1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 13-01217
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant admitted to minor drug abuse on one occasion on his security
clearance application. The evidence is sufficient to mitigate resulting security concerns.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on July 19, 2013.
On December 23, 2013, the Department 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 for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on January 14, 2014, and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on February 12, 2014. The case was assigned to me on February 18, 2014. The
2
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Video
Teleconference Hearing on March 11, 2014, and I convened the hearing, as scheduled,
on March 27, 2014. Applicant and the court reporter attended the hearing in person.
Department Counsel participated from DOHA Headquarters by video teleconference.
The Government offered Exhibit (GE) 1, which was admitted without objection.
Applicant offered Exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection, and testified on
his own behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave the record open until April 10,
2014, for submission of additional evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing (Tr.) on April 4, 2014. Applicant timely submitted AE B and AE C, which were
admitted without objection, and the record closed as scheduled.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he has
worked since June 2008. He is a mechanic in a test organization that works on both
commercial and military contracts for his company. He is married, with two children,
ages 6 and 3. He graduated from high school in 1997, and has some community college
courses toward an associate’s degree. He has no military service, and has not
previously applied for or held a security clearance. (GE 1; Tr. 7-8.) 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted both allegations of drug use set
forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, with explanations. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated
in the following findings.
During June 2013, Applicant attended an overnight camp-out bachelor party for
his brother-in-law that was held at a rock concert festival out in the country. He did not
know most of the other attendees at the party, and at first declined their invitations to
drink with them. Applicant has consumed alcohol on rare occasions in the past, but
does not regularly consume alcohol or have any in his home. The others present
pressured him to join them in “celebrating,” and he finally agreed to drink alcohol to the
point that he became inebriated. His judgment was affected by the alcohol, and when
the other party goers passed around a marijuana pipe he used it one time. He felt no
effect from the marijuana, and did not use it further. Later in the evening, someone in
the group passed around hallucinogenic mushrooms and, again due to his inebriated
state, Applicant ate one. He also reported feeling no effect from that drug. Applicant’s
only previous experience with any drug use was a one-time experimentation with
marijuana during high school, which he also found unsatisfactory and never wanted to
repeat. He does not smoke tobacco, and was unsure whether he actually inhaled the
marijuana or “did it right.” (AR; GE 1; Tr. 25-39.)
The month following the bachelor party, Applicant was informed that a coworker
was going to retire and he had been selected to obtain a security clearance so he could
replace the retiring mechanic on classified work. When completing his SF 86, he
admitted that he had used the marijuana and the mushroom the previous month. He
had told his wife about the party, but she was the only person not present at the party
who knew what he had done until he completed the SF 86. (AR; GE 1; Tr. 36-38.)  
3
Applicant provided a signed statement of intent not to abuse drugs in the future,
offered to submit to random and scheduled testing, and agreed to immediate revocation
of his clearance for any future drug abuse. (AE A.) A close friend and coworker
described him as trustworthy, with a reputation for good integrity and dependability. He
and Applicant have attended numerous other social events and concerts together, and
he only saw Applicant take one drink of alcohol one time. On all other occasions,
Applicant turned down offers of alcohol and drank soda. (AE B.) 
Applicant’s direct manager also submitted an unsolicited letter on his behalf,
describing his trustworthiness, honesty, accountability, and excellent character. This
manager is a retired Air Force officer who has held a security clearance and worked
with classified and sensitive information for many years. He expressed absolute
confidence in Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, and highly recommended
that it be granted. (AE C.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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, “[t]he 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: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
4
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
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 ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The only DC supported by the evidence in this case is:
(a) any drug abuse.
Applicant admitted to use of marijuana by taking one puff from a marijuana pipe
that was passed around during his brother-in-law’s bachelor party during June 2013. He
also admitted eating one hallucinogenic mushroom later that evening. Although
marijuana use had been legalized in the state where this occurred, Applicant knew that
it remained illegal under Federal law and did not try to make any excuse for what he
recognized was wrongful conduct. 
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
5
(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.
Applicant’s self-admitted drug abuse was very minor and done under significant
peer pressure, which he failed to resist due to his prior consumption of alcohol. This
was Applicant’s only incident of drug abuse since a one-time experimentation with
marijuana almost 20 years earlier. It occurred among friends and associates of his new
brother-in-law, most of whom he never associated with previously or since. He signed a
statement of intent, and testified with great credibility that this conduct was completely
out of character for him and would not recur. Applicant persuasively demonstrated his
intent not to abuse drugs in the future, and that such behavior is unlikely to recur and
does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. He
accordingly established strong mitigation under AG ¶¶ 26(a) and (b). The other two
mitigating conditions have no application under the facts of this case.
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
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
6
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 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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant engaged in two
minor incidents of drug abuse on one occasion. He did not seek out the drugs, but
succumbed to peer pressure after consuming alcohol that he also tried to decline. He
knew what he did was wrong, and admitted what had happened to his wife. This was
the only time he abused drugs since a one-time experimentation with marijuana while in
school almost 20 years ago. He is a mature and experienced individual who rarely
drinks alcohol and convincingly testified that he has no intention of ever abusing drugs
again. His credibility was strongly enhanced by his demeanor during testimony and by
the fact that the only evidence of his drug use was his honest disclosure on his SF 86.
He has established an excellent reputation for trustworthiness, integrity, and overall
good character with his coworkers and supervisor. Overall, the record evidence creates
no doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge