1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-04153
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tara Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel
Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concerns generated by his illegal marijuana use .
Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On October 10, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing a security concern under Guidelines H, drug
involvement. 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).
2
Applicant answered the SOR on October 14, 2014, admitting the allegation and
requesting a hearing. I was assigned the case on June 9, 2015. On July 21, 2015, a
notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for August 13, 2015.  At the hearing, I
received one Government exhibit (GE 1), and considered Applicant’s testimony. The
transcript was received on August 19, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old single man. He has a high school diploma and has
taken some vocational educational courses. (Tr. 12) Since 2008, he has been working
for a defense contractor as a developmental technician specializing in electronics and
fiber optics assemblies. (GE 1 at 12; Tr. 13) He has held a security clearance since
2009. (Tr. 16)
Applicant smoked marijuana once or twice a month from 2001 to 2008. (Tr. 17-
18) His marijuana smoking led to an arrest in 2003 and an arrest in 2005. On both
occasions, he was charged with possession of marijuana and placed on probation with
the requirement that he undergo and pass random drug tests. (Tr. 20; GE 1 at 29) 
Applicant stopped using marijuana for four years after obtaining his current job.
Then, he used it twice over a one-week period in June 2012. (Tr. 18, 22) On one of
these occasions, he purchased it. He attributes this lapse to being “around bad people
with bad judgment, and [being] down on hard times.” (Tr. 23) Since then, Applicant has
not used any marijuana. Also, he no longer associates with his old friends, and is
involved in a steady relationship with his girlfriend with whom he purchased a home in
2013. (Tr. 13)  
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 to obtain a security clearance.
3
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 24). Applicant has a history of using
marijuana. Two episodes of marijuana use occurred after he was granted a security
clearance. AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(c), “illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of
drug paraphernalia,”and 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance,” apply.
Most of Applicant’s marijuana use occurred between ages 16 and 23. He has
only used marijuana twice since then - a period of seven years - and he has abstained
completely over the past three years. He is settled down with a partner with whom he
owns a home, and has disassociated from his friends with whom he abused marijuana
in the past. AG ¶ 26(a), “the behavior happened so long ago . . . that it is unlikely to
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment; AG ¶ 26(b)(1), “disassociation from drug-using associates or contacts;
AG ¶ 26(b)(2), “changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and  AG
¶ 26(b)(3), “an appropriate period of abstinence,” apply.
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 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.
Having applied the whole-person concept factors in my analysis of the disqualifying and
mitigating conditions of the drug involvement guideline, I conclude that Applicant has
mitigated the security concern.
4
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
Subparagraphs 1.a: 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.
                                            
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge