KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  However, these findings
are generally consistent with the evidence in the record.  They are based upon substantial
evidence or constitute reasonable inferences therefrom. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00334.a1
DATE: 07/31/2018
DATE: July 31, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00334
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
March 21, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On March 27, 2018, after considering the record,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Nicole L. Noel denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant  appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: 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 and Analysis
Applicant has worked for a Federal contractor since 2007.  She has previously worked for
other Federal contractors and was granted access to classified information in 1992, 2000, and 2006. 
Her most recent security clearance application (SCA) was signed in 2015.  Applicant first used
marijuana in her late 40s and resumed using it in her 50s and into her 60s.  She does not believe that
she has a substance abuse problem, having used marijuana only during times of stress.  She does not
believe that her use of marijuana impairs her ability protect classified information.  Her six character
letters recommend her for a clearance.  She is a highly valued, productive, and effective employee. 
She has taken steps to deal with stress more effectively and has signed a statement of intent with
automatic revocation of her clearance should she reoffend.
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s drug use was recent and that her conduct cannot be
considered infrequent.  She used marijuana at least twice between 2008 and 2015, with 2014 being
the only year in which she did not use the drug at all.  She has not demonstrated that she has attained
the coping skills that would prevent her from reverting to marijuana use for stress relief.  The
majority of Applicant’s drug use occurred after she had been granted classified information, which
is a breach of her fiduciary duty to the U.S.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  However, these findings are
generally consistent with the evidence in the record.  They are based upon substantial evidence or
constitute reasonable inferences therefrom.  Applicant has cited to no harmful error in the Judge’s
findings.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01181 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018).  The balance of
Applicant’s brief is a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to
show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Id.
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: Charles C. Hale                 
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board