KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline H
DIGEST: An applicant’s misuse of drugs after having been placed on notice of the
incompatibility of drug abuse with clearance eligibility raises questions about his or her
judgment and reliability.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04198.a1
DATE: 01/15/2019
DATE: January 15, 2019
In Re:
----------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04198
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
March 7, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug
Involvement and Substance Misuse) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 28, 2018, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran
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 served in the military from 2004 until his honorable discharge in 2011.  He has
held a clearance, though with some breaks, since 2004.  He has a master’s degree.  Applicant
smoked marijuana regularly before joining the military.  He smoked it once while on active duty and
resumed using it after his discharge.  Some instances of marijuana use occurred while Applicant held
a security clearance, and he used it while working in Europe and while performing duties in the
Middle East.  Applicant disclosed his drug use in security clearance applications (SCA) completed
in March and August of 2014.  He stated that he did not intend to use marijuana again because it was
not consistent with his employment or clearance eligibility.  He reiterated this intention during
clearance interviews in May and October 2014.
In late 2015, Applicant consumed food that he knew contained marijuana.  Early the next
year he smoked marijuana.  He reported this use on an April 2016 SCA.  During a subsequent
interview, he stated that he liked marijuana and would continue smoking it if it were not forbidden
by his job and by the requirements of his security clearance.  Applicant has not used marijuana since
his use in early 2016.  He testified that he will not use it again, and he signed a statement of intent
to refrain from the use of illegal drugs, acknowledging that such conduct will be grounds for
revoking his clearance.
The Judge stated that Applicant was honest and credible.  However, he stated that Applicant
was also sincere in 2014 when he made a prior promise to refrain from drug use, a promise that he
did not keep.  He concluded that Applicant’s misconduct creates a potential for exploitation and
reflects poorly on his judgment.
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence that he contends the Judge did not consider, such as his
years of abstinence from drug use, his forthright disclosures of his misconduct, his honesty, etc. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record, nor 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. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018). 
2
We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited.  Hearing Office cases
are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  Id.    
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  An applicant’s misuse of drugs after having been placed on notice of the incompatibility
of drug abuse with clearance eligibility raises questions about his or her judgment and reliability. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03460 at 3 (App. Bd. May 24, 2018). 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: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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