DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
)
)       ISCR Case No. 16-03929 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
On February 1, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On January 30, 2017, after reviewing the application and information 
gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility,(DOD CAF), 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.1 The SOR detailed the factual 
reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline H for drug 
involvement. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. 
1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, 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 (AGs), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 
2017, apply here. These AGs replaced the AGs that were effective September 1, 2006, when the SOR 
was issued in this case. The AGs were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, 
Appendix H (2006). A copy of the new AGs was provided directly to Applicant in this case. I have 
considered this case under both sets of AGs and my conclusion would be the same under either AGs.   
 
2 
 
 
On May 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On June 22, 2017, the hearing 
was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence, I 
e-mailed Department Counsel indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary 
disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
The SOR contains two allegations of illegal drug use. The first allegation 
concerns use of marijuana (MJ) with varying frequency from approximately September 
2006 until August 2015. The second allegation concerns use of cocaine with varying 
frequency from October 2010 until October 2015. Applicant self-disclosed this illegal 
drug use in his e-QIP, and he admitted to both allegations in his response to the SOR, 
and during testimony. His use was infrequent and primarily occurred during his college 
years. Applicant never sold illegal drugs or was arrested for possessing them. He 
suffered no deleterious consequences from his infrequent use and he did not possess 
a security clearance when he used marijuana or cocaine.  
 
Applicant moved away from another state and his college associates in early 
2016 when he returned to his home state. He married in July 2016, and his wife is 
expecting a baby next February. He has a mortgage and he expressed his 
unequivocal intent in a written pledge to never use illegal drugs again. Applicant also 
has a reputation above reproach for trustworthiness, reliability and honesty, as 
evidenced by witness testimony and his stellar character references. His job 
performance is superb according to his supervisor’s testimony.  
 
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 
Guideline H. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, 
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department 
Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the drug involvement security concerns are 
resolved in whole or in part under the mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s self-disclosed drug involvement 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.  
 
 
 
Robert J. Kilmartin 
Administrative Judge