KEYWORD: Guideline D; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is no particular length of time that would place an applicant’s drug use
sufficiently in the past so as to mitigate concerns arising therefrom.  That is a matter within the
discretion of the Judge.  The Judge’s whole-person analysis complied with the requirements of
the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-02203.a1
DATE: 03/30/2015
DATE: March 30, 2015
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02203
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
16, 2014, 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 E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Department Counsel requested a hearing.  On December 1, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge properly applied the
whole-person concept and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this case.
Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant graduated from college in 2000 and has worked for a Government contractor since
2006.  He has held a security clearance since that time.  Applicant used marijuana in 2005 while
visiting a country in which such conduct was legal.  However, he used marijuana again, twice in
2007 and once in 2009.  These last three uses occurred while Applicant held a security clearance.
He was in his thirties at the time of his misconduct.  He has promised not to use marijuana again,
contending that he has become more aware of the importance of his security clearance.  He noted
that it has been five years since his last use.  He has an excellent work record.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the Guideline E allegation in Applicant’s favor.  This allegation
concerned Applicant’s continued association with persons who used drugs.  She found credible his
evidence that he had advised his friends not to use marijuana in his presence.  However, she
concluded that he had not mitigated concerns arising from his having used marijuana on multiple
occasions while holding a security clearance.  She stated that, given his age at the time, his conduct
could not be attributed to youthful indiscretions.  She stated that the five years that have elapsed
since his marijuana use are not enough to mitigate concerns about his lack of self-discipline.  She
stated that he did not recognize, or ignored, the importance of his obligations and that he had
violated the trust that the Government had placed in him.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence of the length of time since his security-significant conduct and
to other evidence that is favorable to him, for example that he has a family and has matured.  He
argues that he should not lose a clearance due to what he characterizes as “infrequent poor
decisions.”  Appeal Brief at 2.  We have never specified a particular length of time that would place
an applicant’s drug use sufficiently in the past so as to mitigate security concerns arising therefrom.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-09172 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2013).  We have left that matter in the
discretion of the Judge, to be evaluated along with all the other evidence in the record.  In this case,
the record includes evidence that Applicant did not merely use marijuana three times but that he did
so while holding a clearance.  Questions on his security clearance application (SCA), completed in
late 2005, about any prior use while holding a clearance should have placed him on notice of the
importance that the Government attached to such conduct and the deleterious effect it could exert
on his effort to retain a clearance.  Government Exhibit 3, SCA, dated September 9, 2005, at 35.  See
ISCR Case No. 12-06635 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2014).  A reasonable person could find that
Applicant’s use of marijuana despite this notice casts doubt on his reliability and judgment.  Under
3
the facts of this case, we are not able to say that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence or that her
adverse conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
We conclude that the Judge considered Applicant’s security-significant conduct in light of
the entirety of the record evidence, thereby satisfying the Directive’s requirement for a whole-person
analysis.  See ISCR Case No. 12-03077 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 13, 2013).  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: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board