ISCR Case No. 20-03076

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 20-03076 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se June 3, 2021

Lokey Anderson, Darlene D., Administrative Judge: On January 29, 2020, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e- QIP). (Item 2.) On December 4, 2020, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse. The action was taken 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, effective within the DoD after June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on January 4, 2021. He requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) On January 25, 2021, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing three Items, was mailed to Applicant and received by him on February 24, 2021. The FORM notified Applicant that he had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant failed to

submit a response to the FORM. Applicant did not object to Government Items 1 through 3, and they are admitted into evidence, referenced hereinafter as Government Exhibits 1 through 3.

Applicant is 56 years old. He has a Bachelor’s degree. He is employed by a defense contractor as a Software Engineer IV. He is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment. Applicant has no military service. Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The Government alleges that the Applicant has used controlled substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose, which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. Applicant admits the single allegation under this guideline. (Government Exhibit 1.) He has used marijuana off and on from approximately 2014 to at least March 2020. Applicant began using marijuana in his senior year of high school, and smoked it five or six times total. In college his use of marijuana increased to five times weekly. In 1989, he focused on family obligations and raising his children, and he did not use marijuana again until 2014. From 2014 to the present, Applicant has used marijuana weekly with friends at their homes, social events or gatherings. He has also used it at his own residence on weekends. Applicant continues to use marijuana. He now uses marijuana once or twice a week. Applicant stated that he uses marijuana because he finds it relaxing and fun. He obtains it by purchasing it. Applicant claims that he has told his supervisor that he uses marijuana and his supervisor did not comment. Applicant does not know if his employer has a drug policy. (Government Exhibit 3.) Applicant began working for his current employer in September 2014. On January 29, 2020, Applicant completed a security clearance application. (Government Exhibit 2.) After completing this application, Applicant has continued to use marijuana. (Government Exhibit 1.) Applicant intends to continue smoking marijuana in the future.

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in

conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence that establishes controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth at AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an

individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any "controlled substance" as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. The guideline at AG ¶ 25 contains three conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and (g) expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse. The guideline at AG ¶ 26 contains conditions that could mitigate security concerns. None of the conditions are applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. None of the mitigating factors are applicable. Applicant has used marijuana, from 2014 to at least March 2020. He used it before being hired by a defense contractor, after being hired by a defense contractor, and even after applying for a security clearance, disregarding DoD policy, company policy and Federal law. Applicant knew or should have known that the use of marijuana is against Federal law

and prohibited by the defense department in any form or fashion. He should also be aware of his company policy. Moreover, Applicant intends to continue using marijuana in the future. Applicant is a college-educated man whose actions show immaturity, untrustworthiness and poor judgment. Applicant does not meet the requirements for eligibility to access classified information. Considered in totality, Applicant’s conduct precludes a finding of good judgment, reliability, and/or the ability to abide by rules and regulations. To be entrusted with the privilege of holding a security clearance, applicants are expected to abide by all laws, regulations and policies that apply to them. Applicant has chosen to live his life to his convenience, and has disregarded the law. Under the particular facts of this case, Applicant does not show the requisite character or judgment of someone who has the maturity, integrity, good judgment, and reliability necessary to access classified information. At this time, Applicant does not meet the qualifications for access to classified information.

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline H in my whole-person analysis. Applicant plans to continue using marijuana in the future, a controlled substance that is against Federal law. An individual who holds a security clearance is expected to comply with the law at all times. Applicant has not demonstrated the level of maturity necessary for access to classified information. This is not an individual with whom the Government can be confident to know that he will always follow rules and regulations and do the right thing, even when no one is looking. He is not qualified for access to classified information. Applicant does not meet the qualifications for a security clearance.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with many questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse security concerns.

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant national security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge