CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01687.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01687.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01687.a1

Dec 1, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 51-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to extensive marijuana use. The applicant admitted to using marijuana three times a week from 1983 until early 2015, a period spanning over 32 years.

Despite his claim of eight years of sobriety, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board found that the applicant's marijuana use was frequent, recent, and deliberate, raising concerns under Disqualifying Condition H.1.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation of his extensive drug use, leading to the determination that his history was inconsistent with national security interests. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 6, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 16, 2017Decision on the written record
Decision dateDec 1, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Historical Drug Use
Interpretation of National Security Interests in Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on the Applicant's extensive history of marijuana use. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge accurately described the Applicant's history of marijuana use and reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by that history.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline H DIGEST: Applicant used marijuana three times a week from 1983 until early 2015. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01687.a1 DATE: 12/1/2017 DATE: December 1, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01687

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 September 6, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 16, 2017, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings: Applicant is 51 years old. In answer to an e-QIP question, Applicant noted that he used marijuana three times a week from 1983 until early 2015. Applicant wrote to an adjudicator that he no longer uses alcohol or drugs. He reported that he has been sober for eight years and not used marijuana for two years. Applicant’s e-QIP and response to the SOR include admissions that he used marijuana when he was in military (1983-1989). Applicant’s response to the FORM says that he did not use marijuana during his military service. The Judge found that Applicant did use marijuana when he was in the military. The Judge concluded: Applicant’s use of marijuana three times a week for 32 years was frequent, recent and deliberate. The Judge noted Applicant’s stated intent to refrain from future use and his participation in AA, but concluded that Applicant has not yet mitigated his extensive marijuana use. Applicant asserts that his marijuana use is part of his past and not part of his future. Applicant fails to establish error. A review of the Judge’s decision and the record evidence indicates that the Judge accurately described Applicant’s past history of marijuana use, and accurately acknowledged the period where Applicant abstained from marijuana use. The Board finds no reason to believe that the Judge failed to consider all the evidence of record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16- 00076 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 20, 2017). The Judge’s conclusion reflects a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence. A party’s 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. 15-07654 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Oct. 25, 2017).

After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. “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 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 of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board