1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-04875
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant used cocaine frequently during periods of unemployment between
2007 and 2011. When he submitted a security clearance application in February 2011,
he made a false official statement to the Government by intentionally denying that he
had used illegal drugs within the preceding seven years. He continued to use cocaine
and, in June 2011, failed a workplace urinalysis by testing positive for cocaine. He again
used cocaine on several occasions between June and August 2011. Clearance is
denied.
Statement of the Case
On February 11, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his
employment with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of Applicant’s
background investigation, which included an adverse information report filed in the Joint
Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) on July 7, 2011, and Applicant’s responses to
interrogatories issued by adjudicators for the Department of Defense (DOD), it could not
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented on September 1, 2006. These guidelines were published in2
the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 
 A copy of Department Counsel’s letter forwarding the Government’s exhibits to Applicant in advance of3
hearing is included in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. Also, an index listing each exhibit is included in
the record as Hx. 2.
 An index listing Applicant’s exhibits is included as Hx. 3.4
2
be determined that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue
Applicant’s access to classified information.  On March 21, 2014, DOD issued to1
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns
addressed in the adjudicative guidelines (AG)  for drug involvement (Guideline H) and2
personal conduct (Guideline E).
Applicant timely answered the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on May 13, 2014, and I convened a hearing on June 19, 2014. The
parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel presented Government’s Exhibits
(Gx.) 1 - 3,  and Applicant presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - P.  All exhibits were3 4
admitted without objection. Applicant also testified and presented four witnesses. DOHA
received a transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on July 1, 2014.
Findings of Fact
The Government alleged under Guideline H that Applicant used cocaine, as often
as weekly, between 2007 and August 2011 (SOR 1.a); and that in June 2011, he tested
positive for cocaine during workplace urinalysis testing (SOR 1.b). Applicant admitted
both allegations.
The Government alleged under Guideline E, that Applicant intentionally made a
false official statement when he omitted his use of drugs from his EQIP by answering
“no” to the following question:
In the last 7 years, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for
example, cocaine, crack cocaine, THC (marijuana, hashish, etc.),
narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), stimulants
(amphetamines, speed, crystal methamphetamine, Ecstacy, ketamine,
etc.), depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.),
hallucinogens (LSD, PCP, etc.), steroids, inhalants (toluene, amyl nitrate,
etc.), or prescription drugs (including painkillers)? Use of a controlled
substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting
with or otherwise consuming any controlled substance. (SOR 2.a). 
Applicant also admitted this allegation. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my
findings of fact. Having reviewed the response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I
make the following additional findings of fact.
3
Applicant is 52 years old and employed by a defense contractor as an integration
specialist technician. He and his wife have been married since September 1999.
Applicant was also married between 1986 and 1988. Between them, he and his current
wife have four children and 15 grandchildren. Applicant did not finish high school
because his family needed him to work to help make ends meet. However, he obtained
his GED in 1985 and has also completed a course of study at a vocational and technical
school. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 21 - 22)
Applicant has worked for his current employer (Company A) since January 2011.
He also worked for the same company on different programs between 1999 and 2001,
and between 2002 and 2006. After each period of employment, he was laid off due to
lack of work. He was recalled in January 2011, but this time he was required to qualify
for a security clearance for his current position. He has received numerous awards and
other forms of recognition for his performance in the workplace. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. F - P)
In March 2008 Applicant was hired by a different company (Company B) for
similar work that did not require a clearance. He resigned that position in August 2010
because of disagreements with management over how he was performing his work.
Both that employer and his current employer required new or recalled employees to
pass a drug screening test. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 27 - 28)
Each time Applicant was laid off, he was able to find work with a moving
company to keep money coming in. Some of the other workers there used illegal drugs,
including cocaine and crack cocaine. After his second lay-off from Company A, at age
46, he started using cocaine and crack cocaine on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. He
purchased the drug from someone he knew from his neighborhood and usually spent
about $30 on each purchase. (Gx. 2; Tr. 25 - 29, 44 - 51)
When Applicant was hired by Company B in 2008, he stopped using drugs
because he knew he would have to take a drug test. He claims he did not use drugs
after he passed the pre-employment drug test and while he was working for Company
B. About two months after he left Company B, he resumed using cocaine. (Tr. 46 - 48,
58)
After Applicant was recalled by Company A and had submitted his EQIP, he was
tested for drugs after being on the job about six months. He failed the drug test, but was
allowed to remain employed by Company A provided he complete a company-
sponsored drug counseling and rehabilitation program. He successfully completed that
program. He is required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and is subject
to periodic drug testing in addition to the usual random testing that occurs at Company
A. He remains active in AA. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Ax. B - E; Tr. 35 - 41)
After Applicant failed his drug test in June 2011, he continued to use cocaine
until August 2011, when he began drug counseling. Applicant explained that he felt
despondent over the drug test results and figured he had nothing left to lose by
resuming his drug use. (Gx. 2; Tr. 53 - 54)
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
 Directive. 6.3.6
4
When Applicant submitted his EQIP in February 2011, he answered “no” to all of
the questions pertaining to illegal drug use in the preceding seven years. He did so
knowingly because he was ashamed of his involvement with illegal drugs. He also
falsified his answer because he was afraid he would lose his job for lack of a security
clearance. (Answer; Gx. 2; Tr. 34 - 35)
Applicant submitted an affidavit attesting to his intent to abstain from any future
drug use. He also presented several character witnesses. They all testified that he is an
excellent worker, a good father and neighbor who is generous with his time, and that he
is honest and reliable. However, none of the witnesses, including his wife (Tr. 72), knew
that he continued to use cocaine after he submitted his EQIP or after he tested positive
for drugs in the workplace. (Ax. A; Tr. 64 - 108)
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent  with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to5
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,  and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies6
in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).8
5
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  7
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.8
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Applicant began using cocaine at age 46. He continued to use cocaine after he
submitted his EQIP in February 2011, and after he had resumed working for Company
A. After he tested positive for cocaine in June 2011, he continued using the drug for
another two months. Applicant bought and possessed cocaine on numerous occasions
between 2007 and 2011. This information raises a security concern articulated at AG ¶
24 as follows:
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; and
(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. 
More specifically, information about Applicant’s drug use requires application of
the following AG ¶ 25 disqualifying conditions:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
6
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use; and
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.
I also have considered the following AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions, which may be
pertinent to these facts and circumstances:
(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)
dissociation 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; 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 last used cocaine in August 2011. He also completed company-
sponsored drug treatment and rehabilitation requirements as a condition of his
continued employment. Applicant is still subject to regular drug testing because of his
past conduct, and he submitted a written statement as to his intent to abstain from
future drug use. Weighed against these positive factors is the fact that Applicant
stopped using cocaine long enough in 2008 to pass a drug test for work at Company B.
When he was recalled to Company A, it appears he did not expect to be tested for
drugs and continued to use cocaine after returning to work in a potentially classified
environment and after submitting his EQIP. These facts indicate Applicant has been
somewhat calculating when it comes to his alternating use of and abstinence from
cocaine. His current abstinence is being enforced through drug testing that would not
otherwise be imposed were the risk of recurrent drug use not at issue. Despite his
representations that his drug use is permanently behind him, the totality of available
information bearing on this issue undermines confidence that Applicant will not use
drugs in the future. I conclude that none of the AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions apply.
Personal Conduct
Applicant deliberately lied about his use of cocaine when he applied for a security
clearance in 2011. He did so to protect his own interests. This information is sufficient to
raise a security concern about his personal conduct, which is addressed at AG ¶ 15, as
follows:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
7
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.
Specifically, the record requires application of the following AG ¶ 16 disqualifying
condition:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
Of the mitigating conditions listed under this guideline at AG ¶ 17, the following
are pertinent to these facts and circumstances: 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Applicant was concerned that if he disclosed his drug use he would not get the
security clearance required for his continued employment. It was not until after he tested
positive for cocaine and the matter was discussed with a Government investigator
during his background investigation that he admitted his involvement with illegal drugs.
Applicant had no intention of being truthful about his drug use as he continued to use
cocaine after he submitted his EQIP. I conclude AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply. 
Falsification of such information is not a minor infraction, particularly where it is
the Applicant’s first opportunity to demonstrate willingness to place the Government’s
interests first. However, if it is unlikely to recur the security significance of such conduct
lessens. In assessing whether Applicant is now sufficiently credible and willing to be
candid about adverse information in his background, I have considered the uninformed
testimony of his witnesses. None of them knew that he had used cocaine or that he had
continued to use cocaine after returning to work at Company A. It also appears that his
wife was unaware that Applicant continued to use drugs after he tested positive in June
2011. Based on these facts, and along with all of the other adverse information in this
record, I conclude AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply, and that Applicant has failed to mitigate
the security concerns raised under this guideline.
Whole-Person Concept.
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines H and E. I have also reviewed the record before
8
me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is now 52
years old and has established a good reputation at work for reliability and
trustworthiness. He is respected by his supervisors and coworkers for his leadership
and his expertise. However, the value of this positive information abates when
compared to Applicant’s lack of candor with those same individuals regarding the facts
probative of his suitability for a clearance. Further, Applicant’s illegal drug involvement is
still a concern owing to his demonstrated willingness to use drugs unless he is subject
to external controls, such as workplace drug testing. Available information suggests that
his drug use and his lack of candor may recur.
In summary, a fair and commonsense assessment of all information bearing on
Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information shows continued reasonable
doubts about his judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. Because protection of the
national interest is the primary concern here, those doubts are resolved in against
continuing Applicant’s security clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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.b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
to continue Applicant’s access to classified information. Request for a security
clearance is denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge