WPC  0>#rȼz:1/KϘ0t#/käYnD/Tjf?"^VJF̴ R9[ màK^_i|Q2'pFx-|j$g=6;[5!ZP4*cAk̈yNMQbp:; ͞,}3) Hgy4cǒXLP֌m>įdnDz Vk2`L{ςrLOG,]yd z qF…)!k{Hޑ`6ϻc/ZGxv0 VfRyg幄[iA׌lt`0OTR_c E`><2tXh*XphYӱPU]f {ͺ8y@A$MnIwq~w^ݺZhC3R.`GпW%U ;W#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m N Z 0~ 0D E B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEE K;EJ:i+003|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineH  DIGEST:WegivedueconsiderationtotheHearingOfficecasesthatApplicanthascited,but  theyareneitherbindingprecedentontheAppealBoardnorsufficienttounderminetheJudges t decision.Additionally,wefindnobasisforconcludingtheJudgeerredinhiswholeperson ` analysis.Adversedecisionaffirmed. L  _CASENO_:1601941.a1 $ t DATE:08/09/2017  L  ________________________   `     h      p DATE:August9,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:       C ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AV) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1601941 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &s%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #- RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#XX%&s# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On T'"1 September19,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor @(#2 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineH(DrugInvolvement)ofDepartmentof ,)|$3 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision *h%4 onthewrittenrecord.OnMay19,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings +T&5 andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeBradenM.MurphydeniedApplicantsrequestfora +@'6 securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,,(7  -)8   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    TheJudgesFindingsofFact  `   Applicantisa59yearoldemployeeinthedefenseindustry.Hebeganexperiencingback <  painafteracaraccident.Hereceivedtreatmentandmedicationforthatconditionsinceatleast2012. ( x Hesubmittedasecurityclearanceapplicationin2014.Shortlyafterhissecurityclearancewas  d grantedin2015,hebeganselfmedicatingwithmarijuanatorelievehisbackpainandtosleep.He  P  usedmarijuanaonadailybasisforabouttwomonths.Thereisnoindicationthathereceiveda  <  prescriptionforhismarijuanause.Hepurchasedthemarijuanafromanacquaintancewithwhom (  hehashadnocontactsinceMarch2016.     InJune2015,Applicantinjuredhishandatwork.Afterwards,hetookadrugtest,which   testedpositiveformarijuana.Hewassuspendedwithoutpayforsixweeks.Hedidnotdisclosehis   marijuanausebeforethedrugtest.Hesignedarehabilitationagreementwithhisemployerand t  attendedsubstanceabusecounselingunderthreatofbeingfired.Decisionat3.Anemployee ` assistanceprogram(_EAP_)counselordeterminedApplicantabusedmarijuanabutdidnothavea L substanceabusedisorder.Hewasreferredtoadrugeducationprogram.Hesuccessfullycompleted 8 theprogramandwassubjecttorandomdrugtestingfortwoyears.The_EAP_Ԁcounselorbelievesthat $t Applicanthaslearnedwhatheneedstorefrainfromfutureillicitsubstanceabuse. `    `   TheJudgesAnalysis  8   TheAppealBoardhasdeclinedtoadopta brightlineastorecency.Decisionat6.  Applicantsmarijuanauseisfairlyrecent,wasnotinfrequent,andoccurredwhileholdingasecurity  clearance.Hisdailyuseofmarijuanacontinueduntilhetestedpositiveformarijuanauseaftera  workplaceaccident.Heexercisedpoorjudgment.Insufficientevidencewaspresentedtoconclude  thathisdruguseoccurredundercircumstancesthatareunlikelytorecur. p     Discussion  H!   Applicantarguesthathepresentedproofofrehabilitation,abstinence,anddisassociation  #p! withdrugusingindividuals.Healsorepeatedlycitestothefavorableletterfromthe_EAP_Ԁcounselor.  $\" Hisarguments,however,areneitherenoughtorebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredall $H # oftherecordevidencenorsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthat %4!$ wasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501717at4(App.Bd.Jul. & "% 3,2017).WegivedueconsiderationtotheHearingOfficecasesthatApplicanthascited,butthey ' #& areneitherbindingprecedentontheAppealBoardnorsufficienttounderminetheJudgesdecision. (#' Id.Additionally,wefindnobasisforconcludingtheJudgeerredinhiswholepersonanalysis. )$(   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe l+&* decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay X,'+ begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department D-(, oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any  doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor  ofthenationalsecurity.  @( Order  `   TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . 8     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ  <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ (     `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody `    `     h   JamesE.Moody L    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 8    `     h   Member,AppealBoard $t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $    `     h   JamesF.Duffy     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___