ISCR Case No. 24-01561

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-01561 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Nicholas Temple, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/18/2026 Decision HALE, Charles C., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on August 30, 2023. On March 27, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines G, H, J, and E. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) (December 10, 2016). Applicant answered the SOR on April 5, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on December 1, 2025, and the case was assigned to me on February 2, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2026. On February 9, 2026, Applicant’s counsel submitted a notice of withdrawal. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GE) 1

through 6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant's Exhibits (AE) A through AE O, which were admitted without objection. I left the record open until April 30, 2026, to permit either side an opportunity to submit any additional evidence. Applicant timely submitted AE P through AE Y. The Government did not object to Applicant’s submissions but offered in an email, comments on Applicant’s submissions and sought to amend the SOR. The Government’s email is marked as Hearing Exhibit (HE) I. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on March 27, 2026. Request to Amend SOR Post Hearing Applicant in his post-hearing submission offered evidence of the misdemeanor offense (reckless driving by vehicle exceeding posted speed limit by 30 MPH and over) that occurred in February 2026, AE U (recall on rental), AE X (state complaint/citation/summon), and AE Y (rental car notice), which had been discussed generally during the hearing. (Tr. 75.) The Government in an April 30, 2026 email requested to amend the SOR stating: The Government requests that the SOR in this case be amended to bring it into conformity with this new evidence 1) by appending, as new subparagraph 3.g, “You were charged with reckless driving in Maryland in February 2026,” and 2) by revising subparagraph 4.d such that it now concludes “3.e, and 3.g, above.” The Government did not move in their email to reopen the hearing. Applicant’s response to the Government’s email to amend the SOR consisted of an apology and additional exhibits (AE X, AE Y) related to the traffic violation he had disclosed at the hearing. On July 30, 2026, I issued a Ruling and Order. I Granted the Government’s motion to amend the SOR. I ordered the Government to issue an amended SOR within five business days of the ruling and to provide notice to all parties if the Government was requesting a hearing. The Government did not request a hearing. Applicant was ordered to submit a written answer to the amended SOR that shall: (1) admit or deny the allegation(s), as amended, and (2) request or decline a hearing. Applicant in an email dated August 17, 2026, admitted the allegations as amended and did not request a hearing. The Government did not object to the Applicant’s format for his Answer. In my Ruling and Order I reopened the record, subject to objection from either side, until August 31, 2026. Neither side objected to the date and no additional evidence was offered. 2

Findings of Fact Applicant is a 31-year-old electronics technician employed by a defense contractor since August 2023. He is applying for his first security clearance. At the time of the hearing, he was engaged to be married. He and his fiancée have been together since around the time he joined his employer. The wedding date was set for shortly after the hearing. (GE 1; Tr. 23-27, 104.) Applicant concluded his August 2023 SCA in the Additional Comments section with the following: Despite my recent trouble with law enforcement, I work hard every day to be better than I was the day before. That was one mistake I will never make again. I happen to have the best opportunity in my life to work in an industry I am passionate about with some of the greatest role models I’ve ever had. I will not let this slip away from me. I made sure to be as forthcoming as possible on this application to prove my character and my allegiance with the United States of America. I have also taken the time to make sure I have filled this application out to the best of my knowledge. If there is something I have missed, please do not hesitate to contact me. I do not intend to mislead or hide information from this investigation. I absolutely feel the best and most accomplished I’ve ever felt in my life, and I will be giving my best every day to continue to strive in my industry serving this country. I am ready for this journey in my life to evolve myself into something greater. Thank you for your consideration. (GE 1 at 47.) Applicant was credible in his testimony. The Government acknowledged Applicant had “been a very candid witness.” (Tr. 101.) April 2023 arrest Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs – Guidelines G, J, and E, SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 3.a, 3.b, and 4.c. The SOR alleged this April 2023 incident under multiple Guidelines and parsed out segments of the incident and arrest as separate allegations. The night in question will be addressed first and any specifics not covered will be addressed individually under that SOR allegation. SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 3.a, 3.b, and 4.c stated Applicant was arrested in about April 2023 in [State] and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs, Failure to Stop/Stay Upon approach by Police vehicles using signals and multiple related charges; that he refused a blood/breath test; was convicted of Driving, Attempting to Drive Vehicle While Impaired by Alcohol; sentenced to one year of Supervised Probation commencing [July 2023]; and to “totally abstain from alcohol, illegal substances, and abusive use of any prescription drug, and no marijuana.” In his Answer to SOR ¶ 1.a he admitted to being arrested in April 2023 in [State] and being charged with driving under the influence. He stated: 3

I did not try to flee from police-I simply continued less than a quarter mile to a well-lit parking lot because it was around midnight and I wanted everyone, including myself, to feel safe. I exercised my right to refuse the blood and breath test. I ultimately received probation before judgment (PBJ), completed all terms of probation without any violations. (Answer.) Applicant explained he knew he was inebriated and drove to the gas station to relieve himself rather than wait to use a toilet in a jail cell. (Tr. 52.) He explained what happened the last time he was arrested: Well, the time I went to jail, or was arrested and put in a cell, was in Central Booking for the 2015 incident. Central Booking in [major city], I was put in a cell with 15 guys. One of them was curled around the bowl of the toilet, and then they were very hostile when I asked to use it. So, no, I did not feel comfortable using it at jail. (Tr. 87-88.) The police report noted Applicant’s zipper “was down” when he came out of the restroom. (GE 5 at 2.) In July 2023 the State court accepted Applicant’s guilty plea to one of the 14 offenses alleged: Driving, Attempting to Drive Vehicle While Impaired Alcohol Plea: Guilty Verdict: Probation Before Judgment – Supervised The remaining 13 offenses were Nolle Prosequi. (GE 2 at 25-28.) In the State in question, the State’s Attorney may terminate a prosecution on a charge and dismiss the charge by entering a nolle prosequi on the record in open court. (Statute citation omitted for Applicant’s privacy.) SOR ¶ 3.a alleged that information as set forth in subparagraph 1.a, above, and Applicant denied this allegation “as phrased,” stating, “see my response to 1.a. above. I complied with the traffic stop and completed all probation requirements.” (Answer.) In his Answer to subparagraph 1.a he admitted the arrest with clarification. Applicant pled guilty to driving while impaired (DWI). (GE 2 at 25; Tr. 51-52.) SOR ¶ 3.b alleged prior to Applicant’s arrest as set forth in subparagraph 1.a, above, he failed to stop his vehicle upon approach of a police vehicle and instead collided with the police vehicle initiating the traffic stop and drove off from the scene. Applicant denied this part of the incident in his Answer. He noted he was not charged or cited for property damage and no insurance claims were made. The police officer reported he felt his vehicle shake before Applicant drove away. (GE 5 at 2; Tr. 52-53.) Applicant was charged for this incident. The trial summary shows his plea of guilty 4

to driving while impaired on the night in question and that the state charged him with failure to return to or failure to remain at scene and failure to stop upon being approached by an emergency vehicle using signals, amongst other offenses. The “Plea” to both offenses was listed as “Other Plea” and the “Verdict” for each offense was listed “Nolle Prosequi.” (GE 2 at 26.) Applicant testified he did not strike the police cruiser. He did acknowledge there was some “curb rash” on his rim. He justified his driving to the gas station, by going the wrong way on the State highway, as being safer for the officer and himself. (Tr. 52.) He explained that going against the flow of traffic was safe because there were no cars on the road. (Tr. 53-54.) SOR ¶ 4.c alleged that as set forth in subparagraph 3.b, above, despite being actively pursued by police officers, Applicant drove to a nearby gas station/rest stop/convenience store and entered the restroom before ultimately being arrested for various offenses including ones involving alcohol or drugs. Applicant denied the allegation as it was phrased. He stated, “I did not try to evade police but had driven [a] very short distance to a nearby parking lot that was well-lit so the stop would be safer. I stopped the moment I felt it was appropriate and fully cooperated with officers.” (Answer.) See discussion above. At the hearing Applicant stated, “when I came out (of the restroom), the officers were waiting for me, and I spoke with them about the incident. They had asked me if I’d been drinking. I admitted to it. I admitted to smoking marijuana earlier that day, too.” (Tr. 52-54.) Termination From Employment – Guidelines G and E, SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 4.a, and 4.b SOR ¶ 1.c. Your employer cited suspicions related to alcohol misuse as part of their decision to terminate your employment in July 2023, as detailed in subparagraph [sic] 4.a., below. SOR ¶ 4.a alleged Applicant was terminated from his contracted employment with [Company R] through his Contractor [A] in July 2023, due to attendance issues, concerns about alcohol misuse, general behavior or conduct, and related issues and was not eligible for rehire. Applicant denied the allegation as phrased. He stated in his Answer it was his understanding at the end of his employment at [Company R] that his leaving was mutual and had been previously told he would receive a promotion with a pay increase and increased responsibilities. He stated he took on more duties without an increase in pay, and then during his evaluation, his supervisor told him it was not working out, and he agreed. He was unhappy because he had taken on more responsibility without a commensurate increase in pay and was not told it had anything to do with alcohol or misconduct. (Answer.) On his 2023 SCA, he reported subpar performance due to personal issues, and that he left by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance. (GE 1 at 12; GE 2 at 22; GE 6.) 5

When asked during his background interview (SOR ¶ 4.b) about the end of his employment at Company R, the DoD investigator summary of interview reflects he stated, “he was fired due to attendance issues he was having stemming from his health and personal issues.” (GE 2 at 22.) Company R was a temporary position, and he been placed there by Contractor A. The Vice President of Company R wrote Applicant showed great promise but was not dependable and had severe attendance issues. He would promise to make up time on the weekend and “then would not show with excuses or showed late or didn’t stay long.” (GE 6.) SOR ¶ 4.b alleged Applicant falsified material facts during a March 5, 2024 interview with an authorized i nvestigator for DoD about his employment with [Company R] through Contractor [A]. Applicant stated to the i nvestigator that he had left the employment on his own accord because he did not want to continue to work for little pay or benefits, when he actually had been terminated by this employer, as detailed in subparagraph 4.a, above. In his Answer, he denied knowingly withholding information during his interview. He cited his SCA where he said he had left by mutual agreement because that was his understanding at the time, and he did not have access to what his employer reported. (Answer; GE 2 at 22.) At the hearing, Applicant and Government Counsel (GC) addressed how his employment with Company R was presented in his SCA and during the interview in the following exchange: GC: I want to give you as much credit here as I can. Let me make sure I have this right. I am looking here -- I just had it. Court’s indulgence. Here we go. I am on page of Government’s 2, PDF page 72. Subject was asked if he left [Company R] Group by mutual agreement due to unsatisfactory performance or fired, and he stated he was fired. Does that sound like that was the conversation you had with the background investigator? Applicant: The conversation I had with the background investigator, he said, well, he said he fired you. And I said, well, we’ll just go with that, then. I didn’t try and -- I wanted to make it an easy process for everybody and just kind of say, okay, yes. If that’s what it is, sure, we’ll call it that. Yes, at the time, I did not realize that. He said it wasn’t -- I don’t think it’s working out. And I said, yes, me neither. GC: So, as you saw it, you had one foot out the door and he said, it’s time for you to go, and you didn’t argue? Applicant: That’s correct. GC: So, your answer on the clearance application wasn’t intended to conceal or obfuscate or hide anything from the government? Applicant: Absolutely not, no. I’ve tried to spill all my beans to everybody 6

and say everything straight up so that you guys know who you’re dealing with here. I don’t want to make any trouble.

GC: And we all agree there were issues? [audio issues] … [Applicant], my question was simply, we can all agree there were issues with your tenure at [Company R]?

Applicant: Yes, that’s correct.

GC: And they were brought up to you w hen your employment there came to an end?

Applicant: Not all the issues, no. He di d not tell me it was for attendance or drinking.

GC: Okay, but he made clear that it wasn’t working out?

Applicant: That is correct. Guideline G SOR ¶ 1.b alleged Applicant continued to consume alcohol, notwithstanding his probation requirement that he totally abstain from the use of alcohol. In his Answer he denied that during his probation, he violated the terms regarding alcohol. He stated his tests “came back clean” and that he successfully completed his probation. (Answer.) With his Answer he submitted a negative alcohol screening test, completion of an online course about alcohol, and an October 2023 letter from a doctor that he had successfully completed the “recommended portion of the Alcohol and Drug Outpatient Treatment program.” (AE C; AE D; AE E.) Applicant testified that prior to his April 2023 arrest at the highest level of his alcohol consumption, he consumed “a glass or two of scotch a day,” which he clarified was “maybe four days a week” and always with friends. This period was during a four-to- six-month window after he learned his girlfriend was seeing someone else. Previously he estimated that he consumed two to three drinks with friends per week. Since he went on probation, he stated he had not consumed any alcohol. (Tr. 64, 65, 66, 67.) Guideline H SOR ¶ 2.a alleged Applicant used cocaine with varying frequency from about January 2020 to at least July 2023. He admitted the allegation and disclosed it on his SCA. (GE 1 at 36.) In his Answer he stated, “I used cocaine on four separate occasions between January 2020 and July 2023. Three of those times were voluntary, but I did not like the effects. The fourth time was unintentional-on July 2, 2023, unknowingly consumed cocaine.” At the hearing, he stated the 2023 cocaine use was “inadvertent.” (Tr. 44.) He denied using cocaine after July 2023. He affirmed he had no intentions of using cocaine 7

in the future. (Tr. 44-47.) Applicant explained the circumstances of this inadvertent use: I was with a group of friends at the bar. They were out back smoking marijuana in a cigarette and asked if I wanted a hit. Because it was legal in the state at the time and I was not on probation yet, I decided I was going to participate with them. And after I had taken the hit, I felt really strange. It wasn’t – I’d smoked marijuana before. It did not feel like that. And I asked them what it was, and they said that it had been laced with cocaine. (Tr. 46.) SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c alleged Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency and purchased marijuana, from about June 2012 to at least July 2023. He admitted the allegations and disclosed it on his SCA. He stated on his SCA he had abstained from using marijuana or any drug since his DWI arrest and probation (SOR ¶ 1.a). He stated on his SCA, “I used THC as a way to relax when I was in my early 20s all the way up to this past year. After my DWI arrest and probation, I abstain from using any mind-altering substances such as THC or Alcohol.” (GE 1 at 36.) He wrote why he no longer will use marijuana in the future stating: I do not intend to use THC in the future because I plan on holding a secret clearance (if granted) for possibly the rest of my life. As I stated before I want to continue to grow in my career and I understand the importance of having a sober mind while dealing with sensitive information. Also, since I’ve stopped using THC I really like the way I feel being sober. (GE 1 at 36.) In his Answer to SOR ¶ 2.b, he stated, “I used marijuana on occasion from about 2012 to mid-2023. I understand now that even though it’s legal in some places, it’s still inconsistent with the responsibilities that come with holding a clearance. I’ve stopped using entirely, and I’m not going back to it.” Similarly to SOR ¶ 2.c he stated, “I purchased marijuana on occasion from about 2012 to mid-2023. I understand now that even though it’s legal in some places, it’s still inconsistent with the responsibilities that come with holding a clearance. I’ve stopped using and purchasing it entirely, and I’m not going back to it.” (Answer.) SOR ¶ 2.d alleged Applicant failed a urinalysis test in about July 2023 administered by his probation office, testing positive for cocaine and marijuana. In his Answer he denied the allegation as phrased stating: I tested positive for marijuana and cocaine at my initial probation intake in July 2023. I immediately disclosed the situation to my probation officer (see 2.a above) and explained the circumstances. She told me she would retest me the following month and would consider a violation only if the new test was positive. I passed every test after that and was not violated. I completed probation without incident. (Answer.) 8

At the hearing Applicant explained the drug test occurred at intake, and he stated it did not count it as a parole violation. (Tr. 43.) He told the DoD investigator that he had notified his probation officer and had to attend four additional sessions of alcohol and drug counseling. (GE 2 at 19-20.) SOR ¶ 2.e alleged Applicant was arrested in about December 2015 in [State] and charged with Possession of Controlled Substance-Not Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Paraphernalia. He admitted the allegation in his Answer stating: I was arrested in 2015 after a raid at my neighbor’s home in [city]. My next- door neighbor had apparently sold drugs to an undercover officer, and because our row homes shared a porch, police included my house in the search warrant. I was not in possession of any drugs. They bagged drywall and submitted it as crack cocaine. Lab results were inconclusive, and all charges against me were dropped. My lawyer later found out that the narcotics team that conducted the raid had thousands of “successful” arrests without a single failed one, which raised serious questions. (Answer.) Applicant admitted that arrest occurred when he was purchasing and using marijuana. (Tr. 38, 41.) The possession of paraphernalia charge’s disposition was listed as “turned over to commissioner,” and the remaining offense were listed as “nolle prossed” in February 2016. (GE 3 at 13-14; GE 2 at 17.) SOR ¶ 2.f alleged Applicant was detained/arrested in about June 2012 on suspicion of narcotics possession and Driving Under the Influence in [State]. He admitted the allegation in his Answer stating: In 2012, I was pulled over on the way to a car show. The officer held me on suspicion of being under the influence of some type of substance and took me for a blood test, which was inconclusive. I completed a court-ordered drug and alcohol course and the case was dropped. I’ve had no further issues related to that incident. (Answer.) At the hearing Applicant testified he remember the incident well. He blamed his girlfriend for asking him to “light that thing up” referring to his vehicle, a popular sports car. When he saw the blue lights, he said, “wow, that was a bad idea” and he threw the marijuana out of the window. (GE 1 at 35; GE 2 at 17; Tr. 32-35.) In Applicant’s November 2024 response to Government interrogatories, he answered the question regarding his intention to continue to use marijuana or other illegal drugs in the future, marking “No” and writing: I do not intend to and will not use illegal drugs in the future. This decision is based on the fact that illegal substances are illegal. I will not jeopardize my 9

health or ability to retain a clearance. (GE 2 at 5.) With his Answer, Applicant included a May 2025 Statement of Intent affirming he would continue to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse. (AE F.) He also subscribed and swore out his response to Government interrogatories before a notary where he explicitly stated his intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse and acknowledged that any future involvement or misuse would be grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. (GE 2 at 5.) He testified he no longer associates with “drug-using or degenerative associates.” (Tr. 89.) Guideline J SOR ¶ 3.c alleged Applicant violated the terms and conditions of his probation between July 2023 and July 2024 by consuming alcohol and/or marijuana and/or cocaine. At the hearing Applicant explained the drug test occurred at intake and did not count as a parole violation, and he retested a month later without incident. (Tr. 43.) By his own admission to the DoD investigator, he smoked the marijuana believing it was legal and would not be a violation of his probation because his probation had not yet started. He claimed to not be aware that the marijuana was laced with cocaine until he asked his friends. As a result of his drug use, his parole requirements for alcohol and drug counseling were increased. He had to attend four additional sessions of alcohol and drug counseling a result of this positive drug test. (GE 2 at 20.) After the Court sentenced Applicant in July 2023, he was issued a Probation/Supervision Summary. It noted his probation was for one year supervised by the County - Office of Parole and Probation and that he must follow all probation/supervision conditions described below in the form. The third requirement, after Appearing Court when required and Attending the Victim Impact Panel, was “Do Not Illegally Possess Use, or Sell any Narcotic.” (GE 2 at 29.) SOR ¶ 3.d alleged that information as set forth in subparagraph 2.e, above. See the SOR ¶ 2.e discussion above. SOR ¶ 3.e alleged Applicant was arrested in about January 2013 in Virginia and charged with Felony Grand Larceny: Auto Theft and Enter Property to Damage, etc. He admitted the allegation with clarification. In his Answer he stated: When I was 18, I helped a friend pick up a car that had supposedly been sold via a handwritten bill of sale. A neighbor didn’t know about the sale and thought we were stealing it. Police stopped us and arrested us. In court, the seller’s daughter confirmed it was her father’s handwriting and that the sale was legitimate. All charges were dropped. That incident made me realize I needed to be more careful about who I associated with. (Answer.) The matter was “nolle prossed” by the court. (GE 1 at 35; GE 2 at 18; GE 3 at 9- 10; Tr. 47-49.) 10

At the hearing Applicant testified: We had a vehicle on the back of the flatbed tow truck, and we were going down the highway to drop it off at my friend’s house. And the police came up behind us and pulled us over. They said, what are you all doing? They got all our IDs. And then they said, step out of the vehicle. We were under arrest. And a cop said, you just turned 18, so I’ve got to charge you. I was riding in the middle. I was just going along to learn how to run the tow truck. I thought it would be a good opportunity. I ended up in jail that day. (Tr. 48.) SOR ¶ 3.f alleged that information as set forth in subparagraph 2.f, above, which Applicant in his Answer said his response to subparagraph 2.f above. He added the case had been resolved through a class and that he had “moved past” the incident. His Answer to subparagraph 2.f above included that: he admitted to being pulled over; held on suspicion of being under the influence of some type of substance; being taken in for a blood test; and completing a court-ordered drug and alcohol course. He claimed in his Answer to subparagraph 2.f that the blood test was inconclusive and the case was dropped. (GE 1 at 35; Tr. 32-35.) SOR ¶ 3.g alleged Applicant was charged with reckless driving in [State] in February 2026. Applicant in his response to the amended SOR admitted the allegation and offered documentation to explain the circumstances of the incident. During the hearing Applicant and the Government counsel (GC) discussed a misdemeanor driving offense that occurred in February 2026 in the following exchange: GC: Have you been arrested since April of ‘23? Applicant: Never. GC: To your knowledge, have you committed any arrest-worthy crimes since April of ‘23? Applicant: Arrest-worthy crimes [?] GC: I’ll give you a pass on moving violations, littering, that sort of thing. Applicant: Give me a pass on moving violations, you said? GC: Yes, sir. Applicant: Yes, no. I had a speeding ticket. And then recently, there was a speeding ticket that I just was speeding and I paid it, on the [geographic location]. I had a rental vehicle. I wasn’t familiar with it. 11

GC: No bar fights, no drug dealing, no theft, anything like that? Applicant: No, I’ve not been arrested at all. (Tr. 74-75.) Earlier Applicant had been asked aside from the 2023 incident, had there been any other arrests, and he stated, “nothing I can think of.” (Tr. 50.) The documents Applicant submitted are not consistent with just a speeding ticket. Given the severity of the violation, there was a mandatory appearance before a judge. (AE X.) Applicant offered evidence to explain why he was speeding. (AE U; AE V; AE Y.) Neither side offered evidence of the disposition of this offense. Guideline E SOR ¶ 4.d. That information as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 2.f, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, and 3.g, above. Applicant admitted the allegation in his response to the amended SOR. See the above discussion for these allegations. Applicant in his post-hearing submissions included various character letters. His friends and colleagues describe him as dependable, responsible, and hardworking. He is described as trying to lead a sober life. More than one w

riter noted Applicant’s commitment to his faith and making meaningful and lasting changes in his life. (AE P - AE S, AE W.) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 12

access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15- 01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr.20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. Analysis Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 21: “Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Applicant’s admissions and the documentary evidence establish two potentially disqualifying conditions: AG ¶ 22(a): alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving 13

while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; and AG ¶ 22(c): habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 23(a): so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment; AG ¶ 23(b): the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; and AG ¶ 23(d): the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. Applicant acknowledges his alcohol problem. He has changed his lifestyle to make the behavior unlikely to reoccur. He has established three years of sobriety and abstaining from alcohol. He successfully completed his assigned classes and programs. He has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence and now presents a low risk. AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), and 23(d) are established 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 questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as 14

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. Applicant admitted he purchased and used marijuana and the other alleged illegal drugs. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 25(a): any substance misuse (see above definition); and AG ¶ 25(c): illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 26(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 AG ¶ 26 (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. AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) are established for SOR ¶¶ 2.a through 2.f. Applicant’s behavior happened under circumstances unlikely to recur. He has completely changed his environment and focused his time and energy on family, faith, fitness, and establishing a career, and no longer desires to engage in drug use. The evidence establishes that Applicant knew throughout the alleged period that his substance misuse was prohibited under federal law. He credibly acknowledged his drug involvement and substance misuse and provided evidence of his actions taken to overcome this problem and has established a pattern of abstinence. He submitted a signed statement of intent and wrote in his government interrogatory response that he had no intention to continue to use illegal drugs and that he no longer associated with those who did illegal substances or frequent places where there might be illegal substances, and he reaffirmed this commitment during his testimony. 15

Additionally, Applicant voluntarily disclosed his actions on his SCA. He fully acknowledges his past actions. He clearly states he will no longer use marijuana or any other illegal drugs in the future. I found his personal explanation why he will no longer use marijuana products or any other illegal drugs credible and compelling. His testimony reflects his understanding that any future involvement with marijuana or any other drug is grounds for revocation of a security clearance. Given Applicant’s new lifestyle and years of abstinence since his last drug use, it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Guideline J, Criminal Conduct The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 30: Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Applicant’s record of arrests and convictions is sufficient to establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions: AG ¶ 31(a): a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; and AG ¶ 31(b): evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 32(a): so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and AG ¶ 32(d): there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited t o, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. Applicant’s most recent criminal conduct occurred in February 2026, while his security clearance application was being reviewed, and as with all his past criminal incidents he offered an explanation for this incident. Given that he submitted several exhibits to explain or defend his most recent criminal conduct he did not provide any 16

further details of the status of its disposition during the extended period the record remained open. Regardless, the fact is by his own admission he was speeding, and the speeding was likely sufficient for a reckless driving charge. Applicant failed to provide evidence that this was a non-criminal traffic citation as opposed to a misdemeanor-level driving offense. Applicant is to be commended for fully disclosing the 2026 incident in his post- hearing submissions. While he has changed his lifestyle and it is unlikely that his alcohol- related misconduct or other misconduct will reoccur, he continues to have regular encounters with law enforcement. He was arrested and detained in 2012 on suspicion of narcotics possession and admittedly possessed marijuana from 2012 through 2023, as well as cocaine from 2020 to at least 2023. Each of his marijuana and cocaine possessions constituted federal criminal offenses. He was arrested in 2013 for theft. He had another drug related arrest in 2015. He was arrested in 2023 for multiple offenses arising from him driving under the influence of alcohol. After his arrest in 2023 he continued to use illegal drugs resulting in a parole violation. Applicant’s criminal offenses establish a pattern regardless of how the 2026 speeding offense may have been resolved. Despite the drug use while on probation, he has complied with the terms of his past sentences. He has recently established a good employment record and has recently created a favorable home environment as part of his rehabilitative steps. However, insufficient time has elapsed to fully establish the mitigating conditions given his long history of criminal conduct, spanning from 2012 to 2026, for AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d) to be fully applicable. AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d) are not established for SOR ¶¶ 3.a through 3.g. Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15, as follows: 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 information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. The following disqualifying conditions are applicable: AG ¶ 16(b): deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting i nformation, 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; AG ¶ 16(c): credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas 17

that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; and AG ¶ 16(d): credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline a nd may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when c ombined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government protected information; (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made pr

ompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; AG ¶ 17(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; AG ¶ 17(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 AG ¶ 17(e): the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 18

vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. AG ¶¶ 17(a), 17(c), 17(d), and 17(e) are established for SOR ¶ 4.a and 4.b. Applicant’s employment history during the time in question was poor and he disclosed this on his SCA and during the interview regarding his situation at Company R. He had two employers, because Company R had obtained his temporary services through Contractor A. He promptly disclosed this situation related to Company R in his interview. He faced substantial personal adversity during this period. The allegations of absenteeism are mitigated by the positive steps he has taken to abstain from drug and alcohol use and alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to his untrustworthy and unreliable behavior. SOR ¶ 4.c cross-alleges a specific segment of Applicant’s behavior in the April 2023 incident as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 3.a, and 3.b. I find “For Applicant” with respect to SOR ¶ 4.c concerning the specific event alleged in SOR ¶ 3.b because his course of conduct in April 2023 was part of his drunken driving on the night in question. Duplicative coverage of this conduct and use in my findings under Guideline E is not warranted in this case. SOR ¶ 4.d cross-alleges Applicant’s conduct detailed in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 2.f, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, and 3.g as a personal conduct security concern. I find “For Applicant” with respect to SOR ¶ 4.d concerning these cross-alleged matters because these concerns are appropriately and fully addressed under Guidelines G, H, and J. I find his personal behavior history concerning because it indicates poor judgment and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Duplicative coverage of this conduct in my findings under Guideline E is not warranted in this case. 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 the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine timely 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. 19

The DOHA Appeal Board has consistently held that an applicant’s conduct and circumstances are not to be evaluated in a piecemeal fashion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0628 (Feb. 24, 2003, citing ISCR Case No. 99-0601 at 8 (App. Bd. Jan. 30, 2001) (“‘Under the whole person concept, an Administrative Judge must assess the totality of an applicant’s conduct and circumstances in order to evaluate the applicant’s security eligibility, not just consider an applicant’s conduct and circumstances in a piecemeal manner.’”). Under ¶ E2.2.4. of the Directive, even if adverse information pertaining to any given guideline is not sufficient to warrant an adverse security clearance decision, an applicant may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or emotionally unstable behavior. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant is applying for a security clearance for the first time. I considered his honesty in disclosing his drug use and criminal history on his SCA, particularly his 2026 incident and the circumstances for why he failed to disclose his employment history on his SCA. Applicant has worked in a sensitive work environment for the past three years, earning the respect and confidence of his work colleagues who wrote on his behalf. He has taken the initiative to change his lifestyle. Despite the framing of the Government’s question, giving Applicant “a pass” on “moving violations,” he still disclosed the 2026 incident at the hearing and to ensure full disclosure he offered the details in his post-hearing submissions. When he concluded his SCA he wrote: I made sure to be as forthcoming as possible on this application to prove my character and my allegiance with the United States of America. I have also taken the time to make sure I have filled this application out to the best of my knowledge. If there is something I have missed, please do not hesitate to contact me. I do not intend to mislead or hide information from this investigation. Applicant’s statements at the hearing and in his post-hearing submission were consistent with his 2023 statement in his SCA. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines G, H, J, and E and evaluated all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol consumption, drug misuse, and personal conduct but not his criminal conduct. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards avoiding criminal activity, which creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, he may well be able to demonstrate his ability and willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations, to establish persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness in the future. 20

Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1: Guideline G: Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c:

FOR APPLICANT For Applicant Paragraph 2: Guideline H: Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e:

FOR APPLICANT For Applicant Paragraph 3: Guideline J: Subparagraphs 3.a-3.g:

AGAINST APPLICANT Against Applicant Paragraph 4: Guideline E: Subparagraphs 4.a-4.d:

FOR APPLICANT For Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge 21