WPC# _I,Fn~[ жf%SnPdA|kd\9H3LI{x .2jg|qry4^m><7!=KU?K[Xx 铮2|k1[M#o3P?Y#+UPaH Zt3\i2GlI9\ncP^.$! | SPE8@0I5=i$?ain"usp vTZG[ U7 Z:߽^-)uZ#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z 0 Z E 0D N2 N4 Q6  BHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,0BK;EJ(ntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2\n$ !USUS.,    XX    0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0   G  \n$USUS.,  XX    1    _InthemostrecentversionoftheAdjudicativeGuidelines,promulgatedonJune8,2017,thisGuidelineisstyled   DrugInvolvementandSubstanceMisuse. u  \n$USUS.,  XX    2    _The_SCA_ԀthatisthebasisforthecurrentadjudicationwassignedinOctober,2015.Aswillbenotedbelow,  the2014_SCA_Ԁisnotintherecord. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineH  DIGEST:The2014_SCA_ԀwasdiscussedinsomedetailingovernmentExhibit(GE)2.  Accordingly,evidenceaboutthisdocumentwaspartoftherecord.Applicantdidnotobjecttothe t admissionofGE2ortoDepartmentCounselsquestionsaboutthe2014_SCA_Ԁduringcross ` examination.Accordingly,ApplicanthasforfeitedobjectiontotheJudgesconsiderationofthe L  _SCA_.Adversedecisionaffirmed. 8  _CASENO_:1602877.a1  ` DATE:10/2/2017  8  ________________________   `     h      p DATE:October2,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:       C ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AY) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1602877 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &;%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #- MartinL._Pitha_,Esq.#XX%&;# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On T'"1 October29,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat @(#2 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineH(DrugInvolvement) #  1      ׀ofDepartmentofDefense ,)|$3 Directive5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnJuly *h%4 5,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge  DarleneD._Lokey_ԀAndersondeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealed  pursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeraisedsecurityconcerns ` notfairlyembracedbythe_SOR_ԀandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious, L  orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. 8    TheJudgesFindingsofFact   `   Applicanthasworkedforhercurrentemployersince2008.Applicantusedmarijuanaonce  8  in2009,twicein2010,andoncein2013,allwhileholdingasecurityclearance.Ononeoccasion $  shepurchasedmarijuanaaswell.Atthetimeofhermisconduct,ApplicantwasawareofDoDpolicy   thatprohibitstheuseofillegaldrugs.Shedidnotreportherusesofmarijuanatohersecurityofficer,   and,incompletinga2014securityclearanceapplication(_SCA_),shedidnotdisclosethe2013   incident._ #  2      _ԀApplicantwascontactedtwicebyinvestigatorsandaskedaboutillegaldruguse.She   disclosedthe2013useonlyuponsuggestionthatshesitforapolygraphexamination. p   Applicantconsultedatherapist,whoopinedthatApplicantisnotauserorabuserofillegal H substancesorlikelytobecomesuchinthefuture.Shesubmittedaletterofintenttoabstainfrom 4 theuseofillegaldrugsasdefinedintheDirective.Applicantenjoysagoodreputationforreliability,  p trustworthiness,honesty,andmaturity.  \   TheJudgesAnalysis  4   TheJudgeconcludedthatApplicantshavingsmokedmarijuanaseveraltimesafterhaving   beengrantedasecurityclearanceraisedconcernsunderGuidelineH.InevaluatingApplicantscase  formitigation,theJudgenotedfavorableevidence,suchastherelativeageofApplicantslastuse  ofthedrugandthatshehadsignedaletterofintenttoabstaininthefuture.However,theJudge  concludedthatthefavorableevidenceintherecordwasnotsufficienttooutweighconcernsarising l frommultipleusesofanillegaldrug,aswellasaninstanceofpurchase,whileentrustedwith X  nationalsecrets.ShestatedthatApplicantsfailuretohavereportedhersecuritysignificantconduct D! showedpoorjudgmentandalackofreliability.ShealsonotedthatApplicantdidnotdisclosethe 0"  2013instancetoinvestigatorsuntilfacedwiththepossibilityofapolygraph.TheJudgestatedthat #l!  Applicantscredibilityisinquestionhere.Decisionat5.ThoughnotingApplicants $X" contributionstoherjob,shestatedthatApplicantmademistakesbyusingmarijuanawhileholding $D # aclearanceandbynotbeinghonestwiththeGovernmentaboutherconduct. %0!$   Discussion  '#&   ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgeerredbyrelyingonevidenceofher2014_SCA_,whichwas )$( notincludedintherecord.Shecontendsthatfailuretodisclosesecuritysignificantconductisa |*%) matterproperlyallegedunderGuidelineE,whichwasnotraisedinthe_SOR_.Shearguesthatby  citingtothisfailure,bothinthe_SCA_Ԁandtoinvestigators,theJudgeraisedconcernsthatwere  outsidethescopeofthe_SOR_.    Applicantiscorrectthatthe2014_SCA_Ԁwasnotofferedintoevidence.However,this_SCA_ ` wasdiscussedinsomedetailinGovernmentExhibit(GE)2,SummaryofClearanceInterview,at L  7.Accordingly,evidenceaboutthisdocumentwaspartoftherecord.Moreover,Applicantdidnot 8  objecttotheadmissionofGE2ortoDepartmentCounselsquestionsaboutthe2014_SCA_Ԁduring $ t crossexamination.Tr.at12,4649.Accordingly,ApplicanthasforfeitedobjectiontotheJudges  ` considerationofthe_SCA_.  L    Evenwerethisissuenotforfeited,wefindnoerrorinthewaytheJudgetreatedApplicants $  failuretohavedisclosedthe2013useofmarijuana.Conductnotallegedbythe_SOR_Ԁmaynotform   thebasisforadditionalsecurityconcernsunlessDepartmentCounsel(priortothehearing)orthe   Judgeamendsthe_SOR_Ԁandthepartieshaveanopportunityforfurtherpreparation.Directive   E3.1.17.However,nonallegedconductmaybeconsideredforsuchlimitedpurposesasmakinga   credibilitydetermination;evaluatingtheapplicantscaseforextenuationormitigation;evaluating p theextenttowhichtheapplicanthasdemonstratedrehabilitation;andinperformingawholeperson \ analysis.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1507369at2(App.Bd.Aug.16,2017).Inthecasebeforeus, H theJudgedidnotmentionApplicantsomissionsinheranalysisofthedisqualifyingconditions. 4 Rather,shediscussedthenonallegedconductsolelyintermsofApplicantscaseformitigationas  p wellasintermsofthewholepersonanalysisandacredibilitydetermination.Accordingly,theJudge  \ madeproperuseofApplicantsomissionsanddidnotraisesecurityconcernsbeyondthose H containedinthe_SOR_. 4   ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgeshouldhaveconcludedthatherdruguseoccurredsolong   agothatitnolongercastsdoubtuponhereligibilityforaclearance.ShecitestootherDOHAcases  inwhichapplicantswhohadcommitteddrugoffenses,evenwhileholdingclearances,received  favorabledeterminations.Wegivethesecasesdueconsiderationaspersuasiveauthority.However,  eachcasemustbedecidedonitsownmerits.Directive,Encl.2,App.A2(b).Wehavenever l establisheda brightlineruleastotherecencyofmisconductsuchasdruguse.Theextentto X  whichsecurityconcernshavebecomemitigatedthroughthepassageoftimeisaquestionthatmust D! beresolvedbasedontheevidenceasawhole.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1401847at3(App.Bd. 0"  Apr.9,2015). #l!   Inthiscase,theevidenceandtheJudgesfindingsestablishthatApplicantusedmarijuana $D # fourtimesandpurchaseditoncewhileholdingasecurityclearance.Druginvolvementafterhaving %0!$ completedan_SCA_Ԁdrawsintoseriousquestiontheapplicantsjudgment,reliability,andwillingness &"% tofollowrulesandregulations,insofarasitplacedtheapplicantonnoticeoftheconsequencesof '#& suchmisconduct.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1403450at3(App.Bd.Sep.11,2015).When (#' ApplicantsdrugoffensesareconsideredinlightoftheevidenceunderlyingtheJudgesadverse )$( credibilitydetermination,theysupportaconclusionthatApplicantfailedtomeetherburdenof |*%) persuasionastomitigation.SeeDirectiveE3.1.15. h+&*   ThebalanceofApplicantsbriefconsistsofachallengetothewayinwhichtheJudge @-(, weighedtheevidenceinmitigation.AdisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidenceor  anabilitytoargueforanalternativeinterpretationoftherecordisnotsufficienttoshowthatthe  Judgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,  _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508711at3(App.Bd.Aug.24,2017). t   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe L  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay 8  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department $ t oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any  ` doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor  L  ofthenationalsecurity.  8  @( Order      TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ L    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $t    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard `    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody     `     h   JamesE.Moody     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard     `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ 4"     `     h   JamesF.Duffy  #p!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  $\"    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___ $H #