DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )  ISCR Case No. 18-02202
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case.  Applicant’s clearance is granted.1
On 15 October 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline H, Drug
Involvement and Substance Misuse.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a2
decision without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The
record in this case closed 13 February 2019, when Applicant’s response to the FORM
was due. Applicant provided no additional information. DOHA assigned the case to me
8 March 2019.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-3.1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) of Security Executive Agent
Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 June 2017. 
1
03/27/2019
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegation. He is a 24-year-old systems engineer 
employed by a defense contractor since August 2016. This is his first real job after
graduating college in May 2016. He has not previously held a clearance.
During a May 2018 interview with a Government investigator (Item 3), Applicant
disclosed that he had used marijuana in October 2016 (vaporizer), August 2017 (pipe),
November 2017 (bong), and January 2018 (pipe) each time in social settings with
friends. He admitted to succumbing to peer pressure on each occasion, but stated that
marijuana use actually makes him sick. Moreover, He does not normally smoke
because his grandparents died from lung cancer and he was training for a marathon. He
was aware that marijuana use is illegal, and is also inconsistent with holding a
clearance. He stated that continuing to use marijuana was not worth risking his job, and
he had no intent to use marijuana in the future.
Applicant disclosed his then-current marijuana use on his September 2017
clearance application (Item 2). At the time, he was unwilling to commit to not using
marijuana in the future. He disclosed his additional marijuana uses during his May 2018
interview.
In his November 2018 Answer (Item 1), Applicant admitted his marijuana use,
and stated that he no longer experiences any social pressure to use marijuana. He
signed a statement of intent as contemplated by the AG.
 
Applicant submitted no work or character references, and provided no evidence
of any community involvement.
Policies
The AG list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for access to classified
information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions
under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must
also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶
2(d). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case can be
measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or denial of a
clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant
adjudicative guideline is Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. 
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
2
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H, by
demonstrating Applicant’s illegal drug abuse four times between October 2016 and
January 2018. He also initially would not commit to abstaining from future marijuana
use.  However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns. After initially failing to commit4
to drug abstinence, Applicant has twice stated his commitment to drug abstinence in the
future. He has used no illegal drugs since January 2018.
Drug involvement mitigating conditions give substantial support to Applicant. His
illegal drug abuse was infrequent, although not distant. He credibly states that the use is
unlikely to recur.  The issue is not so much the experimental drug use, but his5
recognition that drug use is inconsistent with holding a clearance. Moreover, he has
committed to abstaining from future drug use, and provided a statement of intent within
the contemplation of the AG.  I consider that statement sufficient indication that6
Applicant understands the potential consequences of any future drug use. I conclude
Applicant is unlikely to abuse illegal drugs in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline
H for Applicant.
 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶25(a) any substance misuse; (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance . . .; (g) . . . failure to clearly4
and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.
¶26(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that5
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment [Emphasis supplied];
¶26(b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence6
of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not
limited to: . . . (3) a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse,
acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;
3
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge
4