1
                                                             
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-04214
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 3, 2015
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on July 31, 2013. (Government Exhibit 1.) On October 21, 2014, the
Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security
concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) concerning Applicant. The action was
taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 20, 2014 (Answer), and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on February 3, 2015. This case was assigned to me on February 18, 2015.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on
February 24, 2015. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 8, 2015. The
Government offered Government Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted without
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A
through E, also without objection. Applicant requested that the record remain open until
2
April 24, 2015, for receipt of additional documentation. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on April 16, 2015. Applicant elected not to submit any additional
evidence. The record closed on April 24, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 31, married, and expecting his first child. He has a bachelor of
science degree. (Applicant Exhibit D.) He is employed by a defense contractor, and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H, Drug Involvement)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has used marijuana, and that he purchased it during the same
time. Applicant admitted both allegations in the SOR, and submitted additional
information supporting his request for a security clearance.
Applicant began using marijuana in high school, around 1998 or 1999. Applicant
attended a junior college, and then a university, from 2001 to 2011. During college his
use increased to at least once a day until 2009 or 2010. His use then began tapering
off. Applicant estimated his use as being at least 500 times. The last time he used
marijuana was August 1, 2013, the day after completing his e-QIP. Applicant admits that
he also purchased marijuana during the entire time he was using it. (Government
Exhibit 1 at Section 23; Government Exhibit 2 at 2-6, 17-19; Tr. 35-39.)
In his e-QIP Applicant stated about his future drug use, “As of now, I intend to
use in the near future for reasons described above (habitually - though without having a
documented medical condition, it’s intended use is to decrease stress levels, and
provide a better night’s rest).” (Government Exhibit 1 at Section 23.) He testified that,
upon reflection, he recognized the stupidity of continuing drug use. Applicant stated he
has not used marijuana since August 1, 2013, and has repeatedly emphasized the point
that he will not use marijuana again. (Answer; Government Exhibit 2 at 5, 18; Tr. 39-40.)
Applicant submitted a negative drug test taken by him on February 13, 2015.
Applicant has a history of stopping drug use before being drug tested for a job, then
returning to marijuana use afterwards. He did this before starting his current
employment in 2011, as well as at least two other jobs. He testified that quitting
because he is applying for a security clearance is different. He said, “This is something
for my country, the nation, and not to be cliché, but it’s something that is going to affect
me for a long-term period of time, the rest of my life, possibly. . . . It’s a milestone. So,
there’s a big difference in me with respect to that - - my previous history.” (Government
Exhibit 2 at 17; Tr. 29-30, 34-35, 49-50.)
3
Mitigation
Applicant indicated that being an expectant father has changed his perspective.
He stated, “I am a different man than what I was.” (Applicant Exhibit E; Tr. 32-33.)
Applicant submitted a letter of recommendation from the president and CEO of
his employer. (Applicant Exhibit C.) The president states, “[Applicant] has great potential
with our company and he has always been a responsible and trustworthy employee.”
Applicant also submitted a letter from his immediate supervisor, the vice president for
business development. (Applicant Exhibit D.) This writer states that Applicant is an
“intelligent, reliable and trustworthy employee.” The strength of these letters is lessened,
however, by the fact that Applicant did not tell these people that he used marijuana
while employed with them. Applicant testified, “I actually did not say that I was using it
as recently. When I told them about it, I said I quit thereafter college. So, I wasn’t
specific.” Applicant was given an opportunity to expand the record in this area. (Tr. 46-
47.) As stated, he chose not to submit additional documentation.
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  When evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider
the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
over-arching 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “The applicant is
4
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the 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.
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H - Drug Involvement)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in
AG & 24:      
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.
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; Drug abuse is the illegal use of a
drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved
medical direction.
I have considered the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25 and especially
considered the following:  
(a) any drug abuse;
(c) illegal drug possession, including . . . . purchase; and
5
(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.
I have studied all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 and especially
considered the following: 
(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; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation. 
Applicant has not overcome the Government’s case. Applicant used marijuana at
least 500 times between 1998 and August 1, 2013. He purchased it during that entire
period. His use was not infrequent, ending less than two years ago. AG ¶ 25(a) and
25(c) have application to this case.
He has always been truthful with DoD about his use, and repeatedly stated that
he will not use marijuana in the future. However, it is not clear that he has been as
truthful with is current employers, which leaves him vulnerable to coercion or pressure.
In addition, it needs to be stated that he has a history of stopping drug use before taking
new jobs requiring drug tests, and resuming afterwards. AG ¶ 25(h) has application in
this case. Looking at the entire record, Guideline H is found against Applicant. 
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all the relevant circumstances. 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 administrative judge must 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.      
6
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline H, above, applies here as well. This is a very close case. As stated, Applicant
used marijuana many times in the recent past. It is also obvious that he has begun to
mature and change his ways, but there are doubts about his veracity that must be found
against him based on the available evidence. Therefore, looking at the current record, I
cannot find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6).
Accordingly, I find that there is the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is not a low likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)).
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with serious questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his drug
involvement. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request for a security
clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
_________________
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge