1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-07286 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrea Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On June 16, 2016, 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 (EO) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 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) implemented by 
the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on July 12, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on September 28, 2016. 
The hearing was held as scheduled on January 12, 2017. On January 18, 2017, I 
proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant self-reported using marijuana three times between January 2010 and 
August 2014 while holding a security clearance. Applicant credibly testified that he is an 
Army combat veteran with multiple deployments. He experienced domestic difficulties 
with two marriages and a long-term relationship. While working for a defense contractor 
 
2 
 
and holding a security clearance, he smoked marijuana on three occasions when he 
was visiting his brother in another state. His brother is a disabled combat veteran who 
associated with an unsavory group of friends at the time. Applicant’s brother has since 
moved away from that location and no longer associates with those people. Applicant 
has not used any drugs since his last marijuana use in 2014 and does not associate 
with the former friends of his brother. He also provided a signed, sworn statement of 
intent not to use drugs in the future with the understanding that the consequences of 
future use would be automatic revocation of his clearance. Applicant’s admitted 
marijuana use is remote and happened under circumstances unlikely to recur. He also 
demonstrated his intent not to abuse drugs in the future. Based on the record evidence 
as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following 
mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s infrequent marijuana use does not create doubt 
about his 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. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he 
met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge