PSH-25-0041

*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: December 6, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0041
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 5, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge1
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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.”2 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 received a security clearance in conjunction with his employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.3 In July 2024, the Individual submitted to a random drug screen
with the DOE contractor and tested positive for cocaine metabolite. See Ex. 4 at 21. Subsequently,
the LSO informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex.
1 at 6–8. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC),
the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline H of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5. The SSC also explained that the Individual was subject to
1 The Administrative Judge originally appointed to adjudicate this matter retired prior to the Office of Hearings and
Appeals receiving the transcript for the hearing held. Accordingly, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals
appointed me to this matter to issue this Decision.
2 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.”
3 Exhibits 1 through 6 submitted by the DOE were submitted as a single PDF, Bates numbered in the upper right
corner of each page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the DOE.
- 2 -
the Bond Amendment, which disqualifies an unlawful user of a controlled substance or addict from
holding a security clearance. Id.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
an Administrative Judge in this matter, who subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses in addition to his
own testimony. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0041 (Tr.) at 3. The LSO presented
no additional witnesses. Id. The Individual submitted two exhibits marked Exhibits A and B.4 The
Individual also submitted a written closing statement. The LSO submitted six exhibits marked
Exhibits 1 through 6 and also submitted two unmarked exhibits, which have been designated as
Exhibits 7 and 8.5
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The relevant provisions of the Bond Amendment provide that “the head of a [f]ederal agency may
not grant or renew a security clearance for a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled
substance or an addict.” 50 U.S.C. § 3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security,
Appendix C: Adjudicative Considerations Related to Statutory Requirements and Departmental
Requirements (June 10, 2022). An addict is defined as an “individual who habitually uses any
narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted
to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.”
50 U.S.C. § 3343(b) (incorporating by reference the definition found at 21 U.S.C. § 802(1)); DOE
Order 472.2A, Personnel Security, Appendix C at C-1. Controlled substance is defined as any
substance listed as a controlled substance by 21 U.S.C. § 802. 50 U.S.C. § 3343(a)(1); DOE Order
472.2A, Attachment 8 at 8-2; see also 21 U.S.C. § 812 (listing cocaine as a controlled substance).
Furthermore, under Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the illegal use of controlled
substances “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.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 24. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline H include
“testing positive for an illegal drug” and any illegal drug use while granted access to classified
information or holding a sensitive position. Id. at ¶ 25(b), (f). In invoking the Bond Amendment
and Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the LSO cited the Individual “test[ing] positive
for [c]ocaine metabolite on a random drug screen . . .” in July 2024, at which time he possessed a
DOE security clearance. Ex. 1 at 5. Given the positive drug test, I find the LSO’s invocation of the
Bond Amendment and Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines to be justified.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
4 The Individual’s two exhibits were submitted as a single PDF. References to these exhibits are to the exhibit letter
and the PDF page number.
5 Exhibits 7 and 8 are signed statements from the DOE contractor’s employees responsible for the drug testing program
at the DOE contractor’s facility. See generally Ex. 7; Ex. 8; Tr. at 7.
- 3 -
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires a Decision to reflect
comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all of 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 Department 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).
The 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). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting 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. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Individual’s Background, Work History, 2013 Cocaine Use, and Pre-July 2024 Drug
Testing
The Individual testified that he started his “first adult job” in a plant, which employed him for
seventeen years. Tr. at 42–43; see also Ex. 6 at 60 (QNSP indicating employment with this
employer from 2002 to 2018). The Individual was self-employed from 2018 to 2019 and then held
a manufacturing job from 2019 to 2022. Tr. at 43–45; Ex. 6 at 59. The Individual then began
working with his current employer, the DOE contractor, in 2022. Ex. 6 at 57.
The Individual testified that his previous employers subjected him to random drug testing
approximately three to four times per year. Tr. at 45. The Individual testified that he had no
reservations about taking any drug tests and understood the importance of maintaining a drug-free
workspace. Id. at 52–53. He further testified that, prior to the July 2024 drug test with the DOE
contractor, he had never failed a drug test or received a result that was a concern. Id. at 45.
However, despite those assurances, the Individual at the hearing admitted to using cocaine once in
2013—contemporaneous with his first job at the plant that regularly subjected him to random drug
testing. Id. at 56–57.
b. Drug Testing Protocol at the DOE Contractor’s Facility
- 4 -
The LSO submitted a signed, written statement from the DOE contractor’s Drug & Alcohol
Coordinator. See generally Ex. 8. The LSO also submitted a signed, written statement from the
person serving as both the Site Occupational Medical Director and Medical Review Officer
(SOMD/MRO) for the DOE contractor. See generally Ex. 7. Both statements provide insight into
the DOE contractor’s drug testing program, as well as the drug tests conducted on the Individual.
Id.; Ex. 8.
The DOE contractor selects a randomized batch of employees weekly for drug testing. Ex. 8 at 1.
When selected, an employee has two hours to report to Occupational Health Services (OHS). Id.
A collector with OHS instructs the employee to provide a urine sample in a specimen cup in a
controlled environment. Id. The specimen cup, “in view of the employee[,]” is then split “into the
A and B specimen tubes.” Id. Both specimen tubes are then sent to a laboratory for testing. Id.
The DOE contractor conducts the drug tests through “a federally certified drug testing laboratory,
[ ] follow[ing] strict protocols to ensure accuracy and reliability.” Ex. 7 at 1. The SOMD/MRO
explained that the laboratory uses “Gas Chromatology-Mass Spectrometry [ ]confirmation testing,
which is the gold standard for drug analysis” since it “not only identifies the presence of a
substance but also quantifies it with an extremely high degree of accuracy, effectively eliminating
the possibility of false positives.” Id. If specimen A tests positive, the employee may “request[]
testing of the split sample (‘Split B’) . . . .” Id. Split B then “goes to a second [ ] federally certified
drug[-]testing laboratory” that “uses the same methods as the original lab . . . .” Id. The
SOMD/MRO explained that the “results from the split sample test will not be more accurate, or
more reliable, than the results of the original” and “[t]hey should be the same.” Id.
c. July 2024 Drug Testing
The Individual testified that he had been randomly drug tested one other time by the DOE
contractor prior to the July 2024 drug tests. Tr. at 45. The Individual recounted that the result of
this prior test was negative for drug use. Id. On July 11, 2024, the DOE contractor selected the
Individual for random drug testing pursuant to the protocol described in Section IV(b). Ex. 4 at
21; Ex. 8 at 1. The Individual testified that, when he received the notice for the random drug test,
he had no concern or worry about failing. Tr. at 45–46. Accordingly, he “went and [ ] took it”
thinking “everything was normal.” Id. at 46. According to the Drug & Alcohol Program
Coordinator, the specimens were sent to the first laboratory, which received them on July 12, 2024.
Ex. 8 at 1. The SOMD/MRO received the results from the first laboratory on July 13, 2024, which
reflected a positive result for cocaine metabolite. Id.; Ex. 4 at 21 (Federal Drug Testing Custody
and Control Form wherein SOMD/MRO verified that the test results were positive for “cocaine
metabolite”); Ex. 7 at 1.
On July 15, 2024, the Individual received a message to report to OHS for a meeting. Tr. at 46, 57;
Ex. 8 at 1. At the meeting, he was informed of his positive drug test result. Tr. at 46; Ex. 8 at 1–2.
The Individual testified that, when told about his positive drug result, he remarked, “I don’t know
what’s going on, because I don’t do drugs.” Tr. at 46. According to the Individual’s testimony, the
doctor told him, “You actually look like you’re telling the truth” based on the Individual’s
demeanor. Id. at 58. At the hearing, the Individual maintained, “I haven’t done drugs. I don’t even
smoke. I don’t vape. I don’t dip. I don’t do anything whatsoever.” Id. at 54.
- 5 -
The Drug & Alcohol Program Coordinator indicated that, “[d]uring the discussion of his results,
[the Individual] did not provide a medical reason for the positive results.” Ex. 8 at 2. The Individual
offered to submit to a hair follicle examination but was informed that his only option was to have
the sample re-tested “somewhere else.” Tr. at 46–47, 58–59; see also Section IV(b). Accordingly,
the Individual requested that the DOE contractor “[s]end [Split B] off somewhere else, because”
the result was “not correct.” Tr. at 47; see also Ex. 5 at 26; Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. 8 at 2. The same day,
the DOE contractor placed the Individual on administrative leave “pending confirmation on [the]
positive drug screen[.]” Ex. 5 at 30–31.
The Drug & Alcohol Program Coordinator indicated that OHS “sent a letter to [the first laboratory]
to have the split sample shipped to [a second laboratory] for testing.” Ex. 8 at 2. However, on July
23, 2024, OHS received notice that the seal on Split B’s tube was damaged in transit and therefore
the sample could not be re-tested to confirm the positive result. Ex. 4 at 21 (Federal Drug Testing
Custody and Control Form reflecting that the “[Split] B bottle had a broken seal and leaked in
transit” resulting in the test being cancelled); see also Ex. 8 at 2 (“[A laboratory] customer service
representative faxed a letter on 7/23/2024 at 2:59 pm . . . stating they received B bottle specimen .
. . for re[-]test on cocaine metabolite, but unfortunately, they were not able to perform the re[-]test
as the specimen had a broken seal and leaked in transit.”).
Accordingly, on July 23, 2024, the DOE contractor’s human resources department contacted the
Individual to schedule a “direct observation recollect.” Ex. 7 at 2. Eighteen days after the provision
of his original urine sample on July 11, 2024, the Individual submitted to another urine test under
direct observation on July 29, 2024, which yielded a negative result for drug use. Id.; Ex. 4 at 22;
Ex. 8 at 2. According to the Individual, when he was called in to take the second drug test, he was
not informed about the status of the original urine sample. Tr. at 48 (“They weren’t telling me
anything. Everything that I knew was from . . . rumors that everybody was telling me.”).
Regardless of the negative drug result, the Individual remained on suspension. Id. at 49. The
Individual maintains that he was never officially informed of the negative drug test result until
after the initiation of these proceedings. Id. at 59–60. Instead, according to the Individual’s
testimony, the Individual only heard rumors from other co-workers that the split sample had been
“tampered with[ ] or something like that.” Id. at 47. He had also been informed, via coworkers,
that his “second test was clean and that they had lost the sample [for] the first test, when they sent
it off” for re-testing. Id. at 60.
The Individual testified that he had not “knowingly or willingly use[d] cocaine or anything else”
leading up to the July 11, 2024, drug test. Id. at 56. When asked for an explanation, the Individual
speculated that an exercise supplement might have contributed to his positive drug result. Id. at 55
(Individual’s testimony explaining that friends at the gym “were giving [him] [ ] supplements”
which he believed were “creatines and stuff like that” but that he received them “in [clear] bags”
that were not “labeled”). He testified that he no longer associates with those gym friends and that
he plans on purchasing his own gym supplements from the store. Id. at 56. However, he was
ultimately “not sure that [cocaine] was in the[ ] [supplements] to begin with . . . .” Id.
- 6 -
Despite the spoilage of Split B of the July 11, 2024, urine sample, the SOMD/MRO explained that
the results of drug testing on Split B “should be the same” as the original results. Ex. 7 at 1. His
signed statement also recounted, “[i]n my experience, we have never had a split sample fail to
confirm the initial positive results, further underscoring the accuracy and reliability of the testing
process.” Id. Accordingly, the SOMD/MRO was “satisfied that [the Individual’s] initial positive
test establishes that he had cocaine metabolite in his system” and “that cocaine entered his system
within four days, or less, of his test on July 11, 2024.” Id. at 2. Regarding the negative drug test
result from the Individual’s July 29, 2024, result, the SOMD/MRO explained that “unless [the
Individual was] a habitual user . . . a test given 18 days after the first test” would “have a different
outcome . . . due to . . . [c]ocaine and its primary metabolite . . . hav[ing] a relatively short detection
window in urine, typically up to 2-4 days for occasional users and slightly longer for heavy users.”
Id. Last, the SOMD/MRO provided that “there are no known substances that cause false positives
for cocaine in federally certified drug testing” and that the “presence of cocaine metabolite in urine
is definitive evidence of use.” Id.
d. Individual’s Most Recent Drug Testing and Current Behavior
The Individual submitted two hair follicle tests from specimens collected in December 2024 and
March 2025, both reflecting a negative result for drug use over the 90 days preceding each test.6
Ex. A at 3; Ex. B at 5; Tr. at 51–52. When asked why he had not taken a hair follicle test
immediately after testing positive for cocaine, the Individual explained “[b]ecause [the DOE
contractor] said they didn’t accept them . . . .” Tr. at 61.
He testified that he does not associate with people who use drugs and that he disassociated with
known drug users in consideration of his job with the DOE contractor. Id. at 55–56 (“So, my
friends from the last two and a half years, since I started at [the DOE contractor], are not the same
people. I just did away with hanging around with, you know, different types of people, for the
same reason, to take care of my job.”). He also indicated that he does not currently frequent
establishments where drugs are used; however, he “used to hang around some places, back when
[he] was younger,” at “bars that . . . get busted for drugs on the boulevard.” Id. at 55. He testified
that he would not have any trouble signing a statement indicating his commitment to refrain from
all illegal drug use in the future. Id. at 56.
e. Other Testimony from Individual’s Witnesses
The Individual’s long-term partner (Partner) testified at the hearing. Id. at 10–11. She shared that
she and the Individual have been together for approximately twenty years and have multiple
generations of their family living in their household. Id. at 10–11, 22. She testified that the job
meant “everything to [the Individual]”; that the Individual was not a “partier[ ] or anything like
that”[;] and that the Individual “made sure to eliminate any possibility of anything costing him his
job.” Id. at 12. She recounted that he was “upset” having failed his drug test and in the nine months
since his suspension he has maintained that he had not used cocaine. Id. at 14. The Partner testified
6 The hair follicle test was completed by a Quest Diagnostics Laboratory whose website reflects that hair follicle tests
“detect a pattern of repetitive drug use for up to 90 days.” Quest Diagnostics, Hair Testing Advantages,
https://www.questdiagnostics.com/business-solutions/employers/drug-screening/products-services/hair-
testing/overview (last visited May 2, 2025).
- 7 -
that in the months leading up to the random test she had no reason to believe the Individual was
using illegal drugs. Id. at 17.
One of the Individual’s co-workers (Co-Worker) also testified at the hearing. Id. at 25–26. The
Co-Worker testified that he sees the Individual outside of work at monthly cookouts and at the
gym three to four times per week. Id. at 26–27. When asked, the Co-Worker indicated that he had
no reason to believe that illegal drugs would be at the cookouts. Id. He indicated that he had no
reason to believe that the Individual used drugs to remain alert for their shift at 6:00 a.m. Id. at 31.
In his testimony, the Co-Worker assessed that the Individual could be counted on; stated that he
had no reason to doubt his judgment, reliability, or honesty; and expressed he was “shocked” to
learn about the drug test results. Id. at 26, 32.
The Individual’s supervisor (Supervisor) also testified at the hearing. Id. at 36. The Individual’s
Supervisor testified that he had no reason to doubt the Individual’s judgment, reliability, or
honesty. Id. at 37. He also recalled being “shocked” when the Individual’s drug test returned
positive. Id. at 38. The Individual’s Supervisor shared that the Individual had speculated that the
result might have been caused by “taking some supplements . . . .” Id. at 40. During his nine-month
suspension, the Individual has maintained to his Supervisor that he had not used cocaine. Id. at 39.
V. ANALYSIS
a. Closing Statement
The Individual submitted a written closing statement. See Closing Statement. The Individual notes
that the record lacks the original test results reviewed by the SOMD/MRO. Id. at 1 (“[N]o such
actual test result is included in the record . . . There is no indicia of reliability that there was ever
a positive test . . . .”). The Individual also cites to 10 C.F.R. Part 707 (“Workplace Substance Abuse
Programs at DOE Sites”) and notes purported inconsistencies between the DOE contractor’s
testing procedures and the standards set forth by the Part 707 regulations. Id. For example, he notes
that the DOE contractor’s use of “chromatography/mass spectrometry” for the initial test of the
July 11, 2024, sample “would be contrary to the federal regulations” requiring “that ‘a confirmed
positive test for drugs shall consist of an initial test performed by the immunoassay method’” Id.
(quoting 10 C.F.R. § 707.13(a)) (emphasis in original).7 The Individual also claims that “there is
no Confirmed Positive Test” as defined by 10 C.F.R. § 707.4.8 Id. The Individual concludes that
“[w]ith everything put together, there is no basis for trusting a compromised test with no record of
even the initial (apparently incorrect) test.” Id. at 2.
Despite the lack of the original test results in the record, I find that there is sufficient information
in the record to corroborate the positive result. The SOMD/MRO signed a statement on a Federal
Drug Testing Custody and Control Form that verified that the results of the urine testing were
7 “A confirmed positive test for drugs shall consist of an initial test performed by the immunoassay method, with
positive results on that initial test confirmed by another test, performed by the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
method (GC/MS).” 10 C.F.R. § 707.13(a).
8 A “Confirmed Positive Test” means “a positive initial or screening test result, confirmed by another positive test on
the same sample.” 10 C.F.R. § 707.4.
- 8 -
positive for cocaine metabolite. Ex. 4 at 21. Furthermore, the SOMD/MRO also signed a written
statement that the Individual’s “results came back positive for cocaine metabolite . . .” and
explained that the testing method used, specifically “Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry[,]”
was the “gold standard for drug analysis” since it could identify and quantify the presence of a
substance to “an extremely high degree of accuracy, effectively eliminating the possibility of false
positives.” Ex. 7 at 1. The Individual, at the hearing, did not challenge the veracity of the positive
drug test result but instead attempted to provide an alternative explanation for the positive result:
that he perhaps accidentally ingested cocaine from an unmarked bag of supplements. The
Individual also failed to obtain a hair follicle drug test rebutting the July 2024 positive result
immediately after learning that he tested positive for cocaine metabolite. Furthermore, while an
original test result was not included in the record, the Individual, with the benefit of representation
of counsel at the outset of this administrative proceeding, had an opportunity to request subpoenas
for the original test result or to compel the testimony of the reviewing SOMD/MRO. See 10 C.F.R.
§§ 710.25(d), 710.26(a). Ultimately, the Individual requested neither. The argument that there is
no reliable evidence of a positive cocaine test is unpersuasive.
As for any purported inconsistency with the Part 707 regulations—including the Individual’s
claims that the initial test on the July 11, 2024, sample should not have been done with
chromatography-mass spectroscopy and that the positive result is invalidated by the fact that it was
not confirmed by another test on the same sample—those issues are inapposite in adjudicating this
matter. The Adjudicative Guidelines are clear that “testing positive for an illegal drug”—without
qualification—“could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying . . . .” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 25(b). The Individual tested positive for cocaine, and the security concern is
properly raised.
b. The Bond Amendment
The Bond Amendment provides that Federal agencies “may not grant or renew a security clearance
for a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict.” 50 U.S.C.
§ 3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security, Appendix C: Adjudicative
Considerations Related to Statutory Requirements and Departmental Requirements (June 10,
2022). The DOE policy implementing the Bond Amendment defines “an unlawful user of a
controlled substance” and an “addict” as follows:
a. An unlawful user of a controlled substance is any person who uses a controlled
substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the
controlled substance or who is a current user of the controlled substance in a manner
other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use
of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather
that the unlawful use occurred recently enough to indicate the individual is actively
engaged in such conduct.
b. An addict of a controlled substance is as defined in 21 U.S.C § 802(1), which is any
individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public
morals, health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs
as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his or her addiction.
- 9 -
DOE Order 472.2A, Appendix C at ¶ 2 (citing the Bond Amendment).
The Individual is not an “unlawful user” or an “addict” of a controlled substance, as defined by
the DOE’s Bond Amendment policy. The Individual admits that he used cocaine once in 2013,
and the Individual tested positive for cocaine metabolite once from a July 11, 2024, sample of
urine. However, his July 29, 2024, sample of urine tested negative for cocaine metabolite,
suggesting to the SOMD/MRO that the Individual is not a habitual user. Furthermore, his most
recent hair follicle tests from December 2024 and March 2025 indicate that he has not used drugs
within 90 days of each test—effectively representing abstention from cocaine from September
2024 to March 2024, or six months. Accordingly, it appears that he is not currently using illegal
drugs. The LSO did not allege, and there is no evidence to support a finding, that the Individual is
addicted to cocaine. Therefore, I find that the Bond Amendment does not bar the DOE from
granting the Individual a security clearance.
c. Guideline H Considerations
While I find that the Bond Amendment does not bar the restoration of his security clearance, my
doubts as to the Individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness are unmitigated by the six-
month period of abstinence from cocaine use. In particular, the Individual admitted to using
cocaine in 2013 while in a job that regularly drug tested and without regard to the risk to his
continued employment. That admission—in conjunction with (1) the Individual’s positive drug
result for cocaine metabolite in 2024 and (2) the SOMD/MRO’s statements regarding the
reliability of the drug test—calls into question the Individual’s honesty and willingness to comply
with laws, rules, and regulations. As explained more thoroughly below, those concerns are not
mitigated.
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on drug involvement and substance misuse
include the following:
(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;
- 10 -
(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.
Regarding Paragraph 26(a), I cannot find that the behavior happened so long ago when the
Individual tested positive for cocaine metabolite in July 2024, which was less than a year ago. I
also cannot make specific findings as to the circumstances surrounding his cocaine use—as the
Individual generally denies any purposeful use of cocaine leading up to the collection of his urine
sample in July 2024. However, regarding frequency, I can infer that he is not a habitual cocaine
user given his prior history of random testing which never yielded a positive result. Even if his
cocaine use were infrequent, he admitted to using cocaine in 2013, several years into an
employment position that regularly drug tested. Despite knowing he could lose his employment,
the risk provided no deterrent when he made that choice. His testimony about the 2013 cocaine
use, combined with the recent positive drug test in July 2024, strongly insinuates a disregard for
laws, rules, and regulations and casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and
judgment. Paragraph 26(a) does not apply.
Regarding Paragraph 26(b), the Individual has submitted hair follicle tests demonstrating
abstinence from cocaine. Furthermore, testimony from the Individual and his witnesses reflects
that he does not associate with drug users or frequent places where drugs are used. However, the
Individual has not signed a statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance
misuse. Furthermore, the Individual, in large part, does not acknowledge his drug use—instead
offering alternative explanations for why cocaine would be in his system and attacking the veracity
of the drug test in his Closing Statement. Paragraph 26(b) does not apply.
Lastly, since the concerns are not based on abuse of prescription drugs, Paragraph 26(c) is patently
inapplicable, and Paragraph 26(d) is inapplicable because the Individual did not enroll in or
complete a drug treatment program.
Having concluded that the Individual has not established the applicability of any of the mitigating
conditions, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline H.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked the Bond Amendment
and Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, 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 Bond Amendment does not bar the DOE
from restoring the Individual’s security clearance. However, I find that the Individual has not
brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline H concerns set forth in the SSC.
- 11 -
Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national
interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This
Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals