1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-03774
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Allison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement security concern generated by
his illegal drug use. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On August 28, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
H, 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
(AG) effective as of September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on September 12, 2012, admitting all of the
allegations and requesting a hearing. On October 22, 2012, the case was assigned to
me. On October 26, 2012, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for
2
November 13, 2012.  At the hearing, I received into evidence one Government exhibit
(GE 1) and 17 Applicant exhibits (AE A-Q) Also, I considered Applicant’s testimony. The
transcript was received on November 21, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 37-year-old married man with two children ages three and five. He
earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in 1996, graduating magna cum
laude from a prestigious university, and finishing within three years. (AE A; Tr. 20) While
in college, Applicant was the captain of the school’s swim team. He remains active with
his alma mater. In 2007, Applicant’s college honored him as the engineering mentor of
the year. (AE O)  
Shortly after graduating, Applicant took a job with a start-up company that
focused on product development. Among other things, he supported various aspects of
algorithm development and magnetometor calibration. (AE I) Applicant’s stint at the
start-up company was extraordinarily successful. He was the leading inventor, on the
company’s behalf, of ten patented products.  (AE B, AE R; Tr. 21) When Applicant left
the company in 2011 to start his own company, he cashed in stock options worth
approximately $200,000. (AE D)
Applicant has operated his company for approximately one-and-a-half years. He
“provide[s] computer engineering consulting services spanning from hardware design to
embedded software development with emphasis on digital processing.” (AE P) Applicant
seeks a security clearance to provide services for one of his federal government clients.
 Between 2000 and 2010, Applicant abused multiple illegal drugs. The first illegal
drug Applicant used was marijuana. He tried it at a night club in 2000 and used it
approximately once per year for the next five years. (Tr. 39) Applicant’s illegal drug use
expanded to include hallucinogens, amphetamines, and ketamine, an animal
tranquillizer. (Tr. 56-68) 
The drug Applicant used most frequently was the hallucinogen MDMA, also
known as Ecstasy. Between 2000 and 2005, he used it at night clubs approximately
once every three to four weeks. (Tr. 41) Sometimes during this period, he used LSD or
hallucinogenic mushrooms. Also on some occasions, he would combine his use of
hallucinogens with methamphetamines.
In 2006, Applicant’s illegal drug use gradually began decreasing. He quit using
marijuana and ketamine, and he only used hallucinogenics two to three times that year.
(Tr. 43) Between 2007 and 2010, Applicant’s use of illegal drugs was limited to one
weekend per year. Typically, Applicant and his friends would get together on Saturday
morning, use LSD, then take the subway downtown to tour museums. Then, they would
return to one of the friend’s apartments, change clothes, go to a club, take MDMA, then
party all night. During some of these episodes, Applicant would inhale
methamphetamines. (Tr. 57) Applicant would then spend all day on Sunday recovering
3
from the drug binge. (Tr. 52, 66) According to Applicant, the hallucinogens enabled him,
while touring the museums, to engage in “introspection,” and to “think about the bigger
picture of life and what [he] could do to better both [him]self and the world around [him].”
(Tr. 64)
 Applicant stopped this annual ritual after 2010. (Tr. 49) He decided shortly after
his first child was born that he wanted to spend more time at home, and that he did not
want his child to be exposed to such behavior. (Tr. 50, 56) Also, he no longer
associates with the friends with whom he participated in the annual ritual.
Applicant does not intend to abuse illegal drugs in the future. He testified, as
follows:
Now, there’s a time and place for that and that time and place for me has
passed. But at the time, I think it has made me better able to relate to
people. . . . I think that use of drugs has helped me become more of a
human and helped me better able to manage and relate to people. (Tr. 61)
 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H: Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 24). Applicant’s history of illegal drug
use triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” and 25(c), “illegal drug
4
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.”
Applicant’s drug abuse was frequent. Also, the circumstances surrounding much
of his use demonstrated a reckless disregard for his safety. He cannot attribute his
illegal drug use to immaturity because he started using drugs four years after he
finished college.
Applicant gradually began to decrease his drug usage after 2005. However, this
fact has minimal probative value given the type of drugs that he continued to use and
the circumstances surrounding his continued usage. 
Applicant no longer associates with his drug-abusing friends, and has not used
illegal drugs in two years. AG ¶ 26(b)(1), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs
in the future, such as . . . disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts,”
applies.  Any positive inference from the fact that Applicant no longer associates with
his drug-abusing friends is greatly outweighed by the nature and circumstances of the
illegal drug use. Applicant has not mitigated the drug involvement security concern.
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) 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.
Applicant is an extraordinarily intelligent, highly successful man. He is well-
respected in his profession, and mentors young engineering majors at his alma mater.
Given the nature, extent, and seriousness of his drug abuse and its recency, I cannot
conclude that he has mitigated the conduct. In reaching this conclusion, I was
particularly troubled by his nonchalant, nearly nostalgic explanation for choosing to
abuse hallucinogens. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole-person
concept, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concern.
5
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.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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge