Case No. VSA-0087, 26 DOE ¶ 83,016 (OHA Sept 30, 1996)

For full history of this case, and links to other cases, click here.

* 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 XXXXX's.

September 30, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Opinion of the Director

Case Name: Personnel Security Review

Date of Filing: August 16, 1996

Case Number: VSA-0087

This determination considers a Request for Review filed by the Director, Office of Safeguards and Security (OSS), Department of Energy (DOE), concerning the eligibility of XXXXX (hereinafter "the individual") to retain an access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material."<1>The individual's access authorization was suspended at the direction of the Manager of the Department of Energy's XXXXX Operations Office (DOE/XXXXX) under the provisions of Part 710. The individual requested administrative review of this action before a Hearing Officer, and on July 11, 1996, the Hearing Officer assigned by the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an Opinion that the individual's access authorization should be restored. On August 16, 1996, the OSS filed a Request for Review of the Hearing Officer's Opinion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28. The request included a statement of the issues to be reviewed. On September 10, 1996, the individual filed a response to the Statement of Issues. On September 13, 1996, the OSS submitted a reply to the response. This Opinion considers the issues raised by these filings.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 15, 1995, the DOE requested that the individual submit to a random urine screening test. It is uncontested that the individual's urine tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids.<2>

A DOE personnel security specialist conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) with the individual in which he was questioned about the positive drug test result. The individual denied that he had ever used marijuana. He stated that when he was informed that he had tested positive for marijuana, he could not believe it, and arranged to have another test performed. When he learned that the result of this second test was also positive, he "was absolutely floored." After thinking over his activities with his wife's help, he arrived at the explanation he offered during the PSI: that after consuming a considerable quantity of beer on the evening of September 12, 1995, he accompanied his wife to a party at an unknown location, where he consumed more beer and ate at least two cookies. These cookies were identified as "cool cookies" and were offered to him by an unknown man under conditions which the individual, in hindsight and sobriety, regarded as suspicious. He further stated that he could not conceive of any other way in which the marijuana could have entered his body.

Since this interview did not resolve DOE/XXXXX's concerns, the Manager of DOE/XXXXX suspended the individual's access authorization, and subsequently obtained authorization from the Director of the Office of Safeguards and Security to initiate an administrative review proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.9. The administrative review process was commenced by the issuance of a letter which notified the individual that information possessed by the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for access authorization (Notification Letter). The Notification Letter specified three areas of derogatory information described in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. First, under Criterion F (10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f)), DOE/XXXXX alleged that twice during the PSI the individual denied ever using marijuana and that his "responses in the interview regarding [his] denial of the use of marijuana and including a detailed, fabricated scenario regarding the way the marijuana entered into [his] system are viewed as falsification." Notification Letter at 3.

Second, the Notification Letter presented allegations under Criterion K (10 C.F.R. § 710.8(k)). DOE/XXXXX charged that the individual had "trafficked in, sold, transferred, possessed, used or experimented with a drug or other substance listed in the Schedule of Controlled Substances established pursuant to Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970." The DOE/XXXXX stated that the individual tested positive for marijuana in the September 15, 1995 drug screen urinalysis test and that the XXXXX Occupational Medical Program's Medical Review Officer, Dr. XXXXX, had determined that the individual had used marijuana.

Third, the DOE/XXXXX charged under Criterion L (10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l)) that the individual has "engaged in unusual conduct or is subject to circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests of the national security." In support of that charge, DOE/XXXXX noted three closely related concerns: that the individual had tested positive for marijuana use, which is an illegal activity; that he chose to use an illegal substance even though he understood the DOE's policies of random urine testing and intolerance of drug use, which tends to indicate that he is not honest or trustworthy; and that he attempted to conceal his use of marijuana during the PSI, which tends to show that he "may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which could cause [him] to act contrary to the best interests of the national security."

At the hearing, the DOE presented two witnesses, a DOE/XXXXX personnel security specialist, and Dr. XXXXX. The individual testified on his own behalf and called as witnesses two of his supervisors.

II. The Hearing Officer's Opinion

A. Criterion K

In his Opinion, the Hearing Officer found that in view of the individual's uncontroverted positive drug test, the sole issue to be considered under Criterion K was whether the circumstances surrounding the individual's use of marijuana mitigated the DOE's security concerns to such a degree that the individual's access authorization should not be revoked.

The Hearing Officer then proceeded to describe the individual's testimony as to how the positive drug test came about:

At the hearing, the Individual again related his story: that after drinking at least four pitchers of beer at a bar with his wife, he and his wife were invited to a private party in a rural area north of XXXXX. His wife drove because he knew he had already drunk too much. He did not know the location of the party, the host, or any of the guests. At one point during the evening, ten men were standing outside around a beer keg, when one of them offered the "cool cookies" to the Individual from a plastic bag. All the other partygoers, including his wife, had moved inside. The cookies tasted like applesauce cookies, and were the only food other than beer he consumed at the party. He asserts that the only way in which marijuana could have entered his system is by his eating the "cool cookies." He also asserts that he had no knowledge or suspicion at the time he ate the cookies that they might have contained marijuana. Tr. at 34-41; PSI Tr. at 7-10, 17, 20. After he received the results of his second urinalysis test, the Individual and his wife attempted to locate the site of the party and individuals who attended the party. At the hearing, the Individual testified that they spent a Sunday driving around the area where the party occurred but failed to identify any familiar landmarks. He stated that he hoped he would be able to find the individual who offered the cookies and convince him to "come forward and clear [me]. I don't think he'd do it but I still tried anyway." PSI Tr. at 11.

Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0087), 25 DOE ¶ 82,808 (1996).

The Hearing Officer pointed out that a critical issue in this case was whether the individual's explanation of his marijuana use is credible. He then concluded that "the Individual's testimony on this issue is credible, that there is no evidence contradicting his testimony of how he ingested marijuana, and that therefore I believe that his explanation for his positive drug test is truthful."

While noting that the personnel security specialist who interviewed the individual did not find him credible, the Hearing Officer found the individual to be entirely candid in responding to the questions posed by the DOE/XXXXX counsel, unwavering in his responses and straightforward in admitting what he did and did not know. The Hearing Officer stated that he did not observe any verbal or non-verbal behavior indicating that the individual was attempting to falsify, confuse, or hedge in his testimony. He therefore concluded that the individual was forthright during the hearing. The Hearing Officer further found unconvincing the testimony of Dr. XXXXX, who appeared to suggest that the individual's test levels were sufficiently high to cause him to believe that the individual may have used marijuana on one or more occasions after the September 12 incident. He concluded that the individual was telling the truth.

Having found that the individual's testimony was credible, and that his explanation of how he ingested marijuana before the random drug test was truthful, the Hearing Officer then considered what effect the individual's actions should have on the allegations under Criterion K. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). The Hearing Officer took into consideration the fact that the evidence against the individual in this case, even at its most detrimental, established only one drug incident within the past 12 months. He then pointed to what he deemed the "absolutely critical" factor in this case, the finding that "the Individual did not knowingly or voluntarily use marijuana." Based on his determination that the use of marijuana was not willful and that the individual took steps to curtail his drinking, the Hearing Officer concluded that the drug use should not recur. He therefore found that the individual had mitigated the DOE/XXXXX's security concerns with regard to Criterion K.

B. Criterion F

Under this criterion, DOE/XXXXX's security concerns rest on the opinion of the personnel security specialist that the individual intentionally falsified information during the PSI. The first alleged falsification occurred when, on two distinct occasions during the PSI, the individual stated unconditionally that he had never used marijuana. DOE/XXXXX's position was that such a denial must be false in light of the positive drug test result. The Hearing Officer found the only logical reading of the individual's responses was that he intended to say that he had never used marijuana at any time other than the incident under discussion and that he had never knowingly and intentionally used marijuana. The Hearing Officer found no evidence in the record that the individual had ever used marijuana or any other illegal substances prior to this incident. Consequently, because he believed the individual's explanation of the incident, he found that his contemporaneous denials of drug use in the PSI did not constitute deliberately falsified statements under Criterion F.

The second basis for the Criterion F allegation of the DOE/XXXXX was that the explanation the individual provided during the PSI of how he unknowingly ingested marijuana before his random drug test was a "detailed, fabricated scenario." Because the Hearing Officer found in connection with his deliberations regarding Criterion K, that the individual's explanation was truthful, he concluded that there was no factual support for the DOE/XXXXX's allegations under Criterion F. Accordingly, he found that the individual did not falsify any information he provided to DOE/XXXXX during the PSI regarding the marijuana incident.

C. Criterion L

Criterion L refers to information that an individual has "[e]ngaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests of the national security." 10 C.F.R. 710.8(l).

In the Notification Letter, DOE/XXXXX specified three security concerns to support its charge that the individual's behavior falls within the scope of Criterion L: that the use of marijuana is an illegal activity; that using marijuana with the knowledge that he was subject to random testing and that the DOE does not tolerate its use tends to indicate that he is not honest or trustworthy; and that denying ever using marijuana indicates that he "may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which could cause [him] to act contrary to the best interests of the national security."

The Hearing officer found that because the drug use occurred only once, and unintentionally, the first two security concerns were mitigated. He stated that the individual clearly did not intend to engage in an illegal activity. The Hearing Officer found with respect to the third concern that the individual's unconditional denials of marijuana use during the PSI could not be construed logically to include a denial of the use on September 12, 1995, when those denials were made in the context of a discussion concerning his ingestion of marijuana on that evening. He also noted no evidence was presented that would indicate his use of marijuana at any other time or his desire to conceal such use. Accordingly, he found that the individual had mitigated the DOE/XXXXX's security concerns with regard to Criterion L as expressed in the Notification Letter.

Finally, the Hearing Officer expressed his opinion the individual exercised extremely poor judgment when he permitted himself to drink alcohol to such an extent that he was no longer able to discern a suspicious offer from a sincere one. The Hearing Officer agreed with the concern expressed at the hearing by the security specialist to the effect that a person who places himself in compromising situations raises questions of reliability about himself. However, the Hearing Officer was convinced that the three-month group therapy outpatient program completed by the individual was sufficient to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of the circumstances under which he exercised the poor judgment that caused him, however unintentionally, to use marijuana. Consequently, the Hearing Officer found that the individual mitigated concerns under Criterion L.

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Hearing Officer recommended restoration of the individual's access authorization.

III. Statement of Issues and Response

In the Statement of Issues, the OSS disagrees with the Hearing Officer's recommendation. OSS contends that the individual's account of how he came to ingest marijuana is unsupported and not credible. OSS also objects to the Hearing Officer's rejection of Dr. XXXXX's testimony that the elevated levels of THC in the individual's urine test indicated that he must have used marijuana after the date of the party.

In a Response to the OSS Statement of Issues, the individual asserts that the DOE/XXXXX failed to produce any convincing evidence contradicting his own explanation of the marijuana ingestion. The individual essentially reasserts that Dr. XXXXX's testimony did not establish that he had ingested marijuana after the date of the party. He also points to written evidence offered in the record from a forensic toxicologist to the effect that it is entirely possible to have a positive drug test result from oral ingestion of marijuana.<3>

The individual and the OSS do not offer any significant new facts to support their respective positions.

IV. Standard of Review

As a general rule, findings of fact in these types of cases will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the fact that the trier of fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses. Compare, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (Pullman) with Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 223 (1988)(Amadeo), quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). See also, Helen Gaidine Oglesbee v. Westinghouse Hanford Company, 25 DOE ¶ 89,001 (1995). Findings not supported by substantial evidence are taken to be clearly erroneous. Freeport Sulphur Co. v. S/S Hermosa, 526 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1976). Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988). A finding is considered clearly erroneous, when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. U.S. v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

In personnel security cases under Part 710, it is the role of the Hearing Officer to issue an Opinion as to whether granting an access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). Thus, in reviewing the Hearing Officer's Opinion in this case, I must assess whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding that granting an access authorization to this individual would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.

After reviewing the entire record in this case, I find that it does not contain substantial evidence that restoring this individual's access authorization would be clearly consistent with the national interest. In particular, the key finding of the Hearing Officer, that the events surrounding the individual's ingestion of marijuana took place as the individual alleged, is not supported by substantial evidence.

In order to frame my discussion of how I reached that conclusion, I believe that it will be useful to discuss briefly the individual's responsibility to bring forth persuasive evidence concerning his eligibility for access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. It is important to bear in mind that a DOE administrative review proceeding under this Part is not a criminal matter, where the government would have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This proceeding is also unlike a civil case, in which in order to prevail a plaintiff must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The standard in this proceeding, which places the burden of proof on the individual, is designed to protect national security interests. The hearing is "for the purpose of affording the individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization." 10 C.F.R. §710.21(b)(6). The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that restoring his access authorization "would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. §710.27(d). Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0061), 25 DOE ¶ 82,791 (1996).

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)(Egan). Consequently, we generally expect the individual in these cases to bring forward testimonial and other evidence in addition to his own testimony which, taken together, are sufficient to persuade the Hearing Officer that restoring his access authorization is clearly consistent with the national interest. Personnel Security Hearing (VSO-0002), 24 DOE ¶ 82,752 (1995).

It is during the administrative review process that the individual has a full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization, and to convince the hearing officer that "the grant or restoration of access authorization to the individual would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.21(b)(6), 710.27(a), (d).

In fact, hearing officers have been willing to make significant accommodations to individuals involved in an administrative review of their eligibility for access authorization, to ensure that the opportunity to present evidence is meaningful. For example, in previous cases, hearing officers have held open the record beyond the hearing date in order to allow an individual to gather and present important additional information. E.g., Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0084), 26 DOE ¶ 82,754 (1996) (record held open to allow the individual an opportunity to submit to and furnish the results of a second polygraph examination); Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0032), 25 DOE ¶ 82,765 (1995)(record held open to permit the individual to submit a transcript of a court proceeding), aff'd, Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA-0032), 25 DOE ¶ 83,004 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0014), 25 DOE ¶ 82,755 (1995)(record held open to allow the individual to take a post-hearing deposition of his treating psychiatrist), aff'd, Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA-0014), 25 DOE ¶ 83,002 (1995). In another instance, a hearing was temporarily postponed to accommodate the schedules of the individual's psychologist and his attorney. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0024), dismissed on other grounds (May 11, 1995).

Further, the regulations at Part 710 are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R. § 710.26(h). Thus, by regulation and through our own case law, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate security concerns.

Once a security concern is raised by the DOE, it is incumbent upon the individual to resolve the concern. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0084), 26 DOE ¶ 82,754 (1996)(individual failed to meet his burden of coming forward with evidence to show that he was rehabilitated and that his exhibitionism and voyeurism were unlikely to recur.) In cases where there is evidence of a positive drug test, an affected individual must provide convincing evidence mitigating the security concern related to illegal drug use. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0051), 25 DOE ¶ 82,784 (1995), aff'd Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA- 0051), 25 DOE ¶ 83,012 (1996) (individual failed to show that passive inhalation of marijuana smoke at a night club caused his positive drug test); Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO- 0019), 25 DOE ¶ 82,759 (1995). In other words, an individual who has had a positive drug test has the burden to show that maintaining his access authorization is clearly in the national interest. It is therefore the obligation of the individual to offer an explanation for the positive drug test, establish the truthfulness of the explanation, and demonstrate that the explanation mitigates the DOE's security concerns.<4>With these considerations in mind, I turn to the evidence in this case and the Opinion at hand.

V. Analysis

With respect to security concerns related to Criterion K, the Hearing Officer's Opinion is based on the following logic. He found that the individual's testimony on the issue of how he ingested marijuana was credible and that there was no evidence contradicting this testimony. He therefore concluded that the individual's explanation for the positive drug test truthful.

I am mindful of the Hearing Officer's explicit finding that the individual's testimony was credible and that he based this finding on his observation of the individual, on his demeanor at the hearing, and on his overall unwavering testimony. Given the fact that the Hearing Officer alone was in the position to view the individual and assess his demeanor, I will not substitute my judgment for his on this point.

However, even giving due credence to that determination, I still find the conclusion in this case to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. As stated above, the Hearing Officer found the "absolutely critical" factor in this case was that "the individual did not knowingly or voluntarily use marijuana." I do not find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support such a conclusion.

Certainly, the individual testified to this effect. However, the individual has a significant incentive and interest here in seeking to continue his access authorization and therefore in maintaining that his ingestion of marijuana was involuntary. Consequently, I believe that the individual's description of these alleged events alone is inadequate. See Amadeo, 486 U.S. at 226. Absent some other supporting evidence from a more objective party, the Hearing Officer's conclusion that enough evidence had been shown to demonstrate that the events asserted by the individual were factual was not supported by substantial evidence. Even admitting that the individual's story is a conceivable one, more is required than mere possibility. Evidence independent of the individual's own testimony is necessary if we are to find that it outweighs the presence of a positive drug test. In this case, the individual brought forward no appropriate, adequate corroborating evidence that the mitigating events, as alleged, actually occurred. See, Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA-0051), 25 DOE ¶ 83,012 (1996).

The individual failed at the hearing to provide objective corroborating evidence that any aspect of the story he offered to mitigate the security concerns was true. The record is devoid of corroborating evidence as to the location of the party, who was in attendance, and how much the individual had drunk prior to the party. In fact, the individual did not even provide evidence that a party took place.

I recognize the individual's position, which is that due to the nature of the events involved, it is difficult to obtain some of this information. The Hearing Officer seemed to accept and rely on that position. In fact, some relevant, corroborative evidence was clearly within the knowledge and the control of the individual to present. It certainly seems to have been possible for the individual to present his wife, who could testify about the party itself, and about their attempts to locate the site of the party. The individual might also have brought forth the bartender who served him the drinks that evening, and others who observed his drinking, to testify as to how much beer the individual drank, and as to the degree of his inebriation. This testimony could also have provided evidence as to whether a group of people, as described by the individual, went off together during that evening, as to the identity of those persons, and as to their destination.

I cannot say whether such testimony would have provided adequate corroborating evidence, or sufficiently establish that the individual had mitigated security concerns. See Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0051), 25 DOE at 85,737; Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA-0051), 25 DOE ¶ 83,012 at 86,560-61. However, the individual's apparent position that he could not provide supporting evidence does not withstand scrutiny. The finding that the individual's testimony was credible and unrebutted is simply not enough evidence in this case to establish the truthfulness of the version of the events that the individual has offered to show mitigation.<5>

Given the above considerations, the arguments raised by the individual in his Response to the OSS Statement of Issues carry little if any weight. The individual seems to believe that the DOE/XXXXX has failed to produce any convincing evidence to contradict his own explanation of how he came to ingest the marijuana, and that in the absence of such rebuttal evidence, his access authorization must be restored. This position misses the obvious point, discussed above, that it is the burden of the individual to establish that restoration of his access authorization would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. For this purpose, he must provide objective corroborating evidence that the story he has offered to mitigate the security concerns is true. In this regard, the toxicologist's statement, introduced into evidence by the individual, to the effect that it is possible to have a positive drug test from oral ingestion of marijuana does not meaningfully support the individual's case here. The burden remains upon the individual to demonstrate that involuntary oral ingestion of marijuana caused his positive drug test. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSA-0051), 25 DOE ¶ 83,012 (1996). As I found above, the individual did not bring forward sufficient evidence to support the mitigating circumstances he alleged.

In sum, the demeanor of a witness is certainly to be considered when assessing his overall credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence he provides. Indeed, the regulations under Part 710 specifically provide that demeanor evidence shall be taken into account. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(b). However, I believe that in this case the Hearing Officer gave the demeanor factor and the individual's testimony itself inappropriate weight. At the same time, he failed to give due consideration to another provision in that same subsection: a hearing officer must consider the lack of evidence on any material points in issue. In this regard, testimony of an individual describing events that tend to minimize the seriousness of a security concern, given his or her self interest, must be accompanied by other supporting evidence. The individual's mere say-so as to allegations that minimize the

security concern cannot form a sufficient basis for restoration of a security clearance. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0094), 26 DOE ¶ 82,753 (1996).

As is evident from my discussion above, I find the record, when viewed as a whole, lacks sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the individual has mitigated the DOE security concerns with respect to Criterion K. I reach the same conclusion with respect to the DOE's security concerns under Criteria F and L.

VI. CONCLUSION

As indicated by the foregoing, it is my opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(d).

The regulations specify that within 30 days of receipt of this opinion, the Director, Office of Security Affairs, will make a final determination regarding restoration of the individual's access authorization based upon a complete review of the record. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(e). The Director, Office of Security Affairs, shall through the Director, Office of Safeguards and Security, inform the individual and his counsel in writing of the final determination, and provide a copy of the present opinion. Copies of the correspondence shall be provided to the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Manager, DOE Counsel and any other party. In the event of an adverse determination, the correspondence shall indicate finding by the Director, Office of Security Affairs, with respect to each allegation contained in the Notification Letter. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(f).

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date:

* * * * *

[On October 25, 1996, a final determination was made by the Director, Office of Security Affairs, to revoke the individual's Department of Energy access authorization.]

<1>1/ An "access authorization" is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will be referred to variously in this Opinion as access authorization or security clearance.

<2>2/ Cannabinoids are the psychoactive substances found in the common hemp plant, Cannabis sativa (marijuana). The primary psychoactive cannabinoid is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The presence of cannabinoids in a urine sample indicates with high probability that the individual has ingested marijuana or other THC-containing substances.

<3>3/ In its September 13, 1996 Reply, the OSS simply states that it has no further comments in this case.

<4>4/ Another possible method for mitigating security concerns related to drug use would, of course, be to allege rehabilitation. This method would also require appropriate factual support by the individual. Similarly, an allegation that the drug test itself was for some reason erroneous must be supported by credible evidence. See Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0019), 25 DOE ¶ 82,759 (1995), request for review dismissed, Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA-0019), December 4, 1995.

<5>5/ Of course, even if I found that the mitigating circumstances alleged by the individual were true, I would still review whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding that the events mitigated the security concerns. I need not reach that issue in this case.