1 
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 18-01613 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Gatha Manns, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Richard L. Morris, Esq.   
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MURPHY, Braden M., Administrative Judge: 
On June 18, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement 
and substance misuse).1 Applicant answered the SOR on July 6, 2018, and requested a 
hearing. The case was assigned to me on November 13, 2018. The hearing was held 
as scheduled on December 12, 2018. Applicant and two witnesses testified. The 
Government submitted one exhibit (GE 1). Applicant submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) 
A – K, and timely submitted one exhibit (AE L) after the hearing before the record 
closed on January 3, 2019. All exhibits were admitted without objection. The transcript 
(Tr.) was received on January 2, 2019.  On February 6, 2019, I proposed to the parties 
that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object. 
1 This case is adjudicated 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 National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG), which became effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
02/07/2019
 
2 
 
 Applicant is 29 years old. He has worked for his current employer, a defense 
contractor, since October 2017. He has never had a clearance before. He earned his 
bachelor’s degree in 2014. He has never married and has no children. (GE 1; AE A) 
 
 Applicant used marijuana frequently, and also purchased it, after high school and 
in college (2007-2014). He tried hallucinogenic mushrooms and LSD twice each, also in 
college. After college, he used marijuana about 20 or 30 times between 2014 and May 
2017. (Tr. 39-42, 48-51) His marijuana use was mostly social, though he also used it to 
alleviate pain from a serious medical condition for a brief period in 2011, before the 
condition required surgery. Applicant’s medical condition is chronic, but he now takes 
prescription medication for it. (Tr. 54-59)  
 
 Applicant fully disclosed his illegal drug use on his August 2017 security 
clearance application. (GE 1) At hearing, he attributed his social drug use to his attitude 
towards college.2 He testified that being laid off from a job in May 2017 led to a 
maturation process and a desire to “turn the corner” and “make the right decisions.” (Tr. 
43) He moved to a new state when he was hired by his current employer. He no longer 
associates with his college friends. Applicant credibly testified that he no longer has any 
desire nor any future intent to use marijuana or any illegal drug in the future. (Tr. 44-46) 
He provided a signed statement of intent not to use illegal drugs in the future, and he 
acknowledged that any future illegal drug use would be grounds to revoke his security 
clearance. (AE L) 
 
 Applicant presented two strong character witnesses. His direct supervisor, a 
Naval Academy graduate who hired him and who works with him daily, testified to 
Applicant’s exemplary work performance, his judgment, trustworthiness, reliability and 
overall suitability for a clearance. A close personal friend said Applicant is honest, 
trustworthy and extremely respectful towards others. (Tr. 19-37) Several other character 
references, including family members, lifelong friends, and a former supervisor, all 
provided strong letters of recommendation in which they attested to Applicant’s 
judgment, trustworthiness, moral character, and suitability for a clearance. (AE A – K) 
  
 The disqualifying conditions under AG ¶¶ 25(a) and 25(c) are raised by the 
evidence. Applicant’s marijuana use is relatively recent. However, he disclosed his 
illegal drug use fully on his SCA, and credibly testified that he has had a significant 
lifestyle change since his last drug use (including losing his job and moving away from 
his college environment and to a new state). He has no desire or future intention to use 
illegal drugs, and understands that to do so is unacceptable for someone entrusted with 
access to classified information. I find that he has abstained from illegal drug use for an 
appropriate period, and that he is unlikely to use illegal drugs in the future. The 
mitigating conditions under AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) are applicable. 
 
The security concerns over Applicant’s illegal drug use no longer create doubt 
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect 
classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole 
                                                          
2 Tr. 44 (“I went to college where people vacation, and I treated it like a vacation at the time.”). 
 
3 
 
and considered that the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that 
Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with 
the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case 
is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
________________________ 
Braden M. Murphy 
Administrative Judge