KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: In his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that, if necessary, he would sign a
statement not to use drugs again.  However, he provided no such statement.  The Judge also
made a sustainable finding that, given the lack of evidence, it is impossible to know how many
times Applicant used marijuana.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 14-00914.a1
DATE: 04/08/2015
DATE: April 8, 2015
In Re:
---------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00914
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Peter Noone, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
13, 2014, 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
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On January 7, 2015 after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact  
Applicant is 29 years old and holds a Master’s degree.  He seeks a clearance in connection
with his employment by a Defense contractor.  Applicant used marijuana between April 2005 and
August 2013.  Applicant states that it was recreational use only.  In his Answer to the SOR, he stated
that, if necessary, he would sign a statement of intent not to use drugs again, with revocation of
clearance should there be future such misconduct.  However, he provided no such statement.
Neither did he provide evidence of his work performance, track record regarding safeguarding
protected information, good character, etc.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant offered insufficient evidence in mitigation.  He noted that
Applicant had provided no statement of intent.  He also stated that, given the lack of evidence, it is
impossible to know how many times Applicant used marijuana.  He also stated that there is not
evidence of behavioral changes, etc.
Discussion
 Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that, he argues, is similar to his own and that
demonstrates that he should have a clearance.  We have given this case due consideration as
persuasive authority.  However, Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office
Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14723 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2014).
Each case must be decided on its own merits.   This case is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s
adverse decision.  The Judge’s findings and conclusions about the lack of evidence are sustainable
and support his overall adverse decision.  The Applicant bears the burden of persuasion regarding
mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  
Applicant has offered matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive
¶ E3.1.29.   Applicant argues that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record, citing
to Applicant’s Answer to the SOR about his willingness to sign a statement of intent.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that
the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28,
2014).
We do not review a case de novo.  The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a
satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  A paucity of
record evidence on matters relevant and material to a clearance decision is something that a Judge
can address in evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00270 at
2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014).  “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 Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board