ISCR Case No. 25-01071

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ______________________

______________ ) Appearances For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se 08/12/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A. Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the s

curity concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on March 11, 2025 (Questionnaire). On September 30, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense

Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017. On January 16, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that the case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to the Guideline H allegation but denied the allegations under Guidelines E and J. On May 26, 2026, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Materia

(FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government Exhibits (GE) 1 to 5, and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on June 14, 2026. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. He timely submitted an additional statement on June 14, 2026 (Response). The case was assigned to me on August 3, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 69 years old, has been married since 1979, and has two grown children. He completed high school and some college work. Applicant has been employed by a defense contractor since 2010 as a technical specialist and applied for a security clearance in connection with this employment. He previously held a public trust position, which he applied for on March 11, 2019. (Response; GE 3 at 5, 9-10, 14, 19-20; GE 4) SOR Paragraph 1 (Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance due to his use of marijuana. The following facts pertain: 2

1.a. Use of marijuana from January 1976 – June 2025: Applicant admitted to the alleged conduct in both his Questionnaire and his Answer to the SOR. In his August 14, 2025, responses to interrogatories, he likewise listed his first use as January 1976 and last use as June 2025, with a frequency of two times per

week. He later qualified his drug use in his Response, explaining that he did not use marijuana c ontinuously during that time period and claimed, without specificity, that he had “abstain[ed] for decades.” In his March 11, 2019, public trust application, he indicated he had not used drugs during the preceding seven years. But in the interview summary with a defense investigator from June 10, 2025, which Applicant certified as accurate on August 14, 2025, he explained he “used (marijuana) from 01/1976, estimated, to 06/2025.” He went on to specify that he used the drug at home in the evenings to manage insomnia two times per week, and it was likely he would continue to use the drug, though he was willing to quit “if required for employment purposes.” He also noted in his Response that his “decision to use the substance again was prompted by (his) increasing issues with insomnia and stress and the fact that it was now legal in (his home state).” He provided no more specificity as when he began using the dr

ug again, but acknowledged in his responses to interrogatories that he was aware marijuana remained illegal under federal law. He also stated in his

interrogatory responses that he did not intend to continue to use illegal drugs in the future. (Answer; Response; GE 3 at 25; GE 4 at 18; GE 5 at 6, 11-12) SOR Paragraph 2 (Guideline E: Personal Conduct)

2.a. False Statement in 2019 Questionnaire: Applicant denied the allegation as drafted in t he SOR. On March 1 1, 2019, he submitted his Questionnaire wherein in Section 21 – Illegal Drugs, he answered, “No,” to a question asking if, in the last year, he had illegally used any controlled substances, for example, marijuana…”? A s noted in the SOR ¶ 1.a discussion above, Applicant maintained in his Response that when he filled out the Questionnaire, not only had he not used marijuana in the last year, he in fact had not used it in the previous seven years. (Answer; Response; GE 4 at 14-15) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he had engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty,

r unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. The following findings of fact pertain: 2.b. Failure to disclose drug use to defense investigator on August 15, 2019: Applicant denied the allegation as drafted in the SOR. On August 15, 2019, Applicant was interviewed by a defense investigator. He did not mention drugs or drug use, nor was he asked any questions about the topic. (GE 5 at 9-11) SOR Paragraph 3 (Guideline J: Criminal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance due to certain criminal activity. The following findings of fact pertain: 3.a. Cross-allegation with subparagraph 1.a: See SOR ¶ 1.a discussion above. Whole Person and Mitigating Evidence Applicant submitted an additional statement elaborating on his use of marijuana. He generally asserted that there were decades of abstinence between the time he started using marijuana in January 1976 and his last use in June 2025. He did not provide further detail about the time frames and did not disclose when he resumed use of the drug. He also maintained that given his period of abstinence, his answers about drug use in the 2019 Questionnaire were accurate. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list 3

potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied 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. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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 national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires, “Any 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish 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 seeks access to classified information enters 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 national security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) Analysis SOR Paragraph

1 (Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) The security concerns relating to the guideline for drug involvement and substance misuse are set out in AG ¶ 24, which reads as follows: 4

The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription an

d 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 facts of this case establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions set forth in AG ¶ 25 to the

llegations under Guideline H: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); and (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 disc

ntinue such misuse.

The burden therefore shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns under Guideline H. The guideline includes the following conditions in AG ¶ 26 that could potentially mitigate security concerns arising from Applicant’s drug use: (a) the behavior hap