KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline H
DIGEST: First, even in the absence of any security violations, the Government can deny or
revoke access to classified information based on the existence of facts and circumstances that
indicate an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  Second, the conclusions of
DOHA Judges are often subjective in nature.  As we have noted in the past, security clearance
decisions are not an exact science but rather are predictive judgments about a person’s security
suitability in light of that person’s past conduct and present circumstances. Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 17-02225.a1
DATE: 06/25/2019
DATE: June 25, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
--------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 17-02225
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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 July 
28, 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 May 10, 2019, after the hearing, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He was granted a security
clearance in 2006.  He was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia in 1992 and for possession
of marijuana in 1995.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on those two drug-related arrests.
In early 2017, Applicant smoked marijuana at a party that he attended without his wife.  Later
that month, he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug screening, and his employer
suspended him without pay.  He did not report his marijuana use before the drug test.  His employer
allowed him to continue his employment contingent on him successfully completing a substance
abuse program.  Shortly after completing the substance abuse program, he passed a drug test and
returned to work under a last-chance agreement.   
Applicant attributed his latest drug incident to a lapse in judgment.  He indicated that he has
no intention of using illegal drugs in the future.  He submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain
from drug involvement, acknowledging that future use would be grounds to revoke his national
security eligibility.  
Although Applicant presented a “good case in reform and rehabilitation,” the Judge
concluded that he was not an acceptable security risk.  The Judge noted that Applicant used
marijuana as a security clearance holder who was subject to random drug tests, that such use
demonstrated a willingness to engage in high-risk behavior, and that such use most likely would not
have come to light absent the random drug test.  “[Applicant’s] reluctance to voluntarily self-report
such adverse information further undermines his suitability for a security clearance.” Decision at 6. 
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact.  Rather
he challenges the Judge’s conclusions regarding his security clearance suitability.  For example, he
argues “[t]he judge came to his conclusion based on a subjective opinion of my future character and
integrity that is contrary to my thirteen year career holding a clearance.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  In
2
support of his arguments, he highlights, among other matters, the duration of time that has passed
since his last marijuana use, his good record for protecting classified information, his honesty and
openness during the investigative process, and the Judge’s comments that he understands the
seriousness of the latest incident and presented a good case of reform and rehabilitation.  We do not
find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  First, even in the absence of any security violations, the
Government can deny or revoke access to classified information based on the existence of facts and
circumstances that indicate an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 99-0462 at 4-5 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000).  Second, the conclusions of DOHA Judges are
often subjective in nature.  As we have noted in the past, security clearance decisions are not an exact
science but rather are predictive judgments about a person's security suitability in light of that
person's past conduct and present circumstances.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-11489 at 4 (App. Bd.
Sep. 11, 2003), citing Department of Navy v. Egan , 484 U.S. 518, 528-529 (1988).  From our review
of the record, the Judge’s material findings and conclusions of a security concern in this case are
based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).  Third, Applicant’s
arguments essentially amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  The
presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide
whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  A party’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 16-00276 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2017).  
Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.  The record
supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory
explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse 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.’” 
Egan, 484 U.S. at 528.  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.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael 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
4