WPCd  2};8`Hю_c#N|If4(Vmd:@/]@%s*m{O%&ug{M[%L,/ݙL>MkTxܙ!zA-s<DNX_5f= Rl#ǖn ChꠠSU'crSso6crʝDx.JZ'Be=Z""aزyM"K 궵A۽n󞓛y#ڪvr >9 +ff)h~vT:DD`=_צE],Îx DcvP2~7T7y\1f6oco(SB>XarP?@clSYݤ;5J!Jy“9#3k8ze,n4N1#ˑƭ{untCJ ɐ/pG-!Z#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z NC C C EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E BG Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE]J;EJ:i+003|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineH;GuidelineE  DIGEST:Applicantisarguingforanalternativeinterpretationoftheevidence,whichisnot  enoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious, t orcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1506277.a1 8  DATE:07/19/2017  `    `     h      p DATE:July19,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1506277 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &K%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0,  Prose #XX%&K# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnApril f&!0 27,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat R'"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineH(DrugInvolvement)andGuidelineE(Personal >(#2 Conduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive). *)z$3 Applicantrequestedahearing.OnMay9,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsand *f%4 Appeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeMatthewE.MalonedeniedApplicantsrequestfora +R&5 securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +>'6   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas -)8 arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.TheJudgesfavorablefindingsunderGuidelineEarenot  atissueinthisappeal.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    TheJudgesFindingsofFact  `   40yearsold,Applicantismarriedwithtwochildren.Heholdsadoctoraldegreeandhas 8  heldhiscurrentjobsince2013.HeworkedforapriorDefensecontractorbetween2005and2007 $ t inapositioninwhichheheldaclearance.Applicantillegallyusedmarijuanafrom1994to2012,  ` purchasingitforpersonaluse.Heusedmarijuanaafterhavingbeengrantedaclearancein2006.  L  Inhisresponsetothe_SOR_,Applicantstatedthathecamefromacultureinwhichmarijuanausewas  8  generallyaccepted.Healsostated,interalia,thathedidnotbelievethatmarijuanausewhile $  holdingasecurityclearancejustifiesanadverseclearancedetermination.     Applicanthasexhibitedtechnicalleadershipandhasreceivedseveralprofessionaland   academicawards.Eachofhischaracterwitnessestestifiedthatheisavaluableassettotheemployer   andthatheishonestandreliable. p   TheJudgesAnalysis  H   TheJudgecitedtoevidencethatApplicantsdrugusecontinuedwellintohisadultyears.  p HenotedApplicantsstatementthathecamefromaculturethatacceptedmarijuanause.However,  \ theJudgestatedthattherequirementthatclearanceholdersabstainfromsuchconductis not H negotiable.Decisionat6.TheJudgealsocitedtoadocumentsignedbyApplicantabjuringfurther 4 similarmisconductwithautomaticrevocationofhisclearanceshouldhereoffend.However,he   concludedthatthebenefitofthispromiseisdiminishedbyevidencesuggestingthatApplicanthas   forswornmarijuanasimplyintheinterestsofhisjob.Giventheentiretyofthecircumstances,the  JudgeconcludedthatApplicantslessthanfiveyearsabstentionwasnotenoughtomitigatethe  concernsallegedagainsthimunderGuidelineH.Inthewholepersonanalysis,theJudgenoted  Applicantspositivecharacterevidence.However,heconcludedthatApplicantslengthyhistory l ofillegaldruguse,includingsuchconductafterhavingreceivedaclearance,precludedafavorable X  determination. D!   Discussion  #l!   ApplicantchallengestheJudgesconclusionthathisabstentionwasmerelyinorderto $D # preservehisjob.Hearguesthathecouldobtainemploymentfromanynumberofsourcesthatwould %0!$ notrequirehimtogiveupsmokingmarijuanaandthathemadeadeliberatedecisiontogiveup &"% marijuanainordertheservetheU.S.Applicantisarguingforanalternativeinterpretationofthe '#& evidence,whichisnotenoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwas (#' arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508842at3(App.Bd.Feb.14, )$( 2017).ThechallengedconclusionisconsistentwiththerecordthatwasbeforetheJudge. |*%)   Applicantarguesthathehaddemonstratedmitigationdue,inpart,tohisnearlyfiveyearsof T,'+ abstention.However,wehavenotdrawnabrightlineruleregardingrecencyofmisconduct.The @-(, extenttowhichsecurityconcernshavebecomemitigatedthroughthepassageoftimeisaquestion  thatmustberesolvedbasedontheevidenceasawhole.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1401847at3  (App.Bd.Apr.9,2015).Applicantsdruguseafterhavingcompletedaclearanceapplicationand  afterhavingbeengrantedaclearanceisasignificantfactorinevaluatinghisjudgmentandreliability. t See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1403450at3(App.Bd.Sep.11,2015).Underthefactsofthiscase,we ` findnoreasontodisturbtheJudgesconclusionregardingtherecencyofApplicantssecurity L  significantconduct. 8    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  ` decision,bothastothemitigatingconditionsandthewholepersonfactors.Thedecisionis  L  sustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhen  8  clearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484 $  U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2App.A2(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnel   beingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.   @( Order      TheDecisionis AFFIRMED.  \    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ `    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ L    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 8    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard $    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody__     `     h   JamesE.Moody p    `     h   AdministrativeJudge \     `     h   Member,AppealBoard H!    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields $H #    `     h   WilliamS.Fields %4!$    `     h   AdministrativeJudge & "%    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___