KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant’s citation to the ADR is out of place.  The Appeal Board and DOHA Judges
decide cases in accordance with the Directive and Adjudicative Guidelines, not the ADR. 
Indeed, the ADR, itself, notes that it is not U.S. Government policy and may not be cited as
authority for denials or revocations.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02779.a1
DATE: 11/07/2018
DATE: November 7, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02779
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
October 11, 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) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 4, 2018, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 is a 27-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  She graduated from college
in 2014 and began working for her employer in 2016.  From 2013 to September 2017, she used
marijuana with varying frequency.  She attributed that conduct to peer pressure and a relationship
with a manipulative boyfriend.  She vowed on her security clearance application (SCA) to not use
it again, but failed to comply with that pledge by using it after submitting her SCA and before her
background interview.  During the interview, she promised again to not use it in the future.  She has
not associated with people who are bad influences since October 2017. 
Applicant’s marijuana use continued for three years after she graduated from college and
after she submitting her SCA in which she promised to stop using it.  She has not established a
pattern of abstinence.  Her history of marijuana use is disqualifying under Guidelines H and E.  
Discussion
In the appeal brief, Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she failed to
establish a pattern of abstinence.  She argues that she has not used illegal substances for ten months
before the hearing and, in support of her arguments, cites to provisions of the Adjudicative Desk
Reference (ADR).1  We have never established a “bright line” rule as to the recency of misconduct,
such as drug use.  The extent to which security concerns have become mitigated through the passage
of time is a question that must be resolved based on the evidence as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-01847 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 9, 2015).  Applicant’s arguments essentially amount to a
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are neither sufficient to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to establish that
the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017).  Applicant’s citation to the ADR is out
of place.  The Appeal Board and DOHA Judges decide cases in accordance with the Directive and
1 Applicant also argues that she has not used marijuana since the hearing.  Such information is not contained
in the record and constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
2
Adjudicative Guidelines, not the ADR.  Indeed, the ADR, itself, notes that it is not U.S. Government
policy and may not be cited as authority for denials or revocations.  ADR at 2.  See also ISCR Case
No. 11-01888 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2012).  
Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.  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 F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale                
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3