DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02231
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Cathryn E. Young, Attorney At law
Griffith, Young & Lass 
April 23, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
dated April 22, 2013.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On October 6, 2014, the Department of
Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
under Guidelines H and G for Applicant. 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 within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
Applicant responded to the SOR on November 21, 2014, and he requested a
hearing before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge.  This
case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on February 18, 2015.  A notice of
hearing was issued on February 19, 2015, scheduling the hearing for March 18, 2015.
At the hearing the Government presented two exhibits, referred to as Government
Exhibits 1 and 2.  The Applicant presented thirteen exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s
Exhibits A thorugh M.  He also testified on his own behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.)
2
was received on March 27, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 27 years old and single.  He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Business
Economics and has completed a certificate in Aerospace Project Management.  He is
employed by a defense contractor as a Project Manager.  He is applying for a security
clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H - Drug Involvement). The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses illegal drugs.
Applicant admitted to each of the allegations set forth under this guideline.  (See
Applicant’s Answer to the SOR.) 
Applicant has a history of illegal drug use that occurred from 2005 to at least
March 2013.  During this period, he used marijuana, ecstacy, hallucinogenic
mushrooms, and Xanax, without a prescription.  Applicant attended college from
September 2005 through December 2010.  He began working for his current employer
in April 2010.  He was initially hired as an intern, but after completing his final class, he
was hired as a full time employee.  He applied for a security clearance for the first time
in April 2013.  
During his security clearance background investigation, Applicant self-reported
that he used marijuana from 2005 through March 2013.  He began using marijuana in
high school, and used it then on about three separate occasions.  In his junior year of
college, he started using marijuana on a daily basis that continued throughout his
college career.  During this period he also purchased marijuana on a weekly basis for
his own use and for friends.  Sometimes he sold it to his friends for the amount it cost
him to purchase it.  (Tr. p. 25-26.)  After graduating from college, he reduced his
marijuana use, but continued using it.  In March 2013, after learning that his employer
wanted him to apply for a security clearance, he stopped using marijuana altogether.
(Tr. p. 26.)  
Applicant testified that he also used ecstacy.  He used it several times in high
school, and then after graduating from college, he used it with his now ex-girlfriend
about two or three times a month until he stopped in November 2012.  Applicant used
hallucinogenic mushrooms in 2010, on one occasion with his friends during a hike.  (Tr.
p. 29.)  He also used Xanax, on one occasion, that he got from a friend of his in 2009.  
He states that he has no intentions of ever using any illegal drug again or any
prescription drug that is not prescribed to him.  He signed a statement of intent
indicating that if he were to ever use any illegal drug again, his security clearance would
be subject to automatic revocation.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B, and Tr. pp. 30-31.)  Applicant
submitted a drug test report collected on February 27, 2015, conducted on his hair
3
follicle that was negative.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  Applicant states that he now realizes
the responsibilities he has at work and he does not want to jeopardize that.  (Tr. p. 31.)  
Applicant further testified that his roommate currently uses drugs.  (Tr. p. 37.)  He
continues to socialize with friends that use illegal drugs, but believes they are very
responsible and he trusts them.  He explained that he has learned to remove himself
from the rooms when they are using drugs.  (Tr. p. 38.)
Applicant admits that he knew his illegal drug use was against the law.  He
explained that he self-reported all of his drug and alcohol use to the Government during
his background investigation because he wanted to be up front with everything that he
has done in the past.  (Tr. p. 53.)
Applicant was asked a hypothetical question.  If the government placed a
condition on him not to associate with friends that use drugs would he still associate
with them.  Applicant states that he would not personally see them, but he would still
contact them though e-mail or texts.  (Tr. p. 58-59.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses intoxicants.
Applicant admitted to each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  (Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  His history of alcohol abuse began in April
2010 and continued until at least June 2013.  During this period he consumed alcohol to
the point of intoxication almost every weekend, and on occasion to the point of black
out.  He explained that it was socially acceptable at the college he attended to consume
alcohol to excess with his friends on the weekends.  He has never received any
treatment or counseling for drug or alcohol use.  On one occasion in college he was
caught with alcohol in his room and was required to attend an on-campus alcohol
program.  (Tr. p. 33.)     
Applicant’s consumption of alcohol continued and occurred mainly on the
weekends, and on some occasions during the week.  On average, he drank alcohol two
or three times weekly, consuming six or so drinks on each occasion.  Each time he
drank to the point of intoxication.  (Tr. p. 35.)  Since graduating from college, Applicant
continues to drink alcohol about three times a week, but has reduced the amount he
consumes.  However, he still on occasion drinks to the point of intoxication.  He now
consumes about three drinks per sitting, mainly beer and wine, but on occasion, he has
hard liquor.  (Tr. p. 36.)  Applicant consumes alcohol to be social.  He drinks with his
roommate and his friends.  (Tr. p. 39.)  Applicant believes that he drinks responsibly.
Since receiving the SOR he has not consumed alcohol to the level of intoxication that
he usually drinks.  (Tr. p. 44.)  He feels that he has matured and is now more dedicated
to his job.  He has only decreased his drinking since he has been associating with a
different group of people, who don’t drink as much.  (Tr. p. 37.) 
4
Numerous letters of recommendation from Applicant’s supervisor, a co-worker,
his roommate, his sister, and friends, indicate that he is considered to be extremely
reliable and trustworthy.  He is said to be a top performer on the job.  He is described as
having excellent leadership skills, is well respected by those he works with, and
professional in every aspect.  His character displays ambition, dedication, integrity,
kindness and loyalty.  He is highly recommended for a security clearance.  (Applicant’s
Exhibits A through H.)
  Applicant’s performance reviews for 2014 and 2015 reflect that the Applicant has
“met” or “exceeded” the requirements of his job in every category.  (Applicant’s Exhibits
I and J.)
Applicant has received a number of awards, certificates and recognitions for his
work at the company during the period from March 2011 through August 2014.
(Applicant’s Exhibit L.)
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies
divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying
Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline H (Drug Involvement)
The Concern.  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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
25.(a) any drug abuse;
25.(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
21.  The Concern.  Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.  
5
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
22.(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or
alcohol dependent.
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with
the national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified
information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person
is an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is
predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The
adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the
whole-person concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and
present, favorable and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”
6
The Administrative Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have
reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw
inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in
nature.  Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865,
“Any determination under this order . . . 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted
to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in drug abuse and alcohol abuse that demonstrates poor
judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The
Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government met its initial burden of proving that the Applicant
has engaged in drug involvement (Guideline H) and alcohol abuse (Guideline G).  The
totality of this evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on
the part of the Applicant.  Because of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I
conclude there is a nexus or connection with his security clearance eligibility.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence
in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's
case under Guidelines H and G of the SOR.  
Applicant claims that he has been drug-free for twenty-four months.  He is
commended for his decision to live a drug-free lifestyle.  It is also clear that he
continues to socialize with his friends who use illegal drugs.  Obviously his desire to
associate with his friends who use drugs is a priority for him.  This is a lapse in sound
judgment that is puzzling and raises serious questions about his judgment, reliability
and trustworthiness. 
The argument could be made that the Applicant’s use of drugs and alcohol to
excess occurred only in college, and when he was hired by his employer the
misconduct stopped. This argument will not succeed.  The evidence shows that
Applicant’s history of illegal drug use and excessive alcohol consumption only stopped
in 2013, after learning that he might need a security clearance.  Applicant was hired by
7
his employer, a defense contractor, in 2010, and he continued to use and purchase
illegal drugs, specifically marijuana and ecstacy.  All along he knew that his company
prohibited the use of illegal drugs, and that it was against DoD policy and against the
law. Moreover, Applicant continues to associate with individuals who use illegal drugs.
This conduct shows immaturity and raises serious security concerns about his reliability
and trustworthiness.  Under Guideline H, Drug Involvement, Disqualifying Condition
25.(a) any drug abuse, 25.(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia apply.
None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  
Applicant also has a history of alcohol abuse.  Under Guideline H, Alcohol
Consumption, Disqualifying Conditions 22.(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol
to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as
an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent applies.  None of the mitigating conditions are
applicable.  Applicant drinks on a regular basis.  Before applying for a security
clearance, each time he consumed alcohol, he drank to the point of intoxication.  This
indicates some kind of problem.  Admittedly, he has now reduced the amount he
consumes, but he still consumes alcohol.  Given the extent of his reliance on drugs and
alcohol over the years, more time in a drug-free lifestyle and sobriety is needed to
show the Government that he will not revert to his old ways.  Especially, since those he
associates with still use illegal drugs and consume alcohol.  Accordingly, I find against
the Applicant under Guideline H, Drug Involvement, and Guideline G, Alcohol
Consumption.  
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Applicant is a 27 year-old, young,
immature, inexperienced, individual who, for eight years straight, was deeply involved
in illegal drugs and alcohol abuse.  Although he states that he has stopped using drugs
and alcohol, he continues to socialize with people who do.  He does not demonstrate
the level of maturity, responsibility or the characteristics expected of an employee who
works for the defense industry and wants access to classified information.  Applicant’s
illegal conduct is too recent, and a clear indicator of poor judgment and unreliability that
preclude him from security clearance eligibility at this time.
  
Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under
all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may
not properly safeguard classified information.  
A security clearance is a privilege, not a right.  In order to meet the qualifications
for access to classified information, it must determined that the Applicant is, and has
been, sufficiently trustworthy on the job and in his everyday life to adequately protect
the government’s national interest.  Based upon the conduct outlined here, this
Applicant has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, and he does not meet the
eligibility requirements for access to classified information.       
8
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOR.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.: Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge