KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief alludes to the time that it has taken to adjudicate his SCA.  We do
not have authority to comment on the manner in which officials conduct clearance
investigations.  He draws our attention to various pieces of record evidence that support his
effort to obtain a favorable decision, for example documents substantiating his medical
problems, his statement of intent not to misuse drugs in the future, his explanations for his
security-significant conduct, 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.  Applicant requests that
he be granted a clearance accompanied by a warning against future misconduct.  However, this is
appropriate only when an applicant’s circumstances are not serious enough to warrant an adverse
decision.  See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(h).  Given the nature and extent of Applicant’s
misconduct, neither the Judge nor other officials erred by failing to apply this procedure. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01661.a1
DATE: 03/22/2019
DATE: March 22, 2019
In Re:
---------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01661
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
5, 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 November 27, 2018, after considering the record,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman
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 used marijuana in the recent past.  He began doing so in 2008, in order to
relieve pain caused by a knee ailment, and a few years later he began growing it himself.  In his
security clearance application (SCA)  he advised that he used marijuana until May 2015.  Although
he claimed in his SCA that he would not do so again, in fact he later told his interviewer that he used
it twice between August 2015 and January 2017.  On this last occasion he used marijuana with
friends “because it was there.”  Decision at 3.  From February 2012 until June 2015 Applicant
misused various prescription medications, such as morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, Oxycontin,
tramadol, suboxone, xanax, Ativan, amphetetamines, Ritalin, and soma.  He stated that he stopped
using controlled substances after consultation with a health care provider.  He stated that he would
never have abused drugs if he had known the effect it would have on his clearance, and he signed
a statement of intent never to re-offend.
Applicant’s misuse of controlled substances constituted a pattern of behavior that impugns
his willingness to follow rules and regulations.  Even though Applicant’s misconduct occurred off
duty, it reflects poor judgment and raises questions about his fitness for access to classified
information.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief alludes to the time that it has taken to adjudicate his SCA.  We do not have
authority to comment on the manner in which officials conduct clearance investigations.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-04186 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2015).  He draws our attention to various pieces
of record evidence that support his effort to obtain a favorable decision, for example documents
substantiating his medical problems, his statement of intent not to misuse drugs in the future, his
explanations for his security-significant conduct, 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.
17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019).  Applicant requests that he be granted a clearance
accompanied by a warning against future misconduct.  However, this is appropriate only when an
2
applicant’s circumstances are not serious enough to warrant an adverse decision.  See Directive,
Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(h).  Given the nature and extent of Applicant’s misconduct, neither the Judge
nor other officials erred by failing to apply this procedure.  
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 Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                   
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3