DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-04289
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Benjamin Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: John Berry, Esq. 
                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
Lynch, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86
Format) on October 17, 2014. On February 8, 2016, after reviewing the application and
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR),
explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to
grant him eligibility for access to classified information.  The SOR detailed the factual1
reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as Guideline H for illegal
drug use and Guideline E for personal conduct. Applicant timely answered the SOR and
requested a hearing.
  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,1
signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992,
as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The
AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG
replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006 and a copy of these
guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.    
1
The case was assigned to me on June 29, 2016. The hearing was held as
scheduled on November 17, 2016. At the close of the evidence and after closing
arguments, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary
disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10
days to consider the matter and provided written notice that Department Counsel did not
object. 2
When Applicant was young he admits making poor decisions concerning illegal
drug use, prescription drugs, and on two occasions driving under the influence of
alcohol. He admitted to extensive use of marijuana and other drugs, including the
purchase and sale. He worked in an industry where such use was prevalent. He does
not use that as an excuse, but recognizes that association with such individuals
between 2001  and 2011 caused him legal problems  and he did not think about3 4
potential negative consequences of his actions. He does not deny the seriousness of
his case, but presents a case that clearly shows he has matured and changed his life.
His use of illegal drugs decreased after 2007. His last use of illegal drugs and alcohol
was in April 2011. He received his undergraduate degree and has been accepted into a
graduate program. He obtained many certifications while working for a defense
contractor. Applicant has had a stable employment and has received excellent
performance reviews. He has not had any disciplinary issues. He participates in
community activities. He does not frequent venues that might have customers who are
using illegal drugs. He completed a treatment program. The program diagnosis of
alcohol dependence and cocaine dependence  has convinced Applicant that he cannot5
drink or use illegal drugs in the future. He signed a Statement of Intent not to use illegal
drugs. He was credible when he testified that his prior behavior was illegal and
destructive. He has no desire to retreat to that kind of destructive life. He has
rehabilitated himself.
Applicant’s alcohol and drug program service plans reflect his active compliance
with all treatment groups. At the conclusion of the seven month 2011 program,
Applicant received a very favorable prognosis for continued sobriety and healthy living.
After the initial program, Applicant continued with individual counseling and a support
group. He has five and one-half years of sobriety. He acknowledged that he had a
temporary position in 2008 for two months, when he was still using some illegal drugs
and that position required a public trust.
Initially, at the hearing I asked Department Counsel if he objected. He quite correctly asked for time to2
consider the issue. He emailed me that he had no objection immediately, and I confirmed with him a few
weeks later that he had no objection.
In 2001, while in the military, Applicant tested positive for marijuana. He received a general discharge under3
honorable conditions on the basis of his misconduct.
In 2003, he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of marijuana and was placed on six month probation.4
Applicant used cocaine at parties on multiple occasions from 2007 to 2011.5
2
Members of Applicant’s family have seen a great change in him since he has
been sober. He helps his family. His father wrote a letter describing his behavioral
changes. His brother testified that he trusts Applicant with his two young children. He
has a support system within his family. Applicant’s current supervisor testified that
Applicant informed him during an interview about his past history of alcohol and drug
use. Applicant was described as one of the top performers. He recommends him for a
security clearance and cites to youthful mistakes and bad judgments.  6
Applicant presented as a responsible, sincere, remorseful young man who wants
a second chance. He does not minimize the seriousness of his past history. He
disclosed his past history in full and specific detail to the government on his security
clearance application in 2014.  He admits his embarrassment about his illegal actions
and takes full responsibility for all his prior actions. He presented overwhelming
mitigation. The government conceded that Applicant presented substantial mitigation,
despite the prima facie case that was established.
  Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel
presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guidelines
H and E.  I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain,7
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the
following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 26(a), 26(b), and 26(d) and AG ¶¶ 17(d) 17(e)
and 17(g). 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of drug use and alcohol do not create
doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect
classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole
and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice
versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I
conclude that Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified
information. This case is decided for Applicant. 
Noreen A. L:ynch
Administrative Judge 
Applicant’s personal conduct in 2009 concerning the computer keyboard that he took home for his use was6
heading to surplus and he forgot to ask for permission, which would have been granted. He had permission
to take an old monitor already.
Applicant took a disc from a trash can and when he arrived home he realized that it required a corporate7
license to use. Despite the fact that he had that license, he decided he should return the disc
3