DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 ------------------------- )  ISCR Case No. 07-09357 
 SSN: ---------------- ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on August 9, 
2006. On November 10, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Applicant detailing security concerns for drug 
involvement and personal conduct under Guidelines H and E. 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 answered the SOR in writing on December 10, 2007.  He admitted all 
factual allegations but denied they raised a security concern.  He elected to have the 
matter decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department counsel submitted 
the Government’s written case on January 7, 2008.  Applicant received a complete file 
of relevant material (FORM) on January 22, 2008, and was provided the opportunity to 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying 
conditions.  Applicant submitted additional information in an undated letter received by 
DOHA on February 8, 2008.  Department Counsel had no objection to consideration of 
the additional material.  The case was assigned to me on February 13, 2008.  Based on 
a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is a 21-year-old unmarried employee of a defense contractor who has 
applied, as part of his employment, for a security clearance.  He is working for the 
defense contractor as a student intern.  Applicant anticipates graduating from college in 
spring 2008, and being employed full time by the defense contractor. (Item 5) 
 
Applicant listed on his security clearance application (Item 5) that he used the 
following illegal drugs: 
 
(a) Adderall ten times from July 2005 until January 2006; 
(b) Alprozolan once in December 2005; 
(c) Cannabis six times from June until December 2005 
(d) MDMA (ectacy) four times form July until December 2005; 
(e) Oxycodene ten times from June until December 2005; 
(f) Valium once in December 2005; 
(g) Diazepam once in December 2005; 
(h) Psilocybin once in July 2005; 
(i) Fentanyl once in July 2005; 
(j) Clonazepam once in July 2005; 
(k) Cocaine once in June 2005. 
 
Applicant also admits to the above use of illegal drugs in his answer to the SOR. 
(Item 4).  He also admitted to the use of the illegal drugs to security investigators.  In 
addition to the use of the above illegal drugs from June 2005 until January 2006, 
Applicant admits to using “Salivia” in December 2006, just prior to being interviewed by 
security investigators.  Applicant describes “Salivia” as a legal substance.  Slavia is an 
herb grown in Mexico.  There has been a recent interest among young adults and 
adolescents to rediscover ethno-botanical plants that can induce changes in perception, 
hallucinations, or other psychologically-induced changes.  Since Slavia or any of its 
active ingredients are not specifically listed in the Controlled Substance Act, some on-
line botanical companies and drug promotional sites have advertised Salvia as a legal 
alternative to other plant hallucinogens like mescaline.  The plant material is smoked for 
the induction of “mystical” or hallucinogenic experiences.  A dose of 200 to 500 
micrograms produces profound hallucinations when smoked.  Field tests show its 
effects are similar to mescaline. (Item 7 at 14)  The substance caused him to have 
strong hallucinations.  His vision was okay, but his mind was distorted. (Item 6 at 5)  
 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant was a full time college student when he experimented with drugs from 
June 2005 until January 2006.  He used the drugs out of curiosity and experimentation.  
His use was usually in public settings at college events such as fraternity parties.  He 
purchased the drugs from individuals for his own use.  He admitted using drugs at work.  
An anonymous person reported his drug use to university officials.  The university 
considered him a “low risk” for drug abuse, so he only had to attend a drug awareness 
class from December 2005 until January 2006.  He stopped using drugs at the urging of 
his parents and school officials.  (Item 6 at 3) 
 
Applicant does not feel drugs had an adverse impact on his judgment, reliability, 
or personality.  He does not feel his use of drugs from June 2005 until January 2006 
had an adverse impact on his work, school, home, or friendships.  One of his reasons 
for stopping the use of drugs was that he would be working at a position requiring a 
security clearance.  He never had a positive drug test.  He no longer uses illegal drugs.  
He admitted in response to questions from security investigators in December 2005 that 
he would not use drugs more than once a year, usually on his birthday. (Item 6 at 4)  
Once he has a family, he will not use illegal drugs. (Item 6)  In response to 
interrogatories in September 2007, he stated he would not use illegal drugs again. (Item 
6 at 8)   
 
In his answer to the FORM, Applicant states that he experimented with drugs for 
only a short time and it should not be construed as a lifestyle portrait.  He argues that 
when he used Salvia in December 2006, it was a legal drug and not a continuation of 
his use of illegal drugs.  His experimentation with drugs for eight months is not a 
representation of his character.  He stated that he openly and honestly admitted his 
mistake of using illegal drugs in the past.   He made a poor choice in experimenting with 
drugs for that time.  If Slavia had been illegal, he would not have used it.  He admits his 
poor judgment during the eight months of drug use, but his other 250 months of life 
show his good judgment.  His self-discipline and good judgment are shown by his 
pending graduation from college with highest honors, his lack of a criminal record, a 
clean academic and education record, and his good credit rating.  He committed to his 
parents and his school that he would stop using illegal drugs, and he did so.   
 
 Applicant also noted that as of January 2008, the period of time he has not used 
drugs exceeded the period of time of experimentation by a factor of 3.  He avoided the 
conditions and circumstances under which he used drugs.  He understands two years of 
non-drug use is short, but he is willing to sign a statement of intent to never use illegal 
drugs again.  He is willing to be randomly screened for drug use or have his honesty 
tested in any way.  He admits to making mistakes in the past but that he has been 
forthright, honest, and completely candid during the security process.  (Case file, 
Answer to FORM). 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
 
4 
 
 
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.  
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Drug Involvement: 
 
 The use of an illegal drug or the 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.  Drugs are defined as mood and behavior 
altering substances, and include drugs identifies and listed in the Controlled Substance 
 
5 
 
 
Act of 1970, as well as inhalants and other similar substances.  Drug abuse is the illegal 
use of a drug or the use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved 
medical directions. (AG ¶ 24) 
 
 Conditions that raise a security concern and could disqualify a person are Drug 
Involvement Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse), and AG ¶ 25(c) 
(illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, 
or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia).  The disqualifying conditions are 
established because Applicant admitted to using a variety of illegal drugs or prescribed 
drugs that deviated from approved medical direction over an approximately eight month 
period of time.  He also admitted purchasing the drugs.  He had to possess the drugs to 
use them. 
 
 I considered Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 26(a) (the behavior 
happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that 
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability 
trustworthiness, or good judgment).  Applicant’s main experimentation with drugs was 
from June 2005 until January 2006, but he did use a drug in December 2006.  While 
Applicant claims the drug was legal, he does admit it caused him to hallucinate.  Even 
though it may be legal, it is mind altering since it causes hallucinations.  This mitigating 
condition does not apply since his last use was about 15 months ago, he used drugs a 
number of times a month during experimentation time so his use was not infrequent, 
and experimentation is not an unusual occurrence. 
  
 Ag ¶ 26(b) (a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts: (2) changing or avoiding 
environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period of abstinence; (4) a 
signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation) 
applies in part.  It appears that Applicant has changed his environment and is not 
associating with drug abusers.  He realizes drug abuse will affect his eligibility for a 
security clearance.  He expresses a willingness to execute a statement concerning 
automatic withdrawal of security clearance for a violation of the drug abuse policy.  
However, his last drug use was just about 15 months ago.  While he classifies that drug 
as a legal drug, it was a hallucinogen and did cause Applicant to hallucinate.  It does not 
show good judgment, reliability or trustworthiness to use a drug that causes 
hallucinations.  While his vow not to use drugs in the future seems sincere, it is not 
sufficient to overcome the security concern for drug abuse.  He vowed before to his 
parents and school officials not to abuse drugs, but he went against that vow in 
December 2006 when he used Slavia.  He stated he would not have used the drug if he 
thought it was illegal.  Since it was legal, he stated he used it.  The drug caused 
hallucinations which show that it could affect his reliability and good judgment and his 
ability to protect classified information.  It also shows a propensity to rationalize drug 
use.  I find against Applicant for drug involvement. 
 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
Personal Conduct: 
  
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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 ¶ 15)  Personal conduct is always a security concern 
because it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct justify confidence 
the person can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information.  The security 
clearance process depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information.  
If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process 
cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  Applicant’s response concerning his 
future use of drugs raises security concerns under Personal Conduct Disqualifying 
Condition AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission concealment, or falsification of relevant 
and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history, or similar 
form used to conduct investigations determine security eligibility or trustworthiness). 
 
 Applicant denied intentional falsification.  He states he was open and candid 
during the security investigative process, providing all information to the best of his 
knowledge.  In December 2006, he stated to investigators that he would only use illegal 
drugs about once a year on special occasion like his birthday.  In September 2007, he 
stated he had decided not to use illegal drugs even on special occasions.  While there is 
a security concern for falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral 
statement to the Government when applying for a security clearance, every inaccurate 
statement is not a falsification.  A falsification must be deliberate and material.  It is 
deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully.  The sequencing and timing of the 
statements are perfectly conceivable and appropriate.  Applicant first believed he would 
only use drugs occasionally.  After reflection, he decided later not to use drugs again.  
He did not intentionally falsify information during the security clearance process.  I find 
for Applicant as to Personal Conduct.   
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 a security clearance must be an overall 
 
7 
 
 
common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the 
whole person concept.  
 
 I considered that Applicant is young and about to complete college.  I considered 
that he anticipates graduating with honors from a difficult program at a prestigious 
college.  While in school, he experimented with drugs, a fact he now regrets.  However, 
he did experiment with a variety of drugs for six to eight months over two years ago.  He 
then used a hallucinogenic drug just over a year ago.  Even though he claims the drug 
is legal, it did cause him to hallucinate.  This recent use of hallucinogenic agents and a 
his ingness to use mind altering drugs shows he exercises bad judgment.  His use of 
drugs raises questions about his trustworthiness, responsibility, and good judgment.  I 
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his drug 
involvement.  Clearance is denied. 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline H:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.m:  Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.n and i.o: For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge