ISCR Case No. 25-01413

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01413 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Sakeena Farhath, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/28/2026 Decision HYAMS, Ross D., Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to mitigate drug involvement and substance misuse, criminal conduct, and personal conduct security concerns. The alcohol consumption security concerns were mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On February 1, 2024, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). On February 23, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines G (alcohol consumption), H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). Applicant answered the SOR on an unknown date and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on June 11, 2026. The hearing was convened, as scheduled, on August 27, 2026. Department Counsel submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1-9, which were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A-G, which were admitted in evidence without objection.

SOR Amendment At the start of the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend SOR ¶ 4.b to remove the reference to SOR ¶ 2.a from the allegation. The motion was granted without objection. Findings of Fact In his Answer, Applicant admitted SOR allegations ¶¶ 2.b, 3.b, and 4.a, and denied ¶¶ 1.a, 2.a, 3.a, 3.c, and 4.b, with explanation. Based on my review of the pleadings, evidence submitted, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 35 years old. He married in 2024 and has two minor children. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2015 and is working on a master’s degree. He has worked as a manufacturing engineer for a defense contractor since 2022. He served in the Army National Guard from 2010-2016 and received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 17-20; GE 1, 3) Under Guideline G, the allegation is as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a alleges in December 2020 Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), refusal of a breath sample, and carrying a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol. He was fined and had his driver’s license suspended for one year due to his refusal to provide a breath sample. In his Answer, he denied the allegation, stating he “was convicted of improper lane change, and it was listed as a traffic violation. I paid a fine for the traffic violation. Refusal to provide breath sample was a civil case.” (Answer) Applicant stated that he was driving home from a family Christmas event. He testified he was not drinking the evening he was arrested. After a discussion about candor, he admitted he had been drinking all day, but not in the few hours before the arrest. He stated he did not feel intoxicated before driving. He was pulled over at 2:45 AM. The police report states he had glassy bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and had mumbled, slurred speech. Applicant asserted he may have had these conditions because it was very late, not because he was intoxicated. He was asked to perform a field sobriety test, which the police report indicates he had difficulty completing or he refused to participate in certain portions of the test. He stated he did not take the breathalyzer because he had doubts about how the instrument was operated, calibrated, and about some of the processes and his rights. He was arrested and charged with DWI, refusal of a breath sample, and carrying a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol. Applicant possessed a valid concealed-carry weapons permit, and had a pistol holstered in a shoulder holster on his person when he was pulled over. The pistol was taken, but the weapons charge was nolle pros, and he completed the paperwork to have his pistol returned to him after the case concluded. He pled guilty to a reckless driving 2

charge. He was given one year of probation and a suspended 180-day sentence. He was required to attend the state Alcohol and Substance Abuse education program. His driver’s license was automatically suspended for a year, per state law, because he refused to take the breathalyzer test. He stated he has not had any further alcohol-related arrests and does not frequently consume alcohol. (Tr. 20-94; GE 8) Under Guideline H, the allegations are as follows: SOR ¶ 2.a alleges in March 2025 Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis. The State Attorney declined to prosecute the case. In his Answer, he denied the allegation, stating, “the charges have been dropped. In addition, I was provided documentation of eligibility to expunge the arrest from record.” (Answer) Applicant was arrested at nighttime in an area popular for nightlife. The police report states they approached his vehicle because it was running with no one inside. Police observed a small baggy of marijuana on his center console. When he came back to the vehicle, police asked him what was on the center console, and the report states he became evasive and abrasive. After being told they observed marijuana, he stated it was “CBD and not weed.” He stated he bought the plant material earlier at a dispensary. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a compound found in cannabis and hemp plants. Applicant disputes that his vehicle was running and claimed he asked police to have the substance field tested, which he says was not completed. (Tr. 20-91; GE 9) He testified that he bought the plant material at a vape store and claimed the store label said it was a CBD product. He did not provide evidence supporting this claim. There were three dried hemp or cannabis-looking flower buds in a clear bag according to the police report. Marijuana is not legal for recreational use in his state. He was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, but a few days prior to the hearing, the charges were dropped. At the hearing for this case, he was asked why he would be purchasing dried hemp or cannabis-looking flower buds containing CBD, and he claimed he was going to use it to make soaps, lotions, teas, or candles, as a side business. He did provide sufficient evidence to find he had a history of producing these types of products or had any established side business. (Tr. 20-94; GE 9) SOR ¶ 2.b alleges in March 2016 Applicant tested positive for marijuana on a test administered by his employer. In his Answer, he admitted the allegation, stating, I tested positive on a hair follicle test that showed faint but present doses of marijuana within the detection window…. I confessed to experimenting after honorable discharge from service. During the investigation, I was informed that, upon its conclusion, I would not be subject to reinvestigation into that matter. I’ve successfully completed [employment] drug screening and never tested positive again. My clearance remained active after the investigation. (Answer) 3

Applicant testified he used marijuana once and tested positive on a preemployment drug screening. The employment offer was rescinded as a result. He claimed it was a one-time failure on his part. However, in his June 2017 response to an April 2017 Letter of Intent to Revoke Access to Classified Information and SOR, he wrote his marijuana use was infrequent, he did not say it was a one-time event. (Tr. 20-91; GE 4, 5, 7) Under Guideline J, the allegations are as follows: SOR ¶ 3.a cross-alleges the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 2.a, and 2.b. In his Answer, he denied the allegation, stating, The statement is partially true. In 1.a., I was convicted of a traffic violation and paid a fine for a civil case. In 2.a., the charges were dropped. There was no criminal activity. In 2.b., I did test positive on an employer administered test, however, testing positive is not a crime. (Answer) SOR ¶ 3.b alleges in May 2021, Applicant was charged with trespass. In his Answer, he admitted the allegation, stating, “I paid the fine. I accept responsibility. It was a moment of poor judgement due to the sensitive nature of the surrounding incident.” The incident occurred at a courthouse after he lost his child custody-related case because he arrived late. He accepted responsibility for not leaving and paid a small fine. (Tr. 20-48; Answer) SOR ¶ 3.c alleges in March 2015 Applicant was cited for misdemeanor contempt of court/failure to appear. In his Answer, he denied the allegation, stating, “I have no recollection of this event ever happening….” He testified he graduated college in mid- 2015 and in 2016 moved to another state to start his career. He has not been contacted about this matter. (Tr. 20-48; Answer) Under Guideline E, the allegations are as follows: SOR ¶ 4.a alleges Applicant failed to report to his Facility Security Officer (FSO) his marijuana possession arrest as set forth in subparagraph 2.a, above. In his Answer, he admitted the allegation, stating: This statement is true. I would like to add that my actions were not a reflection of lack of candor, dishonest, or unwillingness to comply. There were external factors that contributed to failure to report such as addressing the family (infant son and upset wife) and securing legal representation. With a limited reporting window prior to a trial, I wanted to be forthcoming as well as accurate. I mentioned myself as a clearance reference and my employment reassignment during the investigation, but my intent was to mention that information as a description of the intensity of the situation and the impact I have directly and indirectly on peers and family. I did not mention myself as a clearance reference and my employment reassignment 4

with intent to be dishonest. During the investigation, I was open and honest about the facts that occurred as well as how I felt. However, I made poor judgment. I did not prioritize reporting above all else as I was expected to do. (Answer) At the hearing, Applicant claimed he was not being dishonest or was unwilling to comply. He stated there were only about two weeks between his arrest and trial for the offense. He asserted he wanted to report accurate information and not alleged information. However, even after the charges were dropped on March 14, 2025, he did not report the arrest. The record shows in late April 2025, he was considered for work on a special access program. During his prescreening process, he reported the arrest. At the hearing, he provided documentation for expungement of the arrest that had not yet been submitted for consideration. (Tr. 20-91; GE 6, 9; AE E) The record shows that he reported the arrest during his background interview with a government investigator on March 24, 2025. In his interview, which he verified as accurate, he was asked if his intention was to get the charge expunged and not report the arrest/charge to his employer, and he replied, “yes, absolutely.” He also stated because he had received a promotion and was listed as a reference for his brother, on his brother’s SCA when his brother was entering the Army, “he did not want anything to effect [sic] his or his brother’s careers.” The investigator also made clear that Applicant knew he was required to report the arrest to his employer. He stated he wanted to get the charges expunged first. He later agreed he would rather have it expunged and not have to report the arrest. (Tr. 20-91; GE 3, 6, 9) SOR ¶ 4.b alleges Applicant falsified material facts of his February 1, 2024 SCA in response to Section 22 – Police Record, by deliberately failing to report his DWI arrest as set forth in subparagraph 1.a, above. In his Answer, he denied the allegation, stating: I did not deliberately fail to disclose arrest. In 1.a., I was convicted of a traffic violation and paid a fee in a civil court. The e-QIP mentions that traffic violations are excluded. I was under the impression that a conviction supersedes an arrest of the same incident. It was not obvious to report an arrest separate from the conviction with the same trial. (Answer) In the SCA Section 22 – Police Record (GE 1), it asks: “In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)” “In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal, or any other type of law enforcement official?” “Have you EVER been charged with any offense involving alcohol or drugs?” 5

Applicant testified he did not report the arrest because it was not a criminal matter. He asserted his conviction was for reckless driving and his failure to take the breathalyzer was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. He also claimed confusion about not having to report a traffic offense, however, he did not ask anyone for clarification. Applicant’s answers regarding the SCA falsification were evasive. He repeatedly spoke about not having to report traffic violations and provided nonsensical explanations. Department Counsel noted in cross examination that he also failed to report the firearms charge from that arrest. (Tr. 20-91; GE 1, 8) In his documentation, Applicant provided work certificates and awards, performance reviews, a resume, and evidence of volunteering with non-profit charities. He also provided evidence showing that he was at a family event on the afternoon before he was arrested for marijuana possession. He stated these arrests are unfortunate and do not reflect who or what he is. (Tr. 20-48; GE 3; AE A-F) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 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 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(c), 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. 6

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 EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption AG ¶ 21 details the personal conduct security concern: 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. I have considered the disqualifying conditions for alcohol consumption under AG ¶ 22 and the following is applicable: (a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving 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 al cohol use di sorder. I have considered the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 23. The following is potentially applicable: (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 (a) applies to SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant had one DWI arrest in December 2020, has not had any other alcohol-related incidents, and drinks infrequently. Enough time has passed, this behavior happened under circumstances unlikely to recur, and it does not continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. The alcohol consumption security concerns are mitigated. 7

Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern regarding drug involvement: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. I have considered the disqualifying conditions for drug involvement under AG ¶ 25 and the following are applicable: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); and (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. The Controlled Substances Act makes it illegal under federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute certain drugs (Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. See § 844). All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body. §§ 811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, under § 812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. I have considered the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26. The following are potentially applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and 8

substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. AG ¶¶ 26 (a) and (b) do not apply. Applicant used marijuana after being discharged from the Army in 2016. He tested positive on a pre-employment drug screening at that time. While he testified that he only used it one time, the record shows in 2017 he used the term “infrequent” in describing his marijuana use in response to an SOR. These are not the same thing, and I find his claim of one-time use in 2016 as not credible. In March 2025, he was arrested by police for having a plant substance looking like dried marijuana buds in a clear bag in plain sight on the center console of his car. He did not provide sufficient evidence to find that the substance police found was a legal hemp product containing CBD, and not cannabis. Applicant’s testimony that he purchased it to make soaps, lotions, teas, or candles, as a side business, was not credible. He was evasive and gave the impression he was making it up as he spoke. He did not provide sufficient evidence to find he had a history of producing these types of products or had an established side business. The ultimate reason the criminal charge was dropped is unknown. The fact that the charges were not pursued does not preclude a finding that Applicant engaged in the underlying conduct. Considering the fact that he had already been caught using marijuana through a pre-employment drug screen nine years earlier, and his explanations for the 2025 arrest were not credible, I cannot find that this happened under circumstances unlikely to recur, and it continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Guideline J, Criminal Conduct AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern for criminal conduct: 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. I have considered the disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 31 and the following are applicable in this case: (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 (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. 9

I have considered the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32. The following is potentially applicable: (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. AG ¶ 32 (a) applies to SOR ¶¶ 3.b and 3.c. These offenses were minor and enough time has passed, this behavior happened under circumstances unlikely to recur, and it does not continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. AG ¶ 32 (a) does not apply to SOR ¶ 3.a. While Applicant’s DWI arrest is mitigated, the two marijuana-related incidents are not mitigated for the reasons discussed under Guideline H. In his Answer, Applicant wrote “I did test positive on an employer administered test, however, testing positive is not a crime.” However, illegal drug use and possession are crimes. The two incidents of criminal conduct continue to cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Guideline E, Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 details the personal conduct security concern: 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. . . . I have considered the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and the following are applicable: (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. 10

I have considered the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17. The following are potentially applicable: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and (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. None of the mitigating conditions apply to SOR ¶¶ 4.a and 4.b. Applicant’s testimony at the hearing was evasive and parts lacked candor. Applicant purposefully failed to report his arrest for marijuana possession to his FSO. He planned to have his record expunged so he never had to report the incident using the same technicalities he used to justify not reporting his December 2020 DWI-related arrest on his SCA. Applicant engaged in both deliberate omission, concealment, and falsification of relevant facts on his SCA, and concealing and omitting information concerning relevant facts, to his security official. The language in the SCA section is clear. He knew that he committed relevant conduct, and his decision not to disclose the information was intentional and made with intent to deceive. The background investigator clarified that Applicant knew he was required to report his March 2025 marijuana possession arrest to his FSO. Truthfulness and candor are expected of persons entrusted with classified information and serving in sensitive positions. Applicant’s testimony, his SCA falsification, and his failure to report an arrest to his FSO cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. He did not provide sufficient evidence or other mitigation to find it is unlikely to recur. 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. 11

________________________ 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 considered his employment record and achievements, military service, and service to the government working for a government contractor. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines G, H, J, and E in my whole-person analysis. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse, criminal conduct, and personal conduct security concerns. The alcohol consumption security concerns were mitigated. 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 G: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b:

Against Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 3.b-3.c: For Applicant Paragraph 4, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 4.a-4.b: Against Applicant Conclusion It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Ross D. Hyams Administrative Judge 12