Applicant filed his first security clearance application (SF-86) on August 1, 2001. GE 3.1
1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-01275
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on September 23, 2013.  The Department of Defense (DOD) issued1
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 15, 2014, detailing security concerns
under Guideline H, drug involvement. The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; DOD 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 (AG),
implemented on September 1, 2006. 
GE 1; GE 2; AE A; AE B; Tr. 18-19.2
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 17-18.3
2
 Applicant received the SOR on May 28, 2014, and he answered it on June 13,
2014. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 24, 2014, and I received the case assignment on August 19, 2014. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on September 8, 2014, and an Amended Notice of Hearing
on September 12, 2014. I convened the hearing on the rescheduled date of October 2,
2014. The Government offered four exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through GE 4. GE 1
through GE 3 were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
raised concerns about GE 4. As agreed, the Government provided a current copy of this
document, which is included in the record. Applicant testified. He offered two documents
which were marked as exhibits (AE) A and B, received and admitted into evidence
without objection. The record closed on October 2, 2014. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on October 15, 2014.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a and
1.b of the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also
provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the
following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 33 years old, works as a data operations satellite engineer, for
a DOD contractor. Applicant began working as a contractor for his employer in 2004
and became a full-time employee as of January 1, 2005. Applicant has continued to
upgrade and update his skills and is now the only employee who is fully certified on all
work-related programs and equipment. His supervisor and his mission director describe
him as a dedicated employee upon whom they can rely. He is highly knowledgeable
about his work and the company programs. He trains many new workers. Both consider
him an asset to his employer and express confidence in Applicant. Applicant has
socialized with both outside of work and neither describe any negative conduct by
Applicant. His mission director indicates that Applicant is not the person that is being
investigated; rather he is honest, trustworthy, loyal and reliable. He is aware of the SOR
allegations and believes Applicant’s use of marijuana to be an aberration.2
Applicant graduated from high school in 1999 and attended two years of college.
He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps Reserves in the summer of 2001. Over
the next eight years, he served as an active reservist and on active duty from March
2003 until January 2004. He received an honorable discharge in October 2009.3
Applicant married in May 2004, separated from his wife in 2010 because of her
infidelity, and divorced in May 2012. He has two sons, who are nine and eleven years
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 17, 29.4
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 19-20, 31-32.5
GE 2; Tr. 24-27. 6
SOR response; Tr. 27.7
3
old. He and his former wife share joint custody of his sons. After their separation,
Applicant and his former wife filed for bankruptcy because they could not afford to
divorce. Their debts were discharged in bankruptcy in May 2011, and their home was
foreclosed in December 2011. Applicant now owns a small home and timely pays his
bills.4
By late 2010, Applicant’s life was in chaos, and he was depressed as his “life
pretty much fall apart.” Because of the stress in his life, Applicant sought a way to
relieve his depression. He opted not to consume alcohol because it was a “depressant”,
and he was already depressed. A neighbor and friend, when he lived in his marital
home, suggested he smoke marijuana. In early January 2011, he purchased some
marijuana from a dispensary. He smoked two marijuana cigarettes in one week. The
drug made him tired and did not change his situation. He decided that he would not
again smoke or use marijuana in any form and has not.5
Applicant has not used any other illegal drugs since January 2011. He explained
his decision not to be involved with illegal drugs at the hearing as follows:
I think part of this whole process, the - - the worrying and the
uncontrollable sweating from losing my clearance and possible losing my
entire way of life, has shown me that it wasn’t worth it, and it - - now
knowing that it wasn’t something that I, A, enjoyed, and B, remedied my
situation. I know that it’s not going to fix anything, and I have no desire to
do it whatsoever. (Tr. 34)
Applicant moved from his marital home and has not associated with his neighbor
since his move. He believes his neighbor moved. He does not know where his neighbor
now lives. Applicant’s current friends do not use illegal drugs, and Applicant does not
associate with anyone who uses illegal drugs.6
In his response to the SOR, Applicant signed a statement indicating that he had
no intent to use illegal drugs in the future, and that if he did, he agreed to an automatic
revocation of his security clearance. He reaffirmed this statement at the hearing.7
Applicant has held a security clearance since approximately 2002. He held a
security clearance at the time he smoked the marijuana. Applicant knew marijuana was
illegal when he smoked it. He explained that he did not think about his clearance when
he decided to smoke the marijuana as he was overwhelmed with his life at that time. He
considers his conduct a snapshot in time and a lapse in judgment from which he has
Tr. 20-24, 32-33.8
Tr. 29-20.9
4
learned that alcohol or drugs will not fix his problems or make them go away. He must
face his problems and take care of them. Smoking marijuana is not who he is. He now
handles his stress in life by running or biking, which he describes as a way to clear his
head and feel better about himself.8
The Government learned about Applicant’s use of marijuana when he reported it
on his 2013 e-QIP. He did not report his marijuana use to his superiors in 2011 because
he was “fearful” he could lose his job if he reported it. He had been reprimanded at work
for his performance, which had been effected by his personal problems. He reported his
use of marijuana because he did not want to lie on his e-QIP.9
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
5
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 an 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive 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:
(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:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and
6
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance.
Applicant twice smoked marijuana in 2011 while he held a security clearance. He
purchased the marijuana from a dispensary, and he possessed it. AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(c),
and 25(g) are raised.
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;
and
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation.
Almost four years ago, Applicant smoked marijuana twice in one week during a
period of high stress. He sought to relieve his stress and to fix his problems. He realized
that the marijuana did not resolve his problems, and he did not like its effect. He actively
chose not to smoke marijuana again and has signed a sworn statement not to use
marijuana in the future. He has not used any other illegal drug. Applicant moved from
the neighborhood where he resided during his marriage and where he smoked the
marijuana. He no longer associates with the neighbor who suggested he smoke the
marijuana, and his current friends do not use marijuana. His experiment with marijuana
in January 2011 does not reflect on his current reliability, trustworthiness or good
judgment.
At the time he smoked the marijuana, he held a security clearance. His decision
to smoke marijuana, an illegal drug, betrayed the trust the Government had placed in
him. This betrayal of trust is an important negative against Applicant. Applicant fully
understands the problems he created for himself by his lapse of judgment. He has
learned that the use of any illegal drug will not solve his problems and actually creates
more problems for him. He has developed new ways to manage his stress, which he
has used during the last year as he moved through his security review process. In
weighing the entirety of Applicant’s conduct, I find that his change in behavior to
manage his stress and his decision to remain drug free weigh heavily in his favor as it
reflects good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Applicant has mitigated the
security concerns of the Government.
7
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 an 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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. The
infidelity of Applicant’s wife in 2010 caused his life to spiral downward and resulting in
divorce, bankruptcy, and foreclosure of his home. During the early stages of this abrupt
change in his life, Applicant made a bad decision to smoke marijuana on two occasions.
He did not like the effects of the marijuana, and he realized that it would not solve his
problems. He made an immediate decision not to smoke marijuana again and continues
to abide by that decision. Since January 2011, Applicant has learned to manage his
stress in new ways and shown maturity in his approach to his problems. Applicant was
forthright and honest about his conduct at the hearing and about his intent not to use
marijuana in the future. He placed the Government on notice of his marijuana use when
he self-reported his use on his 2013 e-QIP. He has demonstrated that he is trustworthy,
dependable and reliable.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his experimental use of
marijuana under Guideline H.
8
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge