using marijuana. His request for a security clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On March 23, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (eQIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his job with
a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background
investigation, which included his responses to interrogatories from Department of
Defense (DOD) adjudicators,  it could not be determined that it is clearly consistent with1
the national interest for Applicant to have access to classified information.2
 See Directive, Enclosure 2. See also 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).3
 See Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7. The FORM included four documents (Items 1 - 4) proffered in4
support of the Government’s case.
2
On November 20, 2013, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts that raise security concerns addressed at Guideline H (Drug
Involvement).  Applicant timely responded to the SOR and requested a decision without3
a hearing. On January 20, 2014, Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material
(FORM)  in support of the SOR. Applicant received the FORM on January 28, 2014,4
and was notified that he had 30 days to file a response to the FORM. The record closed
after Applicant failed to submit any additional information within the time allowed. The
case was assigned to me on April 9, 2014.
Findings of Fact
The Government alleged that Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency
between December 1970 and August 2013 (SOR 1.a); that he may use marijuana in the
future because he enjoys it (SOR 1.b); and that in 2006 he bought marijuana and gave
his girlfriend money with which to purchase marijuana (SOR 1.c). Applicant admitted
SOR 1.a, and denied with explanation SOR 1.b and 1.c. (FORM, Items 1 and 2) In
addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admission, I make the following findings
of fact.
Applicant is 62 years old and has been employed by the same defense
contractor since January 1980. However, this appears to be his first request for a
security clearance. (FORM, Item 3)
In his eQIP, Applicant disclosed that he has used marijuana two to three times
monthly since 1970. He also stated his intent to continue using marijuana because he
enjoys its effects. His last use of marijuana at the time was in the same month he
submitted his eQIP. (FORM, Item 3)
On May 15, 2012, Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator as
part of his background investigation. He had smoked marijuana earlier that month.
During the interview, Applicant disclosed that he was still using marijuana, although less
frequently than as he stated in his eQIP. He also stated he normally smokes marijuana
alone when he is at home, and that he enjoys the calming effect marijuana has on him.
(FORM, Item 4)
During the interview, Applicant also disclosed that, in 2006, he provided a former
girlfriend money with which to buy marijuana. Applicant’s girlfriend, who died in 2010,
was a heroin addict who was going through detoxification in 2006 and was waiting for
admission to a methadone treatment program. The marijuana was intended to ease the
effects of heroin withdrawal until she could start methadone treatment. Applicant, who
had reduced his use of marijuana because he had developed asthma, resumed
smoking marijuana two to three times a month with his girlfriend while she was in the
methadone program. However, in response to the SOR, Applicant claimed that his
 Directive. 6.3.5
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
3
marijuana use with his girlfriend was the first time in more than 20 years he had smoked
marijuana. He also averred that once she started the methadone program, and for the
next four years, he did not smoke marijuana. But when she died in 2010, Applicant
found the rest of her marijuana among her effects, and he has been using that
marijuana sporadically ever since. (FORM, Items 2 and 4)
On October 8, 2013, Applicant responded to interrogatories about his drug use
from DOD adjudicators. He confirmed that his last drug use was in August 2013, and
that he may continue to use marijuana infrequently. As of then, he still possessed his
girlfriend’s marijuana. However, when he responded to the SOR, he disavowed any
future intent to use drugs. (FORM, Items 2 and 4)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the
new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. Department Counsel must produce sufficient
reliable information on which DOHA based its preliminary decision to deny or revoke a
security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, Department Counsel must prove
 Directive, E3.1.14.7
 Directive, E3.1.15.8
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.9
 See Egan; Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).10
4
controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  If the Department Counsel meets its burden, it7
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the case for disqualification.  8
Because no one is entitled to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion to establish that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
the applicant to have access to protected information.  A person who has access to9
such information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust
and confidence. Thus, there is a compelling need to ensure each applicant possesses
the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the
nation’s interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for
access to classified information in favor of the Government.10
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Applicant is 61 years old, and he has used marijuana, at times as often as two or
three times each month, since he was a teenager. In his eQIP, during his interview by a
Government investigator, and in his interrogatory responses, he expressed his intent to
continue using marijuana. This information raises a security concern articulated at AG ¶
24, as follows:
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: 
(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. 
5
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse (see above definition); and 25(h) (expressed
intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to
discontinue drug use).
I have also considered the following AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions:
(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)
dissociation from drug-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;
(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.
AG ¶¶ 26(c) and (d) do not pertain to the facts and circumstances of this case.
As to AG ¶¶ 26(a) and (b), the record does not support their application. Applicant’s
marijuana use has been of long duration, and his drug use within the last 12 months
precludes a finding there has been “an appropriate period of abstinence.” Applicant’s
statement, in response to the SOR, that he will now abstain from future drug use has no
persuasive value. He has failed to mitigate the security concerns about his involvement
with illegal drugs. 
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guideline H. I have also reviewed the record before me in the
context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). All available information
suggests Applicant’s involvement with illegal drugs will continue. His entire adult life has
included illegal conduct in the form of marijuana use. He has done nothing to resolve
the resulting doubts about his suitability for access to classified information. Because
protection of the national interest is the central purpose of these adjudications, those
doubts must be resolved for the Government.
6
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all available information, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a
security clearance is denied.
                                                    
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge