1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 14-01862
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Elizabeth L. Newman, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s credible evidence in mitigation overcomes the security concerns related
to his isolated drug use. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), Government’s Exhibit (GE) 1, on March 14, 2011. On September 5,
2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
security concerns under drug involvement (Guideline H). The action was taken pursuant
to 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);
2
and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department of Defense on
September 1, 2006. 
On October 22, 2014, Applicant submitted his notarized answer to the SOR. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on March 30,
2015, for a hearing on May 8, 2015. The hearing was held as scheduled. The
Government’s three exhibits (GE 1-3) and Applicant’s two exhibits (AE A-B) were admitted
into the record without objection. The record in this case closed on May 15, 2015, when the
transcript was received.
Rulings on Procedure 
The first page of GE 3, authored by the facility security officer (FSO) at Applicant’s
employer, is dated December 14, 2012. Another copy of the first page of GE 3 was used
by Applicant’s counsel during an examination of the FSO. The copy, which contains exactly
the same information as the first page of GE 3, is dated December 19, 2012. After the
parties agreed that both documents contained the same information, the one-page
document dated December 19, 2012, was added to GE 3. I mistakenly indicated that with
the addition of the December 19 document, the exhibit was four pages in length. The
exhibit is five pages in length. (Tr. 82-85)
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the one SOR allegation that he used marijuana on at least two
occasions after being granted a security clearance in May 2011. He indicated that his
marijuana use was mitigated because he disclosed the drug use voluntarily during the
security investigation. The use demonstrated poor judgment for which he is remorseful.
Applicant agreed under penalty of perjury to have his security clearance revoked if he uses
drugs in the future. (Answer to SOR)
Applicant is 45 years old. He has been married since November 1996. He has three
children, a 12-year-old daughter, a 9-year-old son, and a 7-year-old son. In 1997, he
received his bachelor’s of science degree in information technology. He has been
employed as a systems engineer with a defense contractor since June 2001. He is applying
for his first security clearance. (GE 1 at 10-19; Tr. 12-15)
On March 14, 2011, Applicant completed and certified an e-QIP. In response to first
four questions of Section 23 (Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity), he answered: that he
had not used drugs in the last seven years (23a.); that he had never used a controlled
substance while possessing a security clearance (23b.); that he had not been involved in
the illegal possession, purchase, trafficking, or sale of any controlled substance in the last
 Applicant was over 41 years old when he ingested the marijuana. (GE 1 at 5)1
3
seven years (23c.); and that he had not received drug counseling or treatment for drug use
in the last seven years (23d.). (GE 1 at 29)
On the next page of the e-QIP, the applicant is advised that affirmative answers to
23a.-23d. necessitate explanation of the date and details surrounding the use or activity.
Applicant indicated that he had used marijuana 50 times between November 1987 and
December 2000. In the additional comment section Applicant stated that:
Recreational use in college. Use on “get together” weekends (4 or 5x a year)
with college friends. Stopped use around 2000 when (wife) and I decided to
have kids. Now that most of us have wives/kids, the “get togethers” aren’t so
crazy anymore! Have used 1 or 2x a year on “guys only - no wives/kid” ski
weekends in [ski location] over the last several years except last year, b/c we
had our 2nd child and I did not partake in those weekends. (GE 1 at 30)
Applicant testified that he provided the foregoing information in the additional comment
section of his March 2011 e-QIP, the first security form that he had ever completed,
because he wanted to disclose the time period and surrounding circumstances of his drug
use. He remembered that he stopped using marijuana in 2000 to eliminate one of the
factors that may have hindered Applicant and his wife from having children. Between 2000
and 2010, he continued to socialize with some of his friends who used drugs, but he did not
use the drug on those occasions. (Tr. 18, 21-23, 36-37)
In October 2011, Applicant and a group of his college friends were celebrating their
20th reunion at a college fraternity house. He vacillated somewhat in describing his mens
rea and other factors that influenced him to use the marijuana with the group of friends. He
had been fully engaged in the revelry earlier in the day by drinking beer at college reunion
athletic events. However, he knew he should not have used the drug while holding a
security clearance. (GE 3; Tr. 25, 26-27-30)
In March 2012, Applicant was on temporary duty at a quarterly business review
seminar in the United States. His mother had just died and he was experiencing the stress
of raising three young children. During a break in the activities at the seminar, he decided
to visit a family friend at his home. After dinner, the friend handed Applicant a marijuana
cigarette and he smoked part of it.  (GE 3; Tr. 29-30)1
Applicant became concerned by his marijuana use in October 2011 and March 2012.
He prepared a three-page statement which he gave to the FSO on or about December 14,
 By the time he prepared the statement, he had decided to forego future drug use. (Tr 35)2
4
2012.  In the statement, he reported his marijuana use on those two occasions. He2
conceded that he knew that he could not use marijuana while possessing a security
clearance, but did not apply his security knowledge when he used the drug. He repeatedly
expressed his remorse and desired to reestablish the trust conferred in him by the
Government and his employer when he was granted a clearance in May 2011. (GE 3; Tr.
34-36, 74-75)
Applicant has not used marijuana since March 2012, though he has continued to
socialize once or twice a year with his college friends, including those that continue to use
drugs. As he did in the period between 2000 and 2010, Applicant simply walks away from
the situation or does not use marijuana with them. The only illegal drug he has used was
marijuana. He has never been charged or convicted of a drug-related offense. He has
never tested positive for drugs. Applicant provided three reasons why he will not use any
drug in the future: (1) drug use is illegal; (2) drug use is unhealthy; and (3) drug use does
not set an appropriate example for his three young children. (Tr. 30-32, 43-45, 54-56) 
Character Evidence
Applicant‘s wife is a patent attorney with a government agency. She never saw him
use marijuana, but he told her that he used the drug two times and decided to report it. He
told her that he has no intention of using the drug in the future and she believes him
because he is her husband and he has always been honest with her. (Tr. 60-65)
The intelligence community director with Applicant’s employer testified that he and
Applicant have worked together on a daily basis for five years. Applicant told the director
about reporting his drug use to the FSO. The director does not believe Applicant will use
illegal drugs in the future because he wants to establish the proper example at home and
at work. (66-72)
The FSO at Applicant’s employer testified that he has been in that position for about
five and a half years. Applicant spoke about his marijuana use with the FSO in December
2012. He provided him with the three-page statement. (GE 3) The FSO counseled
Applicant about security briefings and that drug use constituted a violation of security
procedures. Then the FSO reported the violation to the manager of Applicant’s employer.
The FSO does not believe Applicant will use illegal drugs in the future because in the five
and a half years that he has known Applicant, he has always been forthcoming and made
the right decisions. In the 12 years that FSO has been in that position with this employer
and preceding employers, unlike other individuals, Applicant was sincerely regretful for
engaging in illegal drug use. (GE 3; Tr. 73-85)
5
In Applicant’s performance evaluations, his manager noted that he could be relied
upon to do the right thing for his team and the customer while producing outstanding
results. (AE A, B)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the context
of nine general factors of the whole-person concept so that all available information, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, is a part of the decision for or against an
applicant’s security clearance application. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
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
responsible for presenting "witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . ." The applicant
has the ultimate burden of persuasion of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Drug involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern for 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 tor
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations; 
The pertinent disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25 that may be disqualifying are:
 Drug use is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical3
direction. (AG ¶ 24(b))
 Though unalleged in the SOR, Applicant’s use of marijuana about 50 times between 1987 and 2000 has4
contextual relevance: in assessing Applicant’s overall credibility; in deciding whether a particular provision of
the Directive applies; and as evidence for the whole person analysis. 
6
(a) any drug use;  and3
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and 
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance
AG ¶¶ 25(a), (c), and (g) apply to Applicant’s illegal drug involvement in October
2011 and March 2012, after being granted a security clearance in May 2011. The
Government has established a case of illegal drug involvement under the three
disqualifying conditions.  The other disqualifying conditions do not apply.4
The mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 that apply are: 
(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 are used, (3) an appropriate period of
abstinence, and a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation. 
Since 2000, Applicant used marijuana on two isolated occasions about five months
apart in 2011 and 2012. His last use of the drug was more than three years ago. In
December 2012, he voluntarily disclosed his use to his FSO and the intelligence director.
Based on their more than five-year professional relationship with Applicant, they believe
he will abstain from all illegal drug use in the future. His wife does not believe he will use
illegal drugs in the future because he has always been honest with her. 
In his answer to the SOR in October 2014, Applicant signed a statement of intent
with automatic revocation of his clearance for any violation. Though some of his drug-using
college friends still use drugs at these yearly activities that he attends, he has extricated
himself from drug environment by walking away when possible or simply by not using illegal
7
drugs. His dedication to being a suitable role model for his children cannot be questioned.
AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b) apply.  
Whole-Person Concept 
I have also weighed this case in the context of nine factors of the whole-person
concept. These factors are set forth in 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 the participation was
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 a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 45 years old. He has been married for 19 years and has three children.
He used drugs on an occasional basis from 1987 to 2000. He stopped because he wanted
to increase the chances of having children. He testified that he used no drugs for ten years
until yielding to temptation in October 2011 and March 2012. The perturbing aspect of the
use was that it occurred after he was granted access to classified information. However,
in light of the isolated scope of the drug use, the passage of more than three years since
Applicant’s last use, and his signed statement of intent with automatic revocation, I am
completely confident he will not return to illegal drug use in the future. 
Applicant has been consistently candid about his drug use during the security
investigation process. In his March 2011 e-QIP, he voluntarily disclosed a full account of
his drug use, even though the account was outside the seven-year window of Section 23.
After using the marijuana on two isolated occasions in 2011 and 2012, while possessing
a security clearance, he voluntarily furnished a detailed statement to his FSO explaining
the poor judgment he demonstrated for using the marijuana. Applicant is well respected by
the intelligence director and the FSO. Having evaluated Applicant’s drug involvement in the
context of the whole-person concept, his evidence in mitigation successfully overcomes the
security concerns based on the drug involvement guideline. 
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 (Drug Involvement): FOR APPLICANT
      Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge