1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-03988
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant appeared contrite about his history of cocaine use, it is too
soon to conclude that he has mitigated the security risk given the recency of his last
use, which occurred while holding a security clearance, and the extensive span of time
that he abused cocaine in the past. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On September 12, 2012, the Defense of Defense (DOD) 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 December 1, 2006.
2
DOD received Applicant’s answer on October 3, 2012, admitting all of the
allegations except subparagraph 1.d, and requesting a hearing. On November 29, 2012,
the case was assigned to me. On December 10, 2012, a notice of hearing was issued
scheduling the case for January 14, 2013. At the hearing, I received into evidence two
Government exhibits marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 and 2, and nine Applicant
Exhibits, marked as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through I.  Also, I considered Applicant’s
testimony. The transcript was received on January 23, 2013. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 42-year-old married man with two children, ages seven and five.
He has been married for 12 years. He earned a bachelor’s degree in fire protection
engineering in 1992, graduating with honors, and a master’s degree in engineering in
1994. (GE 1 at 10; Tr. 44) Since 1994, he has worked for the same company as a fire
protection engineer. His duties include designing safer buildings and more efficient fire
escapes. Currently, he is a senior project manager. (Tr. 21)
Applicant is highly respected on the job. According to his supervisor, he is one of
the company’s most valuable senior engineers, “and has consistently demonstrated a
high level of proficiency on the job and has always conducted himself in a professional
manner.” (AE A)
Applicant has abused cocaine approximately ten times over the years. The
majority of his cocaine use occurred before 2003. Most recently, he has used cocaine
once in 2006 and once in 2010. (Tr. 25) The 2006 episode occurred on a weekend golf
trip with friends. (Tr. 29) The 2010 episode occurred during a bachelor party. (Tr. 31)
One of the people at the bachelor party was a coworker. When Applicant abused
cocaine in 2010, he had a security clearance.  (Tr. 37) 
Applicant did not purchase the cocaine that he used in 2006 or 2010. He has not
purchased cocaine in more than 15 years. (Tr. 31)
Applicant applied for a security clearance through another agency in the late
1990s. His application was denied. Applicant never received a rationale for the basis of
the denial, but “assumed it was because of [his] admitted drug use.” (Tr. 41)
 Applicant recognizes the foolishness of his cocaine use, and is “very ashamed
and disappointed with [himself].” (Tr. 48) After a long talk with his wife after coming
home from the bachelor party, he decided never to abuse cocaine again. (Tr. 49) He
has stopped associating with his drug-abusing acquaintances, and “no longer places
[himself] in situations where drugs are being used or might be used.” (AE I; Tr. 50)  On
December 7, 2012, he memorialized his intent never to abuse drugs again in a signed,
sworn affidavit. (AE D) 
On January 3, 2013, Applicant underwent a random drug test. The results were
negative. (AE B, E)
3
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 did not purchase
cocaine between 2005 and 2010, as alleged in the SOR. I resolve SOR subparagraph
1.d in his favor. Conversely, between approximately 1995 and 2010, Applicant abused
cocaine approximately ten times. During his most recent use, he possessed a security
clearance. AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” and AG ¶ 25(g), “any illegal drug use after
being granted a security clearance,” applies.
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 are potentially applicable:
(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;
and
(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 are
used;
4
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation.
Applicant only used illegal drugs twice during the past ten years. He has
disassociated himself from his drug-using associates and contacts, changed his
environment, and he executed a signed, sworn statement of intent to not abuse illegal
drugs in the future.
Although Applicant’s cocaine use was infrequent, the last use occurred while he
held a security clearance, less than three years ago. Also, Applicant continued to use
cocaine through the 2000s despite having been rejected for a security clearance in the
late 1990s, for what he suspected was his admission of drug use. Under these
circumstances, the infrequency of his use is outweighed by its nature, its seriousness,
and its recency. Consequently, AG ¶ 26(b) applies, but not AG ¶ 26(a).
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 a stellar employee and is dedicated to volunteerism. Although these
are impressive attributes, their probative value is limited because he was participating in
these activities in part during the same period that he was periodically abusing cocaine.
Upon considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern.
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
5
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge