1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 16-03436 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has been smoking marijuana for 40 years and intends to continue smoking 
it. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On July 27, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, explaining why it was unable to find it 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance eligibility for him. The 
DOD CAF took the action 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 Nat. Sec. Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
On September 13, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting 
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b, and denying subparagraph 1.c. He requested a decision based 
on the administrative record instead of a hearing. On September 25, 2017, Department 
 
2 
 
Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant did not file a response, 
whereupon the case was assigned to me on March 15, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 55-year-old man who works with a federal contractor as an 
electrician. He is a high school graduate and earned a vocational certification in 
electronics. (Item 2 at 15) He has been smoking marijuana with varying frequency, 
including daily, for 40 years. (Item 2 at 1) His marijuana use once caused him to fail a pre-
employment drug test (subparagraph 1.c) He admits failing the test, but “really didn’t care 
about passing [it] because he did not want the job.” (Item 2 at 1) Currently, he is using 
marijuana every day. He enjoys using marijuana, characterizing it as “enjoyable and 
mellowing,” and believes that it “brings [him] closer to God.”(Item 4 at 2). 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines 
are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, 
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a 
decision. 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d).1  
 
 
 
                                                 
1 The factors under AG ¶ 2(d) are as follows: 
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the 
conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the 
conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other 
permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for 
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence. 
 
3 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
 Applicant’s longtime use of marijuana, his nonchalant attitude about failing a 
pre-employment drug screening, and his expressed intent to continue using 
marijuana render him an unacceptable security risk. (AG ¶¶ 24, 25(a) – 25(c), and 
25(g))  
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline H:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c:     Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility 
for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge