1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 REDACTED   )  ISCR Case No. 15-00676 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Jeffrey D. Billett, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MENDEZ, Francisco, Administrative Judge: 
 
On October 30, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging that 
her past marijuana use raised security concerns under the drug involvement guideline.1 
Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing to establish her continued 
eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
 On November 10, 2016, I convened a hearing. After receipt of the transcript and 
the record closed, I provided written notice to the parties of my intent to resolve the case 
through a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel indicated that 
the Government did not object to my proposed resolution of the matter in this fashion. 
See Appellate Exhibit I. 
 
 Applicant mitigated security concerns raised by her past marijuana use and met 
her heavy burden of persuasion for continued access to classified information. Over six 
                                                          
1 This action was taken under Executive Order (E.O.) 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
 
years have passed since Applicant last used marijuana. In the intervening years, she 
has matured immensely, both personally and professionally, and established a track 
record of responsible behavior, which leads me to conclude that her past conduct is 
unlikely to be repeated.  
 
 Applicant led a somewhat sheltered life primarily focused on her school work. 
After graduating early from college with honors, she entered the workforce and began 
socializing with other young working adults. She twice succumbed, while under the 
influence of alcohol, to peer pressure from former friends and tried marijuana. She 
credibly testified about the regret she feels for her past poor decision. She has not used 
marijuana (or any other illegal drug) in over six years. In the past six years, she has 
married, had a child, and become active in her community. She has also received 
therapy to help her positively deal with interpersonal relationships. Her therapist 
provided a favorable recommendation, noting the maturation she has observed in 
Applicant over time. Applicant’s employment record reflects favorably on her work 
performance, and numerous professional and social references provided letters noting 
their favorable opinion of her character. Applicant voluntarily revealed her past drug use 
and other relevant background information (therapy) on her current security clearance 
application (SCA). She explained at hearing that at the time she was filling out the SCA 
she was pregnant (or, she and her husband were contemplating having children) and 
she wanted to set a good example for her future child(ren) by telling the truth no matter 
the personal repercussions. She submitted a signed statement of intent not to use 
illegal drugs (or abuse prescription medication) upon automatic revocation of her 
clearance. She credibly testified that she would not engage in such conduct in the 
future. After a thorough review of the record evidence, I find that the mitigating 
conditions listed at AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) apply.  
 
The security concerns over Applicant’s past marijuana experimentation do not 
create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to 
protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a 
whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or 
vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I 
conclude that Applicant met her burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for continued access to 
classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
____________________ 
Francisco Mendez 
Administrative Judge