1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03195
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement security concerns related to his
lengthy history of marijuana use. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On March 12, 2015,  the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline 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) effective as of December 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on April 2, 2015, denying subparagraphs 1.a and
1.c, and admitting subparagraph 1.b. He requested a decision on the record instead of a
hearing. On September 8, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
2
Materials (FORM) setting forth the Government’s case. Applicant received the FORM
on September 17, 2015, and was instructed that he had 30 days to file a reply.
Applicant did not reply within the time allotted, and the case was assigned to me on
December 31, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 74-year-old married man. He graduated from college in 1964.
Since 1969, he has served as the chairman and chief executive officer of a medical
information technology company. (Item 4 at 11 - 12) Since 1996, his work has included
federal contracts. He has possessed a security clearance since 1997. (Item 5 at 27)
Applicant smoked marijuana intermittently from 1969 to 2012. (Item 4 at 34-35;
Item 6 at 8) Since the late 1990s, his use has been less frequent. (Item 3 at 1) Although
he has not smoked marijuana since 2012, he may use it in the future “if the situation
arises.” (Item 4 at 35)
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.
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
marijuana use, beginning in 1969. His marijuana use overlapped with the period when
he held a security clearance. Although he has not used marijuana in five years, he has
3
failed to commit to discontinue use. AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(g), “any illegal
drug use after being granted a security clearance,” and 25(h), “expressed intent to
continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue
drug use,” apply. Given his equivocal statement about future marijuana drug use, none
of the mitigating conditions applies.
 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.
Applicant has not smoked marijuana in four years. However, in light of the length of time
that he smoked it, his age when he stopped, and his failure to convincingly commit to
continued abstinence, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him
continued access to classified information.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
4