KEYWORD: Guideline H, Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge credibility determination is sustainable based on the record evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03223.a1
DATE: 04/17/2015
DATE: April 17, 2015
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03223
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On July
29, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 11, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant used cocaine from 2005 to 2009, while he was in college.  After graduation, he
submitted an application for an appointment as a commissioned officer in the U.S. military.  Part of
the process was his completion of a security clearance application (SCA), on which he disclosed use
of marijuana but not cocaine.  He deliberately omitted reference to cocaine on the advice of friends
who told him that he would likely be denied a commission were he to disclose it.  Although he was
denied a commission, Applicant’s SCA was adjudicated and he was granted a clearance.  Applicant
was not aware of this.
In 2012, Applicant accepted a job with a Defense contractor.  Shortly before beginning work,
he used cocaine with some friends.  He stated that his employer had a drug-free workplace policy,
so he knew that once he started the job he would not be able to use it again.  
On his current SCA Applicant admitted his past drug use.  At the hearing, he expressed his
intent not to use illegal drugs ever again.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s use of cocaine qualifies as “drug abuse” within the
meaning of the Directive, thereby raising security concerns under Guideline H.  Concerning
mitigation, the Judge noted that three years had elapsed since Applicant’s last use of cocaine and
the close of the record.  However, he also noted that three years separated Applicant’s uses in 2009
and 2012, from which he concluded that Applicant’s circumstances required a lengthier period of
abstention to mitigate the security concerns.  He also stated that Applicant’s last use of cocaine was
after he had accepted employment from a company that he knew required workers to be drug free.
“He was thus on clear notice that the use of illegal drugs was inconsistent with his new position as
a [Federal] contractor.”  Decision at 5.  Applicant’s drug use was cross-alleged under Guideline E
as well.  The Judge concluded that, for similar reason to those he cited in his Guideline H analysis,
these concerns were not mitigated either.
Discussion
3
Applicant cites to his explanations for his conduct and to other favorable evidence.
However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 11-09118 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2015).  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut
that presumption or to demonstrate that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Applicant draws our
attention to several Hearing Office cases.  Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing
Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14723 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 3,
2014).  Applicant notes the Judge’s comments about his omission of cocaine use from his earlier
SCA.  We construe this as an argument that, under the circumstances of this case, this omission does
not impugn Applicant’s credibility.  However, we are required to give deference to a Judge’s
credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  In this case, the Judge’s credibility determination
was supported by the record that was before him.  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  See ISCR Case No. 11-00391 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 2011) (Applicant’s use of
marijuana despite having been placed on notice that such conduct was not compatible with his terms
of employment impugned his judgment and reliability).  The decision is sustainable on this record.
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See
also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access
to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
4
Member, Appeal Board