Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-4.1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 15-02035
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I grant Applicant’s clearance.1
On 30 October 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline H, Drug
Involvement.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without2
hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case
closed 4 May 2016, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant
provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 16 December 2016.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegation. He is a 35-year-old sheet metal worker
employed by a defense contractor since August 2014. From June 1999 to August 2014,
he worked in a supermarket. From June 2004 to August 2014, he worked part time as
an apprentice/intern at his uncle’s engineering firm. He has not previously held a
clearance.
Between January 2000 and February 2014, Applicant used marijuana two or
three times per year, at social gatherings or parties outside his home, when someone at
the gathering brought marijuana. Applicant fully disclosed his drug history on his August
2014 clearance application (Item 3).
Applicant stopped using marijuana in February 2014, because he knew that he
would not be able to use it if he got the job he was applying for at his present employer
(Item 4). He did not think it would be worth the risk to continue to use. He no longer
associates with any of the people he used marijuana with.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to be considered in evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must
assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the
facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial
commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The presence or absence
of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against an applicant.
However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be
measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial
of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence
as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline H (Drug Involvement).
.
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, it establishes a baseline case against granting a
clearance. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶25 (a) any drug abuse;4
¶ 26 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that5
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment [Emphasis supplied];
¶ 26 (b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug6
using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an
appropriate period of abstinence; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation;
3
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H, by
demonstrating Applicant’s lengthy illegal drug abuse between January 1994 and
February 2014.  However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Despite the length4
of Applicant’s illegal drug involvement, that drug history encompasses infrequent use in
social settings surrounding his contacts when he worked in a supermarket. However,
when he undertook a better job at an employer who required a drug-free workplace,  he
knew he had to cease using illegal drugs. He has used no illegal drugs since February
2014.
Drug involvement mitigating conditions give substantial support to Applicant. His
illegal drug abuse was infrequent, although lengthy. However, his last illegal drug use
was February 2014, over two years ago, at a time he was still working in the
supermarket environment.  The issue is not so much the 13 years that he used5
marijuana recreationally, but the clear-eyed decision he made when he applied for a
better job. Further, he demonstrated intent to not abuse drugs in the future by
abstaining altogether for more than two years, disassociating himself from drug-using
contacts and avoiding the environments where he used drugs with friends.  I conclude6
Applicant is unlikely to abuse illegal drugs in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline
H for Applicant.
 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
4
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.  
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge