1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------. )       ISCR Case No. 07-05477
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Rita C. O’Brien, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen, Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on May 7, 2007.
On September 21, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines H and E
for Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 3, 2007, and elected to
have his decision on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
Government’s written case on December 13, 2007. Applicant received a complete file of
relevant material (FORM) on December 21, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to
file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s
Department Counsel submitted six items in support of her contentions.1
Item 3 (Answer, signed October 15, 2007).2
Item 4 (Security Clearance Application, dated May 7,2007).3
Id.4
Item 4 at 25.5
Items 3, 5, and 6.6
Item 6 (Response to Interrogatories, dated August 7, 2007).7
2
case.  Applicant did not submit additional information. The case was assigned to me on1
March 13, 2008. Based upon a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, received October 15, 2007, Applicant admitted all the
factual allegations in the SOR.  He did not provide additional information to support his2
request for eligibility for a security clearance. 
Applicant is a 59-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for
his current employer since October 1967.  He is a widower and has three children. 3
Applicant admitted in his 2007 security clearance application to a charge of
buying drugs in 1988. In fact, he was charged with attempt to possess cocaine (felony)
in 1991. He was found guilty and he was put on probation. There are no other details in
his SF 86 about his history of drug abuse.4
Applicant used crack cocaine from at least April 2004 until January 2005. He
reports that the use was approximately 15 to 20 times. However, he does not recall the
exact number of times nor the exact dates.  During this time period, Applicant held a5
security clearance.
In January 2005, Applicant was working and had to provide a urine sample for a
random drug test.  Applicant was informed by his employer that his urine sample tested6
positive for cocaine. Applicant was placed on unpaid leave until he completed a drug
rehabilitation class. He attended classes for 6-8 weeks. The Applicant attended three or
four times a week according to his recollection. He returned to work in March or April
2005. He reports attending Narcotics Anonymous after that for three or four months. He
did not continue.  Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to support his7
attendance at drug treatment.
Applicant purchased cocaine from a man on the streets. He paid cash for the
cocaine but does not recall how much he actually bought. He reported using the drug on
Id.8
Item 69
Id.10
3
weekends. If he had extra money, he would purchase and use more cocaine. He
enjoyed the way cocaine made him feel. He also thought it would help with the sense of
loss after his wife died. Before failing the drug test, he had no problems at work. He
denies selling drugs to anyone. He does not believe he was addicted to cocaine. He did
not seek any counseling outside of the mandatory work program.8
Applicant regrets using crack cocaine and wasting his money.  He also stated in9
his interview with the Department of Defense investigators in October 2006 that he does
not intend to use any illegal drugs for the rest of his life.  10
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
4
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in
AG & 24:      
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 25(a), Aany drug abuse@ is potentially disqualifying. Applicant admitted using
cocaine in 2004-2005. Similarly, AG ¶ 25(b), “testing positive for illegal drug use” is a
disqualifying condition. Applicant tested positive for cocaine during a random test at
work in January 2005. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination.
Under AG ¶ 25(c) “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia” is
also potentially disqualifying. In 2004-2005, Applicant purchased cocaine and
possessed. He admitted that he did so on many occasions. He also had an earlier
charge for attempt to possess cocaine in 1991. He was a mature adult at that time. Not
only that, Applicant was working and held a security clearance when he was using
cocaine. Thus, AG ¶ 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance” is an applicable disqualifying condition in this case. 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from drug involvement. Under AG ¶ 26 (a), the disqualifying conditions
5
may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ Applicant=s
illegal use occurred numerous times and as recent as 2005. I do not find that this
mitigating condition applies.  
Under AG ¶ 26 (b), it may be mitigating where Aa demonstrated intent not to
abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates
and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an
appropriate period of abstinence; and (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation. As noted above, Applicant provided no
additional information in response to the FORM. He provided no documentary evidence
concerning his rehabilitation program and treatment. Also, he has not had a sufficient
period of abstinence for mitigation. In addition, his comments do not convince me of his
future intentions not to use illegal drugs in light of his use of drugs while holding a
security clearance.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s
community standing.
Applicant’s use of an illegal drug shows not only poor judgment, but a disregard
of the law. In addition, using an illegal drug while holding a security clearance
demonstrates a disregard for the trust that the Government placed in him when it
granted him a security clearance. This could make him vulnerable when he has access
to classified information. I have doubts about his reliability and judgment. I find his
personal conduct creates a vulnerability and raises a security concern under the above
disqualifying condition. After reviewing the mitigating conditions, I do not find that any
apply.
6
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness
of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) extent to which participation
is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent
behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.”
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has been employed for
many years with his current employer and has held a security clearance. He has no
documented problems at work prior to the drug test in 2005. However, he did not alert
his employer about his drug problems. If he had not been tested, he may still be using
an illegal drug. He used cocaine in 1991 and then resorted to it in 2004. Granted, he
lost his wife, but that is no excuse for resort to an illegal drug. He bought cocaine many
times. Applicant reports that he completed the mandatory drug program, but he has
produced no documentation to support this claim. He did not provide any record of his
treatment or prognosis. Nevertheless, I accept his statement about completing
treatment and attending Narcotics Anonymous for 3-4 months as truthful and accurate.
His drug use is recent. He was a mature adult at the time that he used cocaine.
Applicant does not convince me that his poor judgment is not likely to recur. His poor
judgment to revert to drugs in his 50's is troubling. Applicant has not met his burden of
proof in this case. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility, judgment, and suitability for a security clearance. For all the
reasons discussed above, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns
arising from his drug involvement and personal conduct.
 
7
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge