KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has used marijuana off and on from about 1976 to about 2013. The Judge
estimated the total number of uses during this period to be between 250 and 300. Applicant first
obtained a clearance in about 2005 and held it until 2007. Applicant used marijuana while
holding a clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08688.a1
DATE: 11/6/2017
DATE: November 6, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08688
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 
June 15, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 11, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 of fact
contained errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has used marijuana off and on from about 1976 to about 2013.  The Judge
estimated the total number of uses during this period to be between 250 and 300.  Applicant first
obtained a clearance in about 2005 and held it until 2007.  Applicant used marijuana while holding
a clearance.  When he completed a security clearance application (SCA) in 2005, Applicant denied
drug use within the previous seven years.  This was a false answer.  Applicant testified that his
decision to answer incorrectly was an “error in judgment.”  Decision at 3.  Applicant filled out
another SCA in 2013.  Again he was asked if he had used drugs within the previous seven years and
again he answered “no.”  At the hearing, Applicant admitted that this answer was false, another
“error in judgment.”  Id.  
In the 2013 SCA Applicant was also asked if he had ever used drugs while holding a security
clearance, and he replied “no.”  This too was a false answer.  Applicant subsequently submitted to
a clearance interview.  The summary of that interview was admitted into the record.  Applicant had
certified in writing that the summary was accurate.  The interviewer asked if Applicant had used
marijuana in the last seven years and if he had used it while holding a clearance.  Applicant told the
interviewer that he had not.  The interviewer then stated that, when confronted with evidence of his
drug use, Applicant contended that his conduct was private and personal rather than of professional
significance.  He also stated that he did not disclose it on his SCA because it was illegal and he did
not want to admit such conduct.  Finally he admitted the misconduct in order “to be open and
honest.”  Id. at 4.  At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged that he lied to the investigator.  Later in
the hearing he denied that he had done so.  The Judge characterized Applicant’s testimony as
“disjointed and rather confusing[.]”  The Judge found that Applicant had “actively lie[d]” during his
clearance interview.  Id.  
Applicant is well-known in his field of expertise and enjoys significant respect.  He
submitted letters of recommendation which were laudatory, although they did not indicate that the
writers actually knew about the SOR allegations.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted the extent of Applicant’s marijuana use, stating that Applicant knew at the
times of his misconduct that such drug use was not legal.  Given the circumstances of the case, the
Judge concluded that the three years that had elapsed between Applicant’s last use and the SOR was
insufficient to show that his security-significant conduct was behind him.  The Judge stated that
Applicant had, on multiple occasions, been an untrustworthy reporter of his own conduct and that
none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions applied.  The Judge stated that the record left him with
“substantial doubt” as to Applicant’s eligibility for a clearance.  Id. at 8.
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he deliberately made false statements during
his clearance interview.  The Judge’s findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, such
as his character references, his work history, etc.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed
the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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