KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant used marijuana three times a week from 1983 until early 2015. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01687.a1
DATE: 12/1/2017
DATE: December 1, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01687
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 6, 2016, 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 August 16, 2017, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge made the following findings:  Applicant is 51 years old.  In answer to an e-QIP
question, Applicant noted that he used marijuana three times a week from 1983 until early 2015.
Applicant wrote to an adjudicator that he no longer uses alcohol or drugs.  He reported that he has
been sober for eight years and not used marijuana for two years. 
Applicant’s e-QIP and response to the SOR include admissions that he used marijuana when
he was in military (1983-1989).  Applicant’s response to the FORM says that he did not use
marijuana during his military service.  The Judge found that Applicant did use marijuana when he
was in the military.
The Judge concluded: Applicant’s use of marijuana three times a week for 32 years was
frequent, recent and deliberate.  The Judge noted Applicant’s stated intent to refrain from future use
and his participation in AA, but concluded that Applicant has not yet mitigated his extensive
marijuana use.
Applicant asserts that his marijuana use is part of his past and not part of his future. 
Applicant fails to establish error.  A review of the Judge’s decision and the record evidence indicates
that the Judge accurately described Applicant’s past history of marijuana use, and accurately
acknowledged the period where Applicant abstained from marijuana use.  The Board finds no reason
to believe that the Judge failed to consider all the evidence of record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-
00076 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 20, 2017). The Judge’s conclusion reflects a reasonable interpretation of
the record evidence. A party’s ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-07654 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Oct.
25, 2017). 
  
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  “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 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 of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan          
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board