1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 18-00281 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: 
 
On March 2, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines G (alcohol 
consumption) and H (drug involvement and substance misuse).1 Applicant responded to 
the SOR on March 14, 2018, and elected to have the case decided on the written record 
in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel requested a hearing on April 8, 2018. The 
case was assigned to me on May 8, 2018. The hearing was held as scheduled on July 
11, 2018. On July 27, 2018, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for 
a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
 Applicant is a 27-year-old custodian for a defense contractor. She has worked for 
her current employer since May 2016. She lives with a cohabitant, and she has a six-
year-old child. 
 
                                                          
1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 
 
2 
 
 Applicant was born and raised in a community where drug and alcohol abuse 
was common. She fell into the same habits as most of the individuals around her, and 
she smoked marijuana and drank alcohol to excess. Her substance abuse led to 
academic probation in college and employment issues. She was terminated from 
employment on three occasions: for testing positive for marijuana in 2010, and in 2013 
and 2015 for attendance issues related to her drinking. She was arrested for public 
intoxication in 2015. 
 
 Applicant wanted to break the cycle of drug and alcohol abuse and provide a 
better life and future for her child. She moved to another state. She obtained a job with 
a good company, where she has worked for more than two years. She has not smoked 
marijuana since February 2016. She credibly testified that she will not do so again. She 
still drinks alcohol occasionally, but only in moderation, and she has not had any 
additional alcohol-related incidents.  
 
 The disqualifying conditions under AG ¶¶ 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 25(a), 25(b), and 
25(c) have been raised by the evidence. However, I find that Applicant has 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified alcohol consumption. I further 
find that she has abstained from illegal drug use for an appropriate period, and that 
illegal drug use is unlikely to recur. The mitigating conditions under AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), 
26(a), and 26(b) are applicable. 
 
The concerns over Applicant’s alcohol and marijuana abuse do not create doubt 
about her 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. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that she 
met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Edward W. Loughran 
Administrative Judge