KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Even if the Judge erred in finding that Applicant had used some of the drugs addressed
in an assignment of error, it did not likely affect her overall decision.  Even if she erred, it was
harmless.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence or constitute
reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-04456.a1
DATE: 08/01/2016
DATE: August 1, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04456
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 26, 2015, 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 May 31, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings were supported
by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s whole person analysis was erroneous,
resulting in an adverse decision that was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for his current employer since 2014.  He has never held a clearance. 
He has engaged in illegal drug use, to include marijuana, cocaine, LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy. 
Applicant started smoking marijuana at age 16, and used it with varying frequency until June 2014. 
He used cocaine from 2005 until late 2013, LSD and mushrooms on one occasion between 2008 and
2010, and in mid-2010 used ecstasy at least twice.  The Judge found that, in his security clearance
application (SCA), Applicant disclosed use of hashish, crack, rock, freebase, amphetamines, speed,
and crystal meth, though he provided no information about frequency of use or purchase.  
Applicant denies that he is addicted to illegal drugs.  He states that he has never sold, grown,
or manufactured any illegal substance.  He states that, in his mid-twenties, he decided to give up
drug use.  In July 2014 he stopped using illegal drugs, “which was about three months before he
applied for his job in the defense industry.”  Decision at 2.  He has apologized for his past actions
and promises never to use illegal drugs again.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge characterized Applicant’s drug use as “shocking.”  Id. at 5.  She stated that his
misconduct constitutes a lapse in judgment, raising questions about his fitness for a security
clearance.  She stated that his recent uses of marijuana and cocaine call his maturity, character, and
judgment into question.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge found that Applicant has been drug-
free for only a year and a half, which is not enough time to demonstrate rehabilitation, given the
extensive nature of the misconduct.  
Discussion
Applicant denies that he ever used hashish, crack, rock, freebase, amphetamines, speed, or
crystal meth.  He states that, during his meeting with the investigator, he did not admit to having
used these drugs.  
However, we note that Applicant did admit (with an explanation) to all of the allegations in
the SOR, explaining that he had started using marijuana while young, leading to experimentation
with other drugs.  The SOR allegations included amphetamines, speed, and crystal meth.  Moreover,
in his SCA, he admitted to having used various categories of drugs, such as cocaine, hallucinogens,
and stimulants.  These categories were accompanied by illustrative examples, apparently generated
by the electronic SCA program itself, such as “rock” and “freebase” under the rubric of crack
cocaine.  It is reasonable to conclude that Applicant’s admission for having used “cocaine or crack
cocaine” does not necessarily mean that he admitted to having used all possible variants of that drug. 
Nevertheless, even if the Judge erred in finding that Applicant had used some of the drugs addressed
in this assignment of error, it did not likely affect her overall decision.  Even if she erred, it was
harmless.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence or constitute
reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420
at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).
We conclude that the Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of
Directive ¶ 6.3, in that she considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 15-00424 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016).  The Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record. 
“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: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board