1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02713
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 6, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on December 2, 2013.  On August 28, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline
H 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 2, 2014.  He answered
the SOR in writing on October 30, 2014, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received
the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on January 21, 2015.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing that same date, January 21, 2015, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on February 18, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1
and 2, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and
2
submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through G, which were received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on February 26, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until March 18, 2015, to submit additional matters.  On
March 18, 2015, he submitted Exhibit H, which was received without objection.  The
record closed on March 23, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations of the
SOR, with explanations.  He also provided additional information to support his request
for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline H - Drug Involvement
Applicant is 31 years of age, and has “a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in
Business Administration.”  (TR at page 26 lines 9~24.)  He has held a security
clearance since December of 2008.  (TR at page 27 lines 20~25, see also GX 2.)
1.a. and 1.d.  Applicant used marijuana about 12 times from about 2005 until his
last usage in May of 2013.  (TR at page 28 line 24 to page 30 line 6, and GX 1 at page
33.)  He began using marijuana while in college, and used it two times after being
granted a security clearance.  (Id, and TR at page 32 line 20 to page 38 line 8.)
1.b. and 1.d.  Applicant used Adderall, without having a prescription for this
prescription drug, twice in 2008 before being granted a security clearance, and once in
2010 after being granted a security clearance.  (TR at page 30 line 7 to page 31 line 5,
at page 32 line 20 to page 38 line 8, and GX 1 at pages 33~34.)
1.c. and 1.d.  Applicant used cocaine once in December of 2012 after being
granted a security clearance.  (TR at page 31 line 6 to page 32 line 19, and GX 1 at
page 34.)
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 and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
3
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.
Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for
access to classified information will be resolved in favor of 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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 as to obtaining a
favorable security decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline H - Drug Involvement
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in
Paragraph 24:
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.
4
The guideline also notes several conditions that could raise security concerns.
Under Subparagraph 25(a), “any drug abuse” may be disqualifying.  Applicant used
marijuana 12 times, Adderall three times without a prescription, and cocaine once.  In
addition, “any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance” under
Subparagraph 25(g) may be disqualifying.  Here, Applicant used marijuana twice,
Adderall once, and cocaine once after having been granted a security clearance in
2008.
I find no countervailing mitigating condition that is applicable here.  Applicant
used an illegal substance on four occasions after having been granted a security
clearance, the last time in May of 2013, less than two years prior to his hearing.
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.  Under AG Subparagraph 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.
The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Subparagraph 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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Applicant has the unqualified support of
those who know him in the workplace, and of his girl friend.  (AppXs B~F, and H.)
However, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  For this reason, I conclude Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his Drug Involvement.
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
Subparagraph 1.a.~1.d.: 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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge