1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case: 10-06193 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns raised 
under Guideline H, Drug Involvement. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
On April 16, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On October 29, 2010, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
detailing security concerns under the guideline for Drug Involvement. 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 adjudicative guidelines effective within the Department of 
Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 On November 16, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR in writing and elected to 
have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On March 8, 2011, 
 
2 
 
 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, 
and mailed him a complete copy on March 15, 2011. Applicant received the FORM on 
March 22, 2011, and had 30 days from its receipt to file objections and submit additional 
information. Applicant did not file a response. On May 12, 2011, DOHA assigned the 
case to me.   
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer, Applicant admitted the factual allegations contained in the SOR. 
His admissions and responses to DOHA interrogatories are incorporated into the 
findings herein. (Items 4, 6.)  
 
 Applicant is 30 years old and single. In January 2010, he completed a bachelor’s 
degree. In July 2010, he began a position as a geospatial associate for a federal 
contractor. Prior to this position, he worked for private companies while attending school 
and periods in between. 
 
 Applicant has a history of illegal drug abuse. He used and purchased marijuana 
with varying frequency from January 2003 to March 2009. He used cocaine about five 
times between May 2007 and June 2009. He used controlled substances without 
prescriptions from October 2006 to March 2010. He asserted he does not intend to use 
illegal drugs in the future. He no longer associates with people who use drugs. He 
claimed that he changed his life since starting his current position. There is no evidence 
that he participated in substance abuse treatment or been diagnosed as having a drug 
abuse problem. (Item 6.)  
     
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 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 AG ¶ 2(a), describing the adjudicative process. The administrative 
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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 “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified 
information will be resolved in favor of national security.”  
 
3 
 
 
Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” 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.”   
 
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 an 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 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
The security concern pertaining to 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. (a) Drugs are 
defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include: (1) 
Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in 
the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or 
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and; (2) 
inhalants and other similar substances; (b) drug abuse is the illegal use of 
a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved 
medical direction. 
This guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Based 
on Applicant’s admissions that he began using drugs illegally in January 2003 and 
continued using them up to March 2010, the Government raised a disqualifying 
condition under AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse (see above definition).” 
After the Government raised a potential disqualifying condition, the burden 
shifted to Applicant to rebut and prove mitigation of the resulting security concerns 
under this guideline. AG ¶ 26 includes examples of conditions that could mitigate the 
security concern arising from illegal drug use: 
 
4 
 
 
(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;  
(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 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; 
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness 
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; 
and 
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, 
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, 
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified 
medical professional.   
AG ¶ 25(a) does not apply because Applicant regularly used illegal drugs and 
misused prescription drugs from 2003 to 2010. Given the frequency and seven-year 
history of Applicant’s drug abuse, his behavior casts doubt on his current 
trustworthiness and good judgment. Other than an assertion in his response to 
Interrogatories that he did not intend to illegally use marijuana or other drugs in the 
future, he failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that intention and warrant the 
application of AG ¶ 25(b). Applicant’s uncorroborated statement that he has not illegally 
used drugs since March 2010 is insufficient to establish an appropriate period of 
abstinence in view of his years of illegal drug abuse. The record does not contain 
evidence to support the application of AG ¶ 25(c). Applicant has not participated in 
substance abuse treatment or received a favorable prognosis by a qualified medical 
professional, which evidence is necessary to trigger the application of AG ¶ 25(d).  
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 relevant 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 
 
5 
 
 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the 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.  
 
 According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility 
for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense 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 is a 30-year-old single 
man who illegally used drugs for seven years, up to March 2010. His assertions that he 
no longer uses or intends to use drugs illegally are not persuasive. He provided no 
independent corroboration from a qualified medical health care professional or other 
individual to support his claims or assure the Government that he does not have a 
substance abuse problem. His long-term illegal drug use raises issues pertinent to his 
reliability, judgment, and ability to comply with rules and regulations. Overall, the record 
evidence leaves me with serious questions as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for 
a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the 
security concerns arising from his drug involvement. 
 
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 through 1.g:  Against 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. 
  
 
 
                                               
_________________ 
SHARI DAM 
Administrative Judge