ISCR Case No. 20-03371

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-03371 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline H DIGEST: Applicant also states that he has made changes in his life to stop abusing medication. These changes include obtaining the medication he needs under a doctor’s supervision and undergoing regular drug testing. His arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-03371 DATE: 10/14/2021 Date: October 14, 2021

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 5, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 27, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant misused a prescription medication from about June 2017 to August 2020, including while holding a security clearance. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted these allegations. The Judge noted that he was unable to conclude that Applicant’s drug abuse will not recur and that he failed to provide a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug involvement in the future. In his appeal brief, Applicant provides such a statement of intent. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant also states that he has made changes in his life to stop abusing medication. These changes include obtaining the medication he needs under a doctor’s supervision and undergoing regular drug testing. His arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-03503 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 14, 2021). Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board