ISCR Case No. 24-01633

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-01633 Appearances For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Daniel P. Meyer, Esq. 09/24/2026 Decision GARCIA, Candace Le’i, Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), but he did not mitigate all the security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On February 20, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines H and E. Applicant responded to the SOR on May 12, 2025 (Answer) and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to an administrative judge on September 2, 2025, and it was reassigned to me on December 8, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice on October 15, 2025, scheduling the matter for a video teleconference (VTC) hearing on October 16, 2025. DOHA cancelled that hearing on October 15, 2025, due to the federal government shutdown due to a lapse in federal funding, in which all administrative judges were furloughed from October 1 through November 12, 2025. DOHA issued another notice on December 8, 2025, rescheduling the matter for a VTC hearing on January 6, 2026. I convened the hearing as rescheduled.

At the hearing, I admitted in evidence without objection Government Exhibits (GE) 1-5. Applicant testified, did not call witnesses, and did not submit any documentation. I kept the record open until January 9, 2026, to allow the parties the opportunity to submit documentation. Department Counsel submitted GE 6 and I admitted GE 6 in evidence without objection; Applicant did not submit any documentation. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 15, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations in his Answer except for SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, which he denied. He is 43 years old. He married in 2014, divorced in 2018, and remarried in 2024. His current spouse moved in with him in approximately 2018. He has full custody of his 14-year-old child from his previous marriage, but he and his ex-wife have a verbal agreement to share custody of their child. He splits residency between District A, in a home he has owned since 2024, and State A, in another home he has owned since 2019, as his son resides in District A but the main office for the company for whom he works is in State A. He considers his home in District A to be his main residence. (Answer; GE 1-3, GE 6; Tr. 19-20, 32, 46, 56-57) Applicant attended college from 2001 to 2006, and he earned a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in 2006. Since then, he has worked for various Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. He has worked for Company A, a DOD contractor, in State A, since he helped found the company with a friend (and former coworker from 2010) in October 2018. He has been the Chief Technical Officer since May 2023. He previously worked for Company A as a contract employee from October 2017 to October 2018. He completed security clearance applications (SCAs) in July 2009 and June 2022. He was first granted a security clearance in approximately 2009, and he was granted an interim clearance in approximately September 2022. (Answer; GE 1-3, GE 6; Tr. 5-8, 16-23, 38-40, 47) Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse Applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from about January 2017 to the spring 2022. (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.b) In addition to his admissions in his Answer, Applicant discussed his marijuana involvement in his July 2009 SCA, during his August 2023 and April 2024 background interviews, in his September 2024 response to interrogatories, in an October 2024 email correspondence, and during his testimony at the hearing. (GE 2-3, 5-6; Tr. 22-26) Applicant first used marijuana in high school. He then used marijuana a handful of times during his first year in college, from the fall of 2001 to the spring of 2002. He did not use marijuana again until July 2017, at the age of 34, when he used it to cope with the stress from his divorce and to help him sleep. Sometimes he used it before attending concerts. He used it in State A, where it is legal under State A law, and in District A, where it had recently become legal under District A law to use, possess, and cultivate marijuana (but not purchase it). He used it approximately once weekly to once or twice monthly. In State A, he purchased pre-rolled joints that cost between $5 and $8 from marijuana 2

dispensaries, which lasted him for two to four uses. He also purchased a packet of edibles containing 10 marijuana gummies, which he would chop into smaller amounts that would usually last him one year. He primarily ate marijuana edibles, but he also smoked marijuana through a pipe. It gave him a light buzz and made him feel relaxed. In District A, he obtained marijuana from a friend, who gave it to him. (Answer; GE 2-3, GE 5; Tr. 22-26, 28, 34, 44-50, 59) From the fall of 2019 to the spring of 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Applicant used marijuana daily. During this period, he lived at his home in District A. He testified, “I was always very careful to never use [marijuana] around [his son]. [His son] has no idea that -- that -- that I smoke or did.” (Tr. 56) He attributed his increased marijuana usage during this period to the pandemic’s lockdowns and isolation. (Answer; GE 2; Tr. 22-26, 28, 33-36, 38, 56-59) He testified: It was most intense during the hardest lockdowns in COVID where we were all just stuck at home. So it was very regular for me. After the day’s work was done and after my son went to bed, if he was there, you know, I would go to another part of the house that was sort of, we were living in a house that was two levels. So like the bedrooms were upstairs, and then we had a basement area [I would] go down there and -- and use [it] to -- to, you know, relax and help fall asleep. So that was the, the most use. And that was up to daily at points. Once lockdowns started opening back up and we could get back out into the world, the frequency went down from there down to, you know, like a couple times a month. (Tr. 34-35) In addition to using marijuana, Applicant also cultivated marijuana with varying frequency from the fall of 2019 to the spring of 2021. (SOR ¶ 1.c) He and a friend experimented with growing marijuana in an enclosed tent in the garage of Applicant’s home in District A, where marijuana is legal under District A law and residents from District A are permitted to grow up to three marijuana plants in their home. His friend did not have room in his home to grow marijuana. They grew it for their (to include his friend’s spouse) personal use, using lights and plants to help the marijuana seeds grow, and they split the harvest. He described it as a “hobby” in his Answer. He spent around $200 on the equipment, and his friend’s spouse purchased the seeds. He followed his friend’s instructions on the care and watering of the marijuana plants and kept an eye on them. He smoked one to two bowls from a glass pipe containing half a dime or half a gram of marijuana. They stopped growing marijuana after six months to one year because they had pest issues with the marijuana plants. In addition, as the pandemic neared its end, businesses were reopening, to include marijuana dispensaries, his social life resumed, and it was easier for him to obtain marijuana from the dispensaries in State A. (Answer; GE 2; Tr. 22-26, 28, 33-36, 50-53, 76-77) After Applicant stopped growing marijuana at his home in District A, he used and purchased it only when he was in State A. He used it at home prior to going out. On occasion, his spouse used it with him, and she last used it around the time he stopped using it. He used it approximately twice monthly. In the spring of 2022, he stopped using 3

marijuana when his supervisor notified him that he would be submitted for a clearance so that he could help the company on defense contracts. He knew that he could not use marijuana while he had a clearance, and he submitted his SCA that summer. He also stopped for health reasons. (GE 2, GE 4; Tr. 21-24, 27-29, 36-37, 43-44, 54-56, 77) In November 2023, Applicant notified the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) about his marijuana use; prior to that, his company was unaware of it. He indicated during his April 2024 background interview that the CEO responded that if he did not get a clearance, his role within the company would not change. He also indicated he is not the only employee to use marijuana, since the company is located in State A, and that it is known within the company that you can use marijuana if you do not have a clearance but you cannot use it if you have one. He further indicated he was grandfathered in regarding Company A’s rules and employee handbook, which he believed did not forbid marijuana use and permitted marijuana use at night and on weekends. He also testified that company policy forbade drug use at work and reporting to work under the influence of drugs. (GE 2, GE 4; Tr. 21-24, 27-29, 36-37, 43-44, 54-56, 77) During his April 2024 background interview, Applicant provided the background investigator with a copy of his company’s drug use policy. (Tr. 55) An undated and unsigned copy of Company A’s Employee Handbook reflects the following relevant information regarding drug use: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS Alert and rational behavior is required for the safe and adequate performance of job duties. Therefore, working after the apparent use of alcohol, marijuana, or any controlled substance or abuse of any other substance is prohibited. Furthermore, the possession, purchase, or consumption (use), or sale of a controlled substance or alcohol on Company premises or while conducting Company business is prohibited. Reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol or controlled substances may be directed by [Company A] for any employee when there is reason to suspect that alcohol or controlled substance usage may be adversely affecting the employee’s job performance or that the employee may present a danger to the physical safety of the employee or another. (GE 4, page 15) Another copy of Company A’s Employee Handbook, signed by the CEO of Company A in April 2018 and by Applicant in September 2018, reflects the following relevant information regarding drug use: ALCOHOL AND DRUGS Alert and rational behavior is required for the safe and adequate performance of job duties. Therefore, working after the apparent use of alcohol, a controlled substance or abuse of any other substance is prohibited. This includes working after the apparent use of marijuana, 4

whether or not you are a lawfully registered user. Furthermore, the possession, purchase, or consumption (use), or sale of a controlled substance or alcohol on Company premises or while conducting Company business is prohibited. (GE 4, page 31) Applicant indicated during his August 2023 background interview that he still associated with the friend with whom he permitted the use of his garage to grow marijuana, because their children are friends. He also indicated during his April 2024 background interview and at the hearing that he still associated with a handful of friends who use marijuana, including several of his spouse’s friends who use marijuana. (GE 2- 3; Tr. 29-32, 50, 52, 69-72) At the hearing, he testified that he does not associate with criminals and gi

ven that his domiciles are in District A and State A, “it would be frankly impossible to dissociate from -- from everyone that -- that uses marijuana and -- and still have a social circle. But I -- do try to put myself in situations that would not have that usage around me.” (Tr. 30-31) He stated that he no longer goes to concerts with the friend with whom he used marijuana prior to their attending concerts, but that they still socialize in family get-togethers. He also stated he told his friends around the time he submitted his 2022 SCA that the nature of his professional work requires that he abstain from using illegal drugs. (Tr. 31-32, 52-53, 69-72) Applicant indicated during his April 2024 background interview and stated in his Answer he had no intent to grow marijuana in the future. He also indicated he does not intend to use marijuana if he were granted a clearance but acknowledged the chance he would resume marijuana use if he no longer maintained a clearance. He believed using marijuana once monthly was a healthy continuation of marijuana use if he did not have a clearance. He also indicated he felt marijuana should be legalized federally. In his September 2024 response to interrogatories, he stated, “I do not intend to use [m]arijuana or anything else illegal while holding a clearance.” He also marked “Yes” to the question that inquired whether he acknowledged that any illegal drug involvement or misuse of prescription drugs is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. He stated he is not subject to random drug testing by his employer. He provided the results of a voluntary drug test in April 2025, which reflected that he tested negative for controlled substances. He testified the only other occasion in which he was drug tested was for a preemployment drug test after he graduated from college before he started working for a defense contractor for the first time, and he tested negative for illegal drugs. In May 2025, Applicant signed a statement of intent to abstain from any illegal drug use, to include marijuana, in the future, and he acknowledged that any future use of illegal drugs is grounds for the revocation of his security clearance eligibility. At the hearing, he testified he had no future intent to use marijuana or any illegal substances, regardless of their legality under state law, if they are federally illegal. (Answer; GE 2; Tr. 28-29, 58-60, 64, 75-76) Guideline E: Personal Conduct Applicant disclosed his marijuana use on the first SCA he submitted in 2009. In response to Section 23, which inquired about whether he had illegally used any controlled 5

substance, to include marijuana, he responded “Yes.” He disclosed he used marijuana from August 2001 to March 2003, and that he smoked at parties a couple of times per year in the first three years of college. (GE 6; Tr. 40-41, 66) In response to whether he understood, when he submitted his 2009 SCA, that drug use could be problematic in terms of obtaining a security clearance, he responded, “It -- it was a -- a different time than [sic] in that marijuana was not legal in any form or fashion where I was. So it was undoubtedly illegal, no -- no matter how you sliced it.” (Tr. 40-41) When asked whether he understood that marijuana use was inconsistent with federal law when he completed this SCA, he stated, “Yes, although I -- I could not, you know, again, there was no understanding of what different scheduling of drugs mean, which I’m not very . . . well aware of.” (Tr. 41) Applicant denied he falsified his June 2022 Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), when he marked “No,” in response to “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity . . . The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or controlled substances or drug or controlled s

ubstance activity in accordance with Federal laws, even though permissible under state laws Illegal Use of Drugs or Controlled Substances In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? U

se of a drug or controlled substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming any drug or controlled substance. Illegal Drug Activity In the last seven (7) years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance?” (GE 1) He failed to disclose his use, purchase, and cultivation of marijuana as set forth above in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c. (SOR ¶ 2.a; GE 1) During his August 2023 background interview and in his Answer, Applicant acknowledged his marijuana use and indicated he did not list it on his 2022 e-QIP due to oversight. He indicated he misunderstood the question as asking about illegal drug use, and he did not list it since his use occurred in State A and District A, where marijuana is legal under State A and District A laws, and he did not have a clearance at the time. (Answer; GE 3) He maintained in his Answer: [I] did not understand that any prior [marijuana] use, even while not cleared and consistent with local laws, was considered illegal for the purposes of [e]-QIP. In my initial phone conversation for my clearance application, I had verbally said I had prior use but was told that as long as it was in the past, it should not be an issue, which further re-enforced this view. After being properly educated, I have since been fully transparent and have taken additional steps to provide the government assurance of my trustworthiness including voluntarily taking a drug test and signing a statement of non-use under the penalty of perjury. (Answer) At the hearing, Applicant maintained he was confused when he completed his 2022 e-QIP. (Tr. 24) He testified: 6

I was honestly confused because, you know, I’d always followed local laws when it came to marijuana. And I was under the impression that as long as that was the case, the government didn’t really care as long as it was in the past. That was reinforced to me -- in my initial interactions in this process when I -- I received a phone call and -- and said that because I was a fairly low risk candidate from on paper that, you know, I’d be getting an interim clearance. And, and you know, I -- I -- I had an interaction on that where I said, you know, but what about marijuana use? And I was basically told, if it’s in the past, it’s not a problem. And so I -- I did admit it from the -- from the e-QIP. (Tr. 24) Applicant also testified that he completed his 2022 e-QIP in a rush. (Tr. 43, 72-75) He stated, “[I] just tried to get through it as quickly as possible, which probably took like a morning, like a couple of hours.” (Tr. 72) When asked by Department Counsel whether he read the portion of Section 23 that states, “The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or controlled substances or drug or controlled substance activity in accordance with Federal laws, even though permissible under state laws,” Applicant responded: So, so I -- I don’t think I was very good at filling out that form in general. If – if you look at the rest of the record, I also omitted my -- my year of work at SAIC, which was -- which was an omission because I flipped badges and honestly forgot that I worked a year for a different contractor. But during the time period when I was filling out that form because of my role in the company, because of how hired up we were doing, I was really rushing through that form. So I have no doubt that it says that, but in my quick filling out, I did not read it like that. (Tr. 43) The SOR also alleged Applicant failed to be fully forthright during his background interview conducted on July 14, 2022, with an authorized DOD investigator, when he failed to disclose his use, purchase, and cultivation of marijuana as set forth above in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c. (SOR ¶ 2.b; GE 3) The reports summarizing Applicant’s July 2022 and June 2023 background interviews do not reflect any discussion whatsoever about Applicant’s marijuana involvement. These reports do not reflect that Applicant was asked about his marijuana involvement by the investigators who conducted these interviews, and Applicant did not volunteer information about his marijuana involvement during these interviews. When asked by Department Counsel why he did not disclose his drug use during these interviews, Applicant testified he responded to specific questions he was asked by the investigators during those interviews. He also reiterated he was still under the same impression as when he completed his 2022 e-QIP--that since his marijuana use occurred in the past and was done legally under State A and District A laws, he did not have to disclose it. (GE 3; Tr. 60-64) The report summarizing Applicant’s August 2023 interview reflects that Applicant was confronted by the background investigator during that interview regarding his marijuana-growing at his home in District A. Applicant indicated he lent his garage space 7

to a friend to grow marijuana plants from November 2019 to May 2021. He indicated he wanted to help his friend, who did not have space in his own home, and he did so because it is legal in District A and he did not have a clearance at the time. He also initially indicated he did not use the drug. (GE 3) The report then reflects the following: At this time [Applicant] asked if he could re start [sic] the questions I had just finished asking. [Applicant] was confused on what I was asking and needed to clarify his answers. Questions were asked and the second statement is below. (GE 3) The report reflects Applicant then reiterated he lent his garage space to his friend to grow marijuana plants, which is legal in District A, as his friend did not have space in his own home to do so. He indicated he wanted to help his friend. He indicated he had minimal participation as he only lent out his space and took pictures of the plants for his friend. (GE 3) The report then reflects the following: Developed drug use. [Applicant] used marijuana as it was legal and wanted to experiment. Marijuana was used with friends and by himself. [Applicant] continues association with these friends but does not associate with anyone who uses illegal substances. The setting [for] use was at [Applicant’s] home. Marijuana was obtained through a friend. Marijuana made [Applicant] feel hungry and tired. [Applicant] has never tested positive on a drug test. (GE 3) At his hearing, Applicant acknowledged initially telling the interviewer during his August 2023 background interview that while he was growing marijuana, he did not use it. He testified he was intimidated by the investigator. (Tr. 60-64) He stated, “[I] just like started like saying that stuff. And I -- I -- I -- I was hearing in my head, I’m like, no, what are you denying this? And so that’s why I stopped. I -- I told him, like, I caught -- I caught myself and I said, no, I would like to restart this and -- actually tell you the right thing.” (Tr. 62) Applicant described this interview as follows: Then the next interaction I had, where it came up was the -- the time when the -- the former Air Marsh -- Air Marshal had me in the room to say that he had heard that I was growing marijuana in my house. And I -- I do have to say I was very intimidated by that. He was a -- a very large gentleman, and I, as -- as counsel said, I initially did say that I didn’t use, but I -- I stopped myself. I said, no, let’s restart the line of questioning. I want to be truthful. So that was without prodding from him. I’m not proud of my initial reaction, but I am proud of -- of recovering and -- and being truthful. I did not give the -- the full history there because it was not requested of me. The -- the interviewer said that was enough for the time being. He didn’t ask that I sit and go through the entire history. He -- he just -- he ended the questioning. So the next -- the next opportunity I had to give the full thing where I was 8

requested to do so [his April 2024 background interview], I -- I did so in full. (Tr. 25) As previously discussed, Applicant discussed the full extent of his marijuana involvement during his April 2024 background interview. He testified that it was during his August 2023 background interview that he truly understood, for the first time, that marijuana remained illegal federally, and it was only then that he understood the seriousness of his marijuana use. (GE 2; Tr. 26-27, 54-55, 60-64) He testified, “[I]n the interview . . . where I went through my whole history where the line of questioning was very serious . . . that really hit home to me that how seriously the government took the use of marijuana.” (Tr. 26-27) In his September 2024 response to interrogatories regarding his April 2024 background interview, Applicant stated the following: I would like to stress that I found it very hard through the interview process to accurately remember details related to my use of and growing of [m]arijuana because of the time that had passed between the events and the interview. Marijuana use was a regular part of my life, but not a notable one, or a defining part of it. I attempted, to the best of my abilities, to provide details to paint a picture of that time in my life, and I’m sure the investigator faithfully captured how I answered, but I don’t feel my expression of uncertainty and estimation when provided those details were fully captured in the transcript. When asked a question, I always erred on the side of sharing a foggy recollection rather than refrain from answering. That interview was over 5 months ago, so I don’t really remember it well either at this point, so it would be very hard for me to dispute anything written in the transcript. I am not currently using [m]arijuana and have no intent to use while holding a clearance going forward. (GE 2) Applicant testified that since his August 2023 background interview, he has been an open book about his marijuana involvement, to include with key individuals within his company. He stated that after this interview, where he was confronted by the investigator about his cultivation of marijuana, he informed the company’s CEO that he might not be able to obtain his clearance. He also stated he now understood the importance of providing complete and accurate information to the U.S. Government. (Tr. 27-29, 36-38, 58-59, 63-66, 68-69, 77) When asked about his performance evaluations, Applicant testified, “[M]y -- work is largely self-guided nowadays which means I – decide where to spend time that’s best for the company.” (Tr. 19) He testified about the unique skillset he brings to the U.S. Government and his desire to use his skillset to further the country’s national security interests. (Tr. 38-39) He provided four letters of support from references who attested to his exceptional work, reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, and willingness to comply with rules and regulations. He testified he provided these individuals with a copy of the SOR. (Tr. 66-69) 9

The first reference, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Company A, stated he has known Applicant since 2008, when they worked together as engineers on a classified mission. The reference stated he hired Applicant part-time in 2017 and full-time one year later in 2018. He stated Applicant manages the company’s product and technology roadmap under his direct supervision. He described Applicant as a “phenomenal performer.” He stated, “Throughout the entire decade and a half, that I have known [Applicant,] I have not had any doubt about his character, integrity, honesty, or obligation.” (Answer) He further stated, “My understanding is that during the period in question, if [Applicant] was engaged in the use of marijuana, it was under the impression it was legal under his local laws based on his state of residency.” (Answer) He concluded, “I have no doubts about [Applicant’s] commitment to his responsibilities, and see no reason to believe, now understanding the national laws clearly, any future incident might occur.” (Answer; Tr. 17-22) A second reference, the Director of Security at Company A, stated he has known Applicant since 2021, upon joining Company A as its Facility Security Officer. He stated, “I regularly work with [Applicant] regarding issues related to security, technology control and our [product].” (Answer) He also stated his only knowledge of “the issue in question [under Guideline E] came when Applicant voluntarily shared the details with me along with the [SOR].” (Answer) He further stated, “Regarding the [Guideline H] issue at hand, I had no reason to believe, nor suspect, that [Applicant] used controlled substances during the time I’ve known him.” (Answer) He maintained, “Notwithstanding the issues raised, I have no concerns about [Applicant’s] ability to properly safeguard classified information.” (Answer; Tr. 21) A third reference, the Director of [Vehicle] and Mission Design at Company A, stated he has known Applicant professionally since 2017. He described Applicant as a “person of exceptional honesty and integrity.” He also stated, “While I have no direct knowledge of the specific matter mentioned in the [SOR] regarding marijuana, I can state that in all my interactions with [Applicant], I have never witnessed him use drugs or discuss drug use of any kind.” (Answer) A fourth reference, the General Manager and Executive Vice President for Company A, stated he has known Applicant professionally since 2020. He stated, “I do not have personal knowledge of [Applicant’s] conduct involving Guideline E and Guideline H described in the [SOR]. However, I assert that [Applicant’s] integrity is impeccable.” He further stated, “With respect to both Guideline E and Guideline H, I firmly believe that any past behavior is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on [Applicant’s] reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment.” (Answer) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 10

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 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.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must 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.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security 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 access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of “compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Exec. Or. 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 Exec. Or. 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern for drug involvement and substance misuse is set out in 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 11

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 notes the following applicable conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 25: (a) any substance misuse . . . ; and (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. Applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from January 2017 to the spring of 2022. He also cultivated marijuana with varying frequency from the fall of 2019 to the spring of 2021. AG ¶¶ 25(a) and 25(c) apply. AG ¶ 26 provides the following potentially relevant mitigating conditions: (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. Marijuana is currently listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(c); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) listing at https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling (information link on bottom of web page). His multiple possessions of marijuana are federal crimes. Drugs listed as Schedule I Controlled Substances, have “no ‘currently accepted medical use in treatment.’ 21 U.S.C. § 812(a)(1)(B).” ISCR Case No. 24-01307 at 3 (App. Bd. July 17, 2025). See DEA website, supra; Executive Order, Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research (December 18, 2025). The scheduling of marijuana is under DEA review, and 12

it may be downgraded from Schedule I to Schedule III, which would permit marijuana possession and use based on prescriptions. Id. In addition, in October 2014, noting the recent decriminalization of marijuana use in several states and the District of Columbia, the Director of National Intelligence issued a memorandum titled, “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting Marijuana Use.” It reminded agency heads that such changes to state marijuana laws do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines and asserting that an individual’s disregard of federal marijuana law remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. Subsequently, on December 21, 2021, in response to the increasing number of state and local governments legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana use, the Director of National Intelligence Security Executive Agent issued Clarifying Guidance Concerning Marijuana for Agencies Conducting Adjudications of Persons Proposed for Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (Clarifying Guidance). It instructs that “prior recreational marijuana use by an individual may be relevant to adjudications but not determinative,” and reiterates the requirement that agencies utilize the Whole-Person Concept “to carefully weigh a number of variables in an individual’s life to determine whether that individual’s behavior raises a security concern, if at all, and whether that concern has been mitigated such that the individual may now receive a favorable adjudicative determination.” Applicants cannot be expected to be constitutional law experts or versed in the concept of Federal supremacy. The conflict between state and federal drug laws and the ensuing confusion was addressed by the Clarifying Guidance. Relevant to the topic of notice, the Clarifying Guidance encourages employers “to advise prospective national security workforce employees that they should refrain from any future marijuana use upon initiation of the national security vetting process, which commences once the individual signs the certification contained in the [SCA].” Implicit in this guidance is the recognition that the SCA itself no longer puts applicants on notice that marijuana use is prohibited under federal law and that employers should affirmatively be providing notice to prospective employees. The Clarifying Guidance to employers, however, cannot be presumed to have been followed. See ISCR Case No. 23-00476 (App. Bd. May 1, 2024). Applicant has not cultivated marijuana since the spring of 2021, and he has not used marijuana since the spring of 2022. He stopped his marijuana involvement as soon as he was informed by his company’s CEO that he would be submitted for a clearance. While he continues to associate with individuals who use marijuana, given his domiciles in locations where marijuana use is legal under local laws, he avoids social situations where those individuals are using marijuana. He also understands he is not permitted to use illegal drugs, to include marijuana, even if those with whom he associates are using such illegal drugs. He signed a statement of intent in May 2025 to abstain from any future use of illegal drugs. I find that AG ¶ 26(b)(1) does not apply but AG¶¶ 26(a), 26(b)(2), and 26(b)(3) are established. 13

Guideline E, Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern for personal conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. I considered the following relevant: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and (b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative. Applicant did not deliberately provide false or misleading information about his marijuana involvement to an investigator during his July 14, 2022, background interview. The report summarizing that interview does not reflect any discussion whatsoever about Applicant’s marijuana involvement, and Applicant maintained that he simply responded to specific questions he was asked by the investigator during that interview. AG ¶ 16(b) is not established for SOR ¶ 2.b and I find that allegation in Applicant’s favor. However, Applicant deliberately falsified his response to Section 23 of his 2022 e- QIP when he failed to disclose his relevant use, purchase, and cultivation of marijuana. Applicant gave several explanations for why he did not disclose his relevant marijuana involvement on his 2022 e-QIP. He stated it was an oversight and he misunderstood the question as inquiring only about illegal drugs, which confused him because he understood that marijuana was legal under the local laws in which he domiciled. He also stated he did not list it because he did not have a clearance at the time he completed this e-QIP, and since Company A is located in State A, it is known within Company A that you can use marijuana if you do not have a clearance but you cannot use it if you have one. He then also stated he did not list it because he was rushed and he completed this e-QIP over the course of a couple of hours, and he did not see the language contained in Section 23 that required him to disclose illegal use of drugs or controlled substances or drug or 14

controlled s ubstance activity in accordance with Federal laws, despite their permissibility under state laws. In addition, Applicant acknowledged he understood, when he previously completed a security clearance application in 2009, that marijuana use remained illegal under federal law. He is also a highly educated professional. I do not find him credible in his testimony that he did not understand the distinctions between the local laws in State A and District A, and federal law. AG ¶ 16(a) is established. AG ¶ 17 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. I considered the following relevant: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully; (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and (e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Applicant has not taken responsibility for his deliberate falsification of his response to Section 23 on his 2022 e-QIP. While he provided his references with a copy of the SOR, there is no evidence that he acknowledged his deliberation falsification to them. He did not make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his falsification after he completed his e-QIP. He was interviewed by background investigators on three occasions, in July 2022, June 2023, and August 2023, before he finally acknowledged his marijuana involvement during his fourth interview in April 2024. His concealment on his e-QIP was not caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing him specifically concerning security processes. The falsification of one’s security clearance application is not a minor offense, and his 15

failure to take responsibility for his falsification continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. None of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 are established. Whole-Person Concept 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines H and E in my whole-person analysis. I carefully considered his outstanding recommendations from coworkers and supervisors and contributions to mission accomplishment. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns but he did not mitigate all the personal conduct security concerns. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline H: Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: FOR APPLICANT For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: Subparagraph 2.a: Subparagraph 2.b: AGAINST APPLICANT Against Applicant For Applicant 16

________________________ Conclusion 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’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Candace Le’i Garcia Administrative Judge 17