PSH-25-0012

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure
under 5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: October 17, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0012
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 23, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an
access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth
at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual held access authorization in connection with his employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 7.2 The Individual in April 2018 completed a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP). Ex. 8 at 102. In that QNSP, he denied “hav[ing] . . . illegally
used any drugs or controlled substances” within “the last seven (7) years . . . .” Id. at 96 (emphasis
in original). However, the Individual later admitted to having used marijuana in October 2017. Ex.
6 at 28. In March 2020, while holding his clearance, the Individual consumed a marijuana edible.
Id.; Ex. 5 at 23–24. In May 2021, he also smoked Salvia, a mind-altering substance, twice, again
while holding his security clearance. Ex. 6 at 33. The Individual completed another QNSP in May
2022, wherein he again denied any illegal drug use in the seven years prior to completing the
QNSP. Ex. 7 at 59.
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a).
This Decision will refer to such authorization as “access authorization” or “security clearance.”
2 The Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 273-page PDF workbook.
References to the LSO’s exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of
each exhibit page.
- 2 -
In April 2024, the Individual self-reported his March 2020 consumption of the marijuana edible to
his manager (Manager), who in turn completed a Personnel Security Information Reporting Form
(PSIR Form) and submitted it to the LSO. Ex. 5 at 23–24; Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No.
PSH-25-0012 (Tr.) at 93. Then, in his June 2024 response to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) issued
to him, the Individual disclosed his October 2017 marijuana use and his May 2021 Salvia uses.
Ex. 6 at 28, 33. The LSO subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him
that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for
access authorization. Ex. 1 at 7. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter,
the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E
and H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1–9). The Individual submitted seven exhibits (Ex. A–G). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of five additional witnesses: (1)
his mother (Mother), (2) his fiancée (Fiancée), (3) his roommate (Roommate), (4) his coworker
(Coworker), and (5) his Manager. Tr. at 3.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline E relates to questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Especially concerning is the
refusal to be truthful and honest during the administrative review process. Id. In citing Guideline
E, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s (1) failure to report his illegal drug use when completing
his 2018 and 2022 QNSPs and (2) his intentional controlled substance misuse while holding a
security clearance and related failures to report. Ex. 1 at 5. There is sufficient derogatory
information in the possession of DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a)‒(b) (indicating that deliberate omission of relevant facts from
a personnel security questionnaire and concealing information from an employer or security
official may present security concerns under Guideline E).
Guideline H relates to the illegal use of controlled substances, including prescription and non-
prescription drugs. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24. “The illegal use of controlled substances . . .
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness . . . 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.” Id. In citing to Guideline H, the
LSO relied upon (1) the Individual’s 2017 use of marijuana; (2) his March 2020 consumption of a
marijuana edible; and (3) his two uses of Salvia in May 2021.3 Ex. 1 at 5–6. There is sufficient
3 The SSC has two repeated typographical errors throughout: (1) referencing the March 2020 consumption of a
marijuana edible as occurring in March “2000” and (2) misspelling Salvia as “Saliva.” Ex. 1 at 5–6. Despite the errors,
the Individual has notice of the concerns given that the SSC cited to the Individual’s self-disclosures in his response
to the LOI and PSIR Form, which was submitted by the LSO as Exhibit 5. Id.; Ex. 5 at 23–24. Furthermore, at the
hearing, the parties confirmed that these were typographical errors and that the Individual had no dispute as to having
notice of the concerns. Tr. at 10.
- 3 -
derogatory information in the possession of DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines H.
See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 25(a), (f) (indicating that any substance misuse, as well as any
illegal drug use while granted access authorization, may present security concerns under Guideline
H).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. 2017, 2020, and 2021 Drug Use Prior to and While Holding a Security Clearance and
Related Failure to Report
The Individual attended undergraduate school from 2017 to 2021. Ex. 7 at 45; Tr. at 105. He then
received a master’s degree in May 2022. Tr. at 105. He was a freshman when, in October 2017, he
tried a marijuana vape “offered to [him] by a friend of a friend[4] while . . . camping.” Ex. 6 at 28.
The Individual reported that the marijuana “made [him] slow[-]minded and anxious” and that he
had tried the drug because he “was a freshman in college and [ ] curious.” Id. Six months later, in
April 2018, the Individual first applied for access authorization in connection with an internship
with a DOE contractor. Ex. 8 at 102; Tr. at 107 (Individual testifying he was 18-years-old at the
time he applied). In his 2018 QNSP, he certified that he had not engaged in any illegal drug use in
the last seven years. Ex. 8 at 96. The Individual explained that he omitted his 2017 marijuana use
because he “feared [he] would not be given a job or clearance” and that he “did not understand the
purpose of the questionnaires and investigation process.” Ex. 6 at 28; see also Tr. at 113 (Individual
4 The Individual testified that he had not seen this individual since the camping trip. Tr. at 108.
- 4 -
testifying that he “was young and feared that [he] wouldn’t be eligible for the position or [ ]
wouldn’t get . . . a clearance”).
The Individual subsequently became a year-round undergraduate intern, holding a clearance, from
April 2018 to August 2021 and thereafter served as a graduate student intern until July 2022. Tr.
at 105–06; Ex. 7 at 46, 66. Contemporaneous with his undergraduate internship requiring that he
maintain his access authorization, the Individual in March 2020 consumed a marijuana edible. Ex.
6 at 26. The Individual “was a junior in college at the time on spring break” at a “camping/rock
climbing trip.” Id. He had “never [tried] a marijuana edible before[,]” and when offered the edible
by an acquaintance,5 he “accepted due to curiosity[6] . . . .” Id.; Tr. at 109. The Individual reported
that the marijuana made him, again, “slow[-]minded and anxious.” Ex. 6 at 26; see also Tr. at 110
(testifying to feeling “physically frozen”). The Individual indicated that, “[a]t the time, [he] did
not fully understand the responsibility of holding a security clearance” and admitted that the
“activity was irresponsible and should have been reported immediately.” Ex. 6 at 29. Regardless
he failed to immediately report the drug use because he “feared that [he] might lose [his] job.” Id.;
see also Tr. at 124 (Individual testifying (1) that he did not really use his clearance and thus did
not “understand the responsibilities that came with” holding a clearance and (2) that at the time
the possibility of losing his clearance and job had “cross[ed] [his] mind”).
In May 2021, the Individual smoked Salvia twice within “about a week” despite being aware that
it was a “mind-altering drug.” Ex. 6 at 33; Tr. at 113. Prior to using the drug, the Individual
discussed with his Fiancée that a friend7 had procured the drug and that he wanted to use it in a
“controlled environment.” Tr. at 47, 51–52, 125. He also researched the drug to learn if the drug
was illegal. Id. at 125. His friend had suggested that he try the drug, and he was “again curious”
about “a new experience.” Ex. 6 at 33. The first time he tried Salvia, he felt no effect. Id.; Tr. at
112. The second time he tried Salvia he felt lightheaded and bouncy for approximately 15 to 30
seconds. Ex. 6 at 33; Tr. at 112. The Individual expressed that “[t]o [his] knowledge/understanding,
Salvia [was] not illegal and [ ] not on the controlled substances list, so [he] did not report” his
usage. Ex. 6 at 33; see also Tr. at 112 (Individual responding “No” when asked if he believed the
drug was illegal at the time he used the drug).
B. 2022 QNSP, Continued Failure to Report, and Eventual Reporting
In May 2022, the Individual applied for a higher level of access authorization in connection with
new employment. Ex. 8 at 67. He falsely certified that he had not used drugs within the last seven
years. Id. at 59. He also falsely certified that he had not ever illegally used drugs while possessing
a security clearance. Id. at 60. At the hearing, the Individual again explained that he had not
reported his prior 2017 marijuana use and 2020 marijuana consumption out of “fear that [he]
wouldn’t be eligible for . . . the position or clearance” or that he would “get fired.” Tr. at 113; see
also Ex. 6 at 31 (Individual explaining that he “withheld information and falsified answers . . . out
5 The Individual testified that he has not purposefully spent time with the acquaintance since October 2020 and that
he ran into the acquaintance at a clothing store about a year ago. Tr. at 110.
6 Despite his prior experience with marijuana in 2017, he thought that because the drug was “in a different form” he
might have a different experience. Tr. at 123. Instead, he indicated, he experienced “the same result.” Id.
7 The Individual still associates with this friend. Tr. at 129.
- 5 -
of fear of losing [his] job . . .”). He also indicated that he had not reported his Salvia uses because,
again, he “didn’t think it was illegal.” Tr. at 113.
The Individual indicated that his knowing omissions of his drug use “really didn’t start weighing
on [him] until [he] started in [his] new position in July [ ] 2022.” Tr. at 133. Nearly two years after
the Individual had submitted the 2022 QNSP, the Individual finally came forward to report his
illegal drug use in April 2024; he first disclosed his consumption of the marijuana edible to his
Manager, who in turn submitted a PSIR Form to the LSO. Id. at 94–95; Ex. 5 at 23–24. Then, in
his June 2024 response to the LOI, the Individual for the first time disclosed his 2017 marijuana
use and the 2021 Salvia uses.8 Ex. 6 at 28, 33.
The Individual testified that he had come forward because he “had never felt quite right about
holding this information to [him]self.” Tr. at 114–15. The Individual explained that his drug use
and failure to report were “mistakes” from when he was “younger” and that he had since “done a
lot of growing and maturing.” Id. at 115. The Individual wanted to “start over with a . . . clean state
. . . .” Id. The Individual in his June 2024 response to the LOI provided that “[s]ince working in
[his] new position, [he] now understand[s] what the clearance process is meant to do” and “what
it means to hold a security clearance.” Ex. 6 at 33; see also Tr. at 115 (Individual testifying to
“better understand[ing] [his] position” and not “want[ing] there to be anything out there that could
be used to coerce or blackmail [him]”). The Individual affirmed that he had no intention of ever
using drugs illegally in the future and explained that he would not repeat his past mistakes given
his maturity and given the fact that his mistakes had led to a buildup of anxiety. Tr. at 115–16; see
also Ex. 6 at 29 (Individual’s June 2024 LOI response affirming that he had no intention “to use
illegal drugs or illegally use controlled substances in the future”). The Individual testified that he
“came forward to show good faith and transparency” and “recognized the risk[ ] that [he] could
lose [his] clearance.” Id. at 119. Regardless of those risks, the Individual disclosed his use since
“it’s the right thing to do” and because he “wouldn’t want to keep working in the same position
with this weight on [his] chest.” Id.
C. Testimony Regarding the Individual’s Character
The Individual’s Mother testified that she was unaware of his drug use until she learned that his
clearance was suspended in November 2024. Tr. at 14. She stated that she has always found him
to be very trustworthy, very reliable, and very honest, with excellent judgment. Id. at 14, 17. His
Mother asserted that the Individual is not prone to telling lies. Id. at 14. She claimed that she
“always found him willing to follow rules and regulations.” Id. at 18. His Mother believed his drug
use was experimental because he was away at college. Id. at 15. She concluded that the Individual
has learned that he needs to be “honest to a fault.” Id. at 24.
The Roommate testified that he has known the Individual since 2013, when they met during high
school. Tr. at 28. They have lived together for approximately two and a half years and have daily
contact. Id. at 29. The Individual first told the Roommate about the security concerns in December
2024. Id. The Roommate testified that he had no reason to suspect the Individual had used illegal
8 The Individual testified that, although he believed Salvia to be a legal drug, he disclosed the Salvia uses “out of an
abundance of caution” and “to be transparent to the DOE . . . .” Tr. at 114.
- 6 -
substances as he has never seen illegal substances in the Individual’s possession. Id. at 30, 34. He
also stated that the Individual is the most reliable person he knows, and he trusts the Individual
with his life. Id. at 30. Like the Individual’s Mother, the Roommate proclaimed that the Individual
is a “rule follower to the T.” Id. The Roommate continued that the Individual is the “best person
he knows” and the best of their friend group. Id. at 31. The Roommate also stated that friends
have had drugs in their possession at the Individual’s and Roommate’s residence, but the friends
leave the home to use the drugs outside.9 Id. at 34–35.
The Individual’s Fiancée indicated that she first met the Individual five-and-a-half years ago and
that they have daily contact. Id. at 44. She indicated that the 2017 drug use occurred before she
had met him and that the 2020 drug use occurred before they had entered a romantic relationship.
Id. at 46. They were dating at the time the Individual decided to use Salvia in 2021, and they had
discussed him using the drug beforehand; however, she was not present when he used the drug. Id.
at 46–47. She testified that the Individual seemed motivated by curiosity and recounted that the
Individual “didn’t . . . feel anything” and had “no intentions of doing it again” after May 2021. Id.
The Fiancée indicated that the Individual discussed his intention to self-disclose beforehand. Id. at
45. She testified that the Individual is a “very by the book person” and that while “deciding to self-
disclose was difficult, [ ] he knew it was the right thing to do . . . .” Id. at 48, 50; see also id. at 56
(testifying that the Individual had “anxieties” related to not reporting and was “struggling with it
internally . . .”). She also confirmed that the Individual had expressed his intention to not abuse
drugs in the future and that there are no indications that the Individual had a drug or drug
dependency problems. Id. at 47–48.
The Individual’s Coworker indicated that he met the Individual two-and-a half years ago when the
Individual joined their place of employment. Id. at 61. The two have nearly daily contact in the
workplace but do not socialize outside of work. Id. at 61–62. The Individual disclosed to the
Coworker the security concerns raised by the LSO. Id. at 62–63. The Coworker described the
Individual as “consistent” and “dependable” and observed no “indication . . . that would make
[him] . . . think that . . . there was a drug concern that would impact his performance.” Id. at 63.
He testified that “there’s never been any question of [the Individual’s] integrity or honesty” and
that “he’s a highly reliable individual.” Id. at 65. The Coworker also noted that the Individual had
come forward voluntarily, which the Coworker believed was “a positive metric . . . indicating
trustworthiness.” Id. at 77.
The Individual’s Manager indicated that he has known the Individual since 2022 and has contact
with the Individual a few times per week in the workplace. Id. at 85–86. The Individual’s Manager
testified that he never suspected the Individual to have any issues with drugs and never questioned
the Individual’s candor in the workplace. Id. at 87. The Manager confirmed that the Individual
first reported his drug use to him in April 2024 as part of the disclosure to the LSO. Id. at 93. He
described the Individual as “trustworthy” and that he has “seen nothing but good judgment from
[the Individual].” Id. at 89–90. While the Individual had not originally disclosed his drug use, the
9 The Individual’s Fiancée also testified that she had “seen some use of marijuana” at the household. Tr. at 53–54. The
Individual indicated that, when he is in a large group of his friends where others might do drugs like marijuana, he
ensures that the drugs are done outside his proximity and when he is not present. Id. at 117–18.
- 7 -
Individual’s Manager credited that the Individual came forward outside the “time pressure” of a
“reinvestigation” or “upcoming polygraph test.” Id. at 91.
V. ANALYSIS
Based on the record before me, I am not convinced that the Individual has fully mitigated the
LSO’s security concerns. I first address the Guideline H concerns and then the Guideline E
concerns.
A. Guideline H
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline H security concerns include:
(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;
(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;
(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which
these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and
(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not
limited to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse,
and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26. As a preliminary matter, mitigating conditions (c) and (d) lack
application, as the concerns raised do not include prescription drugs and because no testimony or
documentary evidence was provided regarding substance abuse treatment.
To start, I credit the Individual’s testimony that he has not engaged in illegal drug use since May
2021 and that his drug use was limited to the four incidents that he self-disclosed. In crediting his
testimony, I weigh several factors. I weigh heavily that the Individual self-reported incriminating
information and that he is motivated to be completely forthcoming at this point despite the risk of
losing his clearance and job. Furthermore, during the hearing, the Individual provided information
consistent with his earlier written explanation for his actions; freely provided specific details into
his personal life and state of mind; and gave non-combative, direct answers when asked leading
- 8 -
questions despite the answers reflecting poorly on him. While his behavior reflects past poor
judgment on his part, his conduct—starting from when he finally reported his drug use in April
2024 and during the hearing—reflects that he is now being honest.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the drug use occurred in October 2017, March 2020, and then
twice in May 2021. I cannot find that the drug use happened under “unusual circumstances” given
the mundane details surrounding the drug use. Oftentimes, the Individual used or consumed
marijuana when camping, and all instances of substance abuse occurred when a friend or
acquaintance simply offered the drug or had the drug available. Some of the behavior may be
attributed to youth or curiosity; however, his Salvia use occurred after he received his Bachelor’s
degree and while he was aware of his responsibilities regarding illegal drug use and the potential
consequences regarding his ability to maintain his security clearance and employment. On the
other hand, that the drug use occurred four times over multiple years demonstrates that the
substance abuse was infrequent. Furthermore, the substance abuse last occurred in May 2021,
nearly three years and eight months ago, which is virtually equal to the timespan over which he
used drugs illegally and dwarfs the four isolated days on which he abused drugs. Accordingly, I
find that the drug use also occurred long ago.
There are also several indications that the illegal drug use is unlikely to recur. While there is some
testimony that some of his friends continue to abuse drugs, the Individual has expressed that, when
his friends engage in drug use, he ensures that it is not happening in his proximity. Additionally,
the Individual indicated that the drug use occurred in his youth and out of curiosity, but he has
now affirmed—both in his June 2024 response to the LOI and in his hearing testimony—that his
intention is to no longer use drugs. I credit his testimony and affirmation that he no longer intends
to abuse drugs in the future, given the fact that the Individual came forward without being
confronted with the information and given his self-disclosure while well aware that he may lose
his clearance and job. Given that the drug use was infrequent, occurred long ago, and is unlikely
to recur, I find mitigating condition (a) to apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual has acknowledged his drug involvement and
substance misuse by coming forward of his own volition. He has also provided evidence of
overcoming the problem and establishing a pattern of abstinence for many of the same reasons I
stated above. I have credited his account that he has been abstinent from drugs for three years and
eight months. The Individual does not associate with the individuals who provided him with
marijuana in 2017 and 2020. The Individual provided a signed statement, in his June 2024 response
to the LOI, that he has no intention to use illegal drugs or illegally use controlled substances in the
future. However, the Individual still associates with the friends who provided him with the Salvia
and has continued to attend gatherings where drugs are being consumed—even outside his home.
Accordingly, I cannot find mitigating condition (b) satisfied.
I find that the Individual has satisfied mitigating condition (a) and that the Individual has resolved
the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline H.
B. Guideline E
Guideline E concerns may be mitigated if:
- 9 -
(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;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
In summary, I have continuing concerns that the Individual (1) provided false information about
his 2017 marijuana use upon applying for access authorization in 2018; (2) continued failing to
report his 2017 marijuana use until 2024; (3) used marijuana in 2020 understanding that it
jeopardized his clearance and position; (4) failed to report the 2020 marijuana use until 2024; and
(5) provided further false statements on his 2022 QNSP, despite the opportunity to come forward
at the time. Even disregarding that the Individual believed Salvia to be a non-reportable use of a
drug, the Individual failed to report drug use starting in 2018 until 2024, a nearly six-year period
of dishonesty. There is no dispute that he knew he provided false information and was required to
report his marijuana uses. The Individual testified that he began to appreciate the gravity of his
dishonesty in 2022; however, he still only came forward in 2024.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the Individual came forward before being confronted with the
facts and in good faith, in consideration of the fact that the Individual self-reported despite the risk
- 10 -
to his access authorization and his job. However, it cannot be said that he came forward promptly.
As stated above, the Individual concealed his drug use over a six-year period. Mitigating condition
(a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual’s behavior cannot be attributed to the advice of
legal counsel or a person with relevant professional responsibilities. Accordingly, mitigating
condition (b) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), I find that the continued concealment of his drug use and the
falsifications of the 2018 and 2022 QNSPs to be serious concerns. The omission and falsifications
cannot be described as minor given the seriousness of the following: (1) the Individual knowingly
furnished false information in the 2018 QNSP; (2) the Individual understood the risk but still
consumed the marijuana edible in 2020 while holding access authorization; (3) the Individual had
an opportunity to come forward in the 2022 QNSP but again knowingly provided false
information; and (4) the concealment of his instances of drug abuse continued over a six-year
period. The purposefulness, the length of time, and the disregard toward the investigative process
and reporting requirements simply cannot be considered minor.
I also cannot find the behavior so infrequent or to have occurred so long ago given that (1) the
concealment occurred essentially every day for about six years and (2) the Individual first came
forward in April 2024, less than a year ago. Additionally, above, I found the drug use did not occur
under unusual circumstances. Similarly, I cannot find the related concealment and falsifications to
have occurred under unique circumstances. While the original falsifications and concealment
might be attributed to youth and a fear of losing his clearance and employment, those
circumstances are not remarkable in a way that mitigates the concerns raised. Accordingly,
mitigating condition (c) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual has acknowledged the prolonged concealment
and also testified that he came forward in part to avoid the possibility of future blackmail.
However, I have no evidence of counseling. While the Individual has taken positive steps, insofar
as he finally disclosed his drug use in April 2024 and June 2024, I cannot find that the behavior,
at this time, is unlikely to recur. Even after the Individual had stopped using drugs, the Individual
continued to conceal this information for several years. Furthermore, while I have testimony
regarding the Individual’s good character and while the Individual has acknowledged that he has
matured from this experience, I find that the six-year period of dishonesty outweighs the relatively
recent evidence of changed behavior. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among
other things, “[t]he nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct[, and] the frequency and recency
of the conduct,” in applying the Adjudicative Guidelines). Since I cannot make a finding that the
behavior—specifically the dishonesty—is unlikely to recur, mitigating condition (d) does not
apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (e), the LSO did not raise any concerns regarding personal conduct
that could result in vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Mitigating condition (e)
lacks application.
- 11 -
Regarding mitigating condition (f), there exists no dispute as to the reliability of the information
because the Individual came forward. Mitigating condition (f) lacks application.
Regarding mitigating condition (g), the concerns raised by the LSO did not involve the Individual’s
association with those involved in criminal activities. Accordingly, mitigating condition (g) also
lacks application.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the
facts of this case and that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline E.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E and H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, both favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline H
concerns. I also find, however, that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter under Guideline E. Accordingly,
I find the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger
the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. This Decision may
be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals