Case No. VSO-0085, 26 DOE ¶ 82,751 (H. O. Lazarus July 29, 1996)

Case No. VSO-0085, 26 DOE ¶ 82,751 (H. O. Lazarus July 29, 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.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer's Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing: March 8, 1996

Case Number: VSO-0085

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Opinion considers the continued eligibility of XXXXX ("the individual") to hold a level "Q" 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." As explained below, the Department of Energy's XXXXX Operations Office ("DOE/XXXXX") suspended the individual's access authorization. It is my opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored.

It is uncontested that the individual used illegal drugs and violated a DOE Drug Certification. Because of security concerns raised by these actions, DOE/XXXXX suspended the individual's access authorization. The individual requested a Hearing to contest this suspension.

Because of the importance of national security, there is a strong presumption against restoring a security clearance. The individual has the burden of proving facts and circumstances which would mitigate the agency's concerns. See Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 82,778 (1996). In order to prevail at the Hearing, the individual was required to come forward with strong evidence 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).

As detailed below, at the Hearing the individual presented testimony and documentary evidence that 1) the use of cocaine was an isolated occurrence; 2) there were extenuating circumstances

surrounding this drug use; and 3) he has been rehabilitated. If true, these circumstances would mitigate some of the security concerns associated with his conduct. However, the individual has failed to meet his burden of proof.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 26, 1996, DOE/XXXXX issued a Notification Letter to the individual that suspended his "Q" access authorization on the grounds that DOE possessed derogatory information that created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for access authorization under 10 C.F.R. §710.8(k) and (l). <1> The Notification Letter alleged that the individual used illegal drugs and violated a DOE Drug Certification.

On February 27, 1996, the individual requested a Hearing regarding his access authorization. A Hearing was held before the undersigned Hearing Officer on XXXXXXXXXXXX. The Hearing was concluded during a telephone conference on XXXXXXXXXXXX.

At the Hearing, DOE/XXXXX presented the testimony of the individual, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the Acting Human Resources Manager at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and a DOE security specialist. The individual presented XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Ed.D., a psychologist who is the team leader of the Employee Assistance Program at the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, two of the individual's supervisors, an employment specialist at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and the individual's girlfriend.

III. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER

In the Notification Letter, DOE/XXXXX alleges the following concerning the individual's illegal drug usage :

A. During a personnel security interview ("PSI") conducted on January 31, 1996, the individual admitted to ingesting one spoonful of cocaine on January 20, 1996.

B. The individual tested positive for cocaine during a periodic drug screen on January 22, 1996.

C. During a PSI conducted on August 10, 1993, the individual acknowledged:

Using marijuana ten times from 1977 to 1980 .

Using cocaine four to five times, with the last use in 1979.

Using LSD one time in 1978.

In the Notification Letter, DOE/XXXXX alleges the following concerning the individual's lack of honesty, reliability, trustworthiness or susceptibility to coercion:

During an August 10, 1993 PSI, the individual promised to remain drug free by signing a DOE Drug Certification form. The individual violated the Drug Certification on January 20, 1996, when he used cocaine.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT

The individual does not dispute the factual allegations contained in the Notification Letter. The individual admits that he used a variety of illegal drugs before 1980. He further admits that he used cocaine on January 20, 1996, and tested positive for this drug on a scheduled drug test on January 22, 1996. The individual admits that he was aware of the scheduled drug test before he used the cocaine. The individual also admits that he violated a DOE Drug Certification by using cocaine on January 20, 1996.

In this case, the only facts to be resolved relate to the circumstances surrounding the individual's use of illegal drugs and violation of the Drug Certification.

A. Background

The individual has been employed by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX since April 13, 1992. Transcript of Hearing at 21 (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) ("Transcript"). The individual is a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. In this position, the individual manages a large number of workers. The individual is responsible for completing XXXXXXXXXXXX projects in a timely manner and within budget. Transcript at 22-24. It is uncontested that the individual is an excellent manager. He is dedicated, hardworking, and enthusiastic. Transcript at 198, 207.

The individual's supervisors testified that the individual never exhibited any indication of substance abuse during working hours. They further stated that they believed the individual to be honest and were not aware of the individual's violating any security regulations. Transcript at 200, 202, 209 - 211.

B. Prior Drug Use and the Drug Certification

The individual used marijuana (ten times), cocaine (four to five times) and LSD (one time) before 1980. Most of this drug use occurred while the individual was in high school. Transcript at 25- 27. DOE was aware of the individual's past drug use when his initial clearance was granted in 1993. Transcript at 112. At that time, DOE granted the individual a security clearance because the individual stated that he no longer used drugs and signed a Drug Certification. Transcript at 112-114, 126.

The Drug Certification signed by the individual provides, in relevant part:

I have been told that the Department of Energy (DOE) does not allow the use . . . of illegal drugs . . . by people whose job requires access to . . . classified information . . . .

I agree that I will not . . . use . . . illegal drugs . . . at any time, in any country, in any job in which I have been given a DOE access authorization or security clearance . . . .

I understand that if I break this agreement even once, I may lose my DOE access authorization or security clearance. I also understand that if I lose my DOE access authorization or security clearance, I may lose my job.

DOE Exhibit 10. A personnel security specialist verbally explained the significance of the Drug Certification to the individual at the time that it was signed. She told the individual about the DOE policy of total non-involvement with drugs and that the individual could lose his DOE authorization as a result of a single use of drugs. Transcript at 123-126; Exhibit 4 at 32-38.

The individual testified that he had not used illegal drugs between 1980 and January 20, 1996. Transcript at 31. The individual's girlfriend testified that she had never known him to use illegal drugs. Transcript at 242. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX tested the individual for illegal drugs on four occasions from the time that he signed the Drug Certification until January 20, 1996. The individual was always given advance notice of these tests. The results of these drug tests were negative. Transcript at 95-96.

C. The January 1996 Use of Cocaine and Drug Test

On January 17 or 18, 1996, the individual received notice that he was scheduled for a drug test on January 22, 1996. Transcript at 38. The individual believes that he recorded the drug test on his calendar. Transcript at 38, 40, 64-65.

On January 20, 1996, the individual went out for "cocktails" and dinner with his girlfriend. Transcript at 68, 240. During this time, the individual drank between two and six beers. Transcript at 33, 243. At 10:00 p.m., the individual and his girlfriend decided to drop in at an acquaintance's house. There were between five and seven people at the house. Transcript at 33-34, 73, 245.

The individual admits that he used cocaine that night. The individual has recited three versions of the specific circumstances surrounding this drug use.<2>

The individual tested positive for cocaine on the drug test administered on January 22, 1996. Exhibit 9.<3>

D. The Individual's Psychological Assessments

When the individual was informed that he failed the drug test, he became very upset. He was fearful that he would lose his security clearance and his job. He contacted the Human Resources Manager at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to ascertain the steps that could be taken to retain his clearance. Transcript at 43-44.

The individual was referred to Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the team leader of the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The individual told Dr. XXXXXXXX that he needed psychological and psychiatric data to support his position that he was not a drug user. Dr. XXXXXXXX told the individual that the EAP would provide psychological testing and a psychiatric evaluation and provide an opinion as to whether the individual was a typical drug user. Transcript at 154-155.

Dr. XXXXXXXX performed an initial diagnostic interview including a computer-based social history and a mental status exam. He also administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory. He referred the individual to Drs. XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for psychiatric evaluations, and to XXXXXXXXXXXX, an alcohol and drug counselor, for counseling. Transcript at 152-166, 171.<4>

1. Dr. XXXXXXXX

The individual told Dr. XXXXXXXX that he was not a drug user and that the recent use of cocaine was an isolated event and a terrible mistake. Exhibit 19 at 1. Dr. XXXXXXXX believes that the individual used cocaine in January of 1996 when the drug was being passed around the room at a party. Transcript at 167, 170 , 178-179. Dr. XXXXXXXX explains the individual's recent drug use by stating that he lost impulse control. He explains the loss of impulse control on the individual's desire to conform to the group and on the frivolity of the party. Transcript at 184.

Dr. XXXXXXXX testified that he found no evidence that the individual had a substance abuse problem. <5>Dr. XXXXXXXX does not believe that the individual suffers from a mental illness or is a threat to national security. Dr. XXXXXXXX further indicated that he does not believe that the individual has impaired judgment, although "as a psychologist he cannot speak absolutely about judgment." Transcript at 183-185. However, in response to a question from the Hearing Officer, Dr. XXXXXXXX indicated that the individual's drug usage on January 20, 1996, when he was aware of the drug test scheduled for January 22, 1996, showed a significant defect in judgment. However, Dr. XXXXXXXX does not believe that this lack of judgment renders the individual a security risk because the individual does not appear to have a pattern of such behavior. Transcript at 188-189.

2. Dr. XXXXX

On February 9, 1996, Dr. XXXXX interviewed the individual. The individual told Dr. XXXXX that he had recently tested positive for cocaine. The individual further indicated that he had used cocaine when the drug was being passed around at a party. The individual acknowledged his stupidity and expressed concern that this drug use might result in the loss of his security clearance and his job. Exhibit D.

According to his notes, Dr. XXXXX diagnosed the individual as having an adjustment disorder with mixed features, mild and situational. According to Dr. XXXXXXXX, this diagnosis reflects the individual's concern about the suspension of his security clearance. Transcript at 164.

Dr. XXXXX's notes did not contain a diagnosis of substance abuse. Dr. XXXXX found the individual fit for duty and believed that he was not a security risk. He recommended that the individual's "Q" clearance be restored. He also recommended that the individual complete a rehabilitation program and have supportive EAP follow-up. Exhibit D; Transcript at 164-166.

3. Dr. XXXXXXX

Dr. XXXXXXX saw the individual on March 26, 1996. The individual told him that he was seeking a "second opinion"concerning his drug use. He indicated that he had recently tested positive for cocaine and was "preoccupied" by the fear of losing his "Q" clearance and his position with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Exhibit 17 at 1-2.

Dr. XXXXXXXX diagnosed the individual as "cocaine abuse, single event." Dr. XXXXXXXX concluded that the individual did not appear to have a substance abuse disorder. Dr. XXXXXXXX indicates that this diagnosis is based entirely on the presumed accuracy to the information received from the patient. Dr. XXXXXXXX further indicates that if the individual should ??use again," and "test positive" at work, that would "indicate significant addiction, and appropriate referral for treatment would be recommended." Dr. XXXXXXXX notes that "The patient openly admits that he was aware that a random [sic] drug screen was going to be obtained . . . but didn't think that the cocaine would be detected." Exhibit 17 at 3.

E. The Individual's Rehabilitation Program

As a condition of being permitted to continue his employment with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the individual participated in an outpatient rehabilitation program. The individual began the program on February 8, 1996. The program requires participation in 90 meetings of Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous within 90 days. The program also involves meeting with a counselor, full abstinence from drugs and alcohol with random periodic tests for one year. Exhibit A.

The individual completed that portion of the program which required him to participate in 90 meetings of Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous within 90 days and to meet with a counselor. However, the individual has not completed the program because he has not yet had a full year of negative drug screens. Transcript at 218.

F. The DOE's Security Concerns

The DOE personnel security specialist, testified that the individual's use of cocaine was a security concern for two reasons. First, the use of illegal drugs is a crime. The security specialist expressed the agency's concern that if an individual violates a criminal statute, it increases the likelihood that this individual would violate a security regulation. Second, the use of cocaine indicates a lack of judgment and reliability. Transcript at 111-112.

Based on her training, the security specialist testified that when an individual has advance notice of a drug test, and tests positive on this test, it may indicate that the individual is a regular user of drugs. Transcript at 117.

The security specialist further testified that the individual's violation of the Drug Certification is a security concern, independent of the foregoing, because such a violation is a broken promise to DOE. As there has been a breach of trust by an individual, the DOE no longer views this person as trustworthy. Transcript at 114-115.

V. ANALYSIS

It is uncontested that the individual used illegal drugs and violated a DOE Drug Certification. The illegal use of drugs raises significant security concerns because unwillingness to follow laws and regulations is a strong indication of an individual's potential for ignoring security regulations as well as the general untrustworthiness of the individual. The violation of a Drug Certification also raises significant security issues because it is a breach of trust and a broken promise to the United States government. Both actions demonstrate a significant lack of judgment.

These facts justified the suspension of the individual's security clearance by DOE/XXXXX. Because of the national security implications, to have his clearance restored in this proceeding, the individual must prove the existence of facts and circumstances that mitigate the agency's security concerns. See Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 82,778 (1996). As detailed below, I am not convinced that the individual has met his burden of proof.

A. The Legal Standard

The regulations state that "The decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant information, favorable or unfavorable, as to whether the granting of access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).

A DOE administrative review proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is not a criminal case. The burden is not on the government to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, because we are dealing with the protection of our national security, the burden is on the individual to come forward with evidence that restoring his security clearance "would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). See Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 82,778 (1996).

In the instant case, the individual must meet this burden by presenting substantial evidence which would mitigates the security concerns engendered by his actions. Section 710.7(c) requires the Hearing Officer to consider such mitigating factors as "the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; [and] the likelihood of continuation or recurrence . . . ."

B. The Individual's Illegal Drug Usage

The individual has failed to prove the existence of factors which would mitigate the security concerns caused by his use of cocaine on January 20, 1996. <6> The use of drugs under the circumstances presented in this case demonstrates very poor judgment and indicates that the individual is a security risk. Accordingly, I find that his security clearance should not be reinstated.

1. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct

The individual was a mature person in an extremely responsible position with Johnson Controls when he used cocaine on January 20, 1996. Because of his prior usage, in 1993 he had been required to sign a Drug Certification in which he promised to abstain from drugs and acknowledged that he could lose his clearance if he broke this promise. At the time he ingested cocaine on January 20, 1996, he was aware that he was scheduled to undergo a drug test less than 48 hours later. Based on these factors, the individual should have fully understood the "nature, extent and seriousness of his conduct."

2. The circumstances surrounding the use of cocaine

The exact circumstances surrounding the individual's recent use of cocaine are unclear. The individual has presented three different versions of these events. Under the first version, the individual used cocaine to wake up for a drive home after a party. Under the second version, the individual was compelled by social pressure to use cocaine. Under the third version the individual used cocaine because he did not have sufficient time to consider the consequences of his actions.

Because the individual has provided three versions of the circumstances surrounding the drug use, I cannot credit any of these versions or the different "excuses" implied in each version. Thus, I do not find that the individual used cocaine 1) to remain alert for a drive home; 2) because of social pressure from a group of drug users; or 3) because he had insufficient time to process the consequences of his actions when a man stuffed a "shovel" of cocaine under his nose.

I do find, however, that the individual used cocaine on January 20, 1996, because his judgment was impaired due to the use of alcohol. However, I do not find that this use of alcohol constitutes a mitigating circumstance.

3. The frequency of the use of cocaine

Similarly, I find, based on the record before me, that the individual has failed to meet his burden of proving that the use of cocaine was an isolated occurrence. Although the individual presented evidence in support of this position, this evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of this mitigating circumstance.

In support of the position that this drug use was an isolated occurrences, the individual testified that this was the only time that he has used drugs since 1980. The individual's girlfriend and supervisors indicated that they were not aware of any drug use by the individual. The mental health professionals provided evidence that the individual did not have a substance abuse problem. The Acting Human Resources Manager of XXXXXXXX indicated that the individual had not tested positive during previously administered drug tests.

The individual's evidence is flawed. The individual's testimony is not entitled to great weight because of his inconsistent statements concerning his recent drug use and self-interest. Further, the individual's girlfriend and supervisors would not necessarily be aware of drug use by the individual. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the individual's girlfriend was not aware of his drug use on January 20, 1996. Moreover, the evidence of the mental health professionals do not compel the conclusion that the use of cocaine was an isolated occurrence. While Dr. XXXXXXXX and Mr. XXXXXX have given their opinions that the individual does not have a substance abuse problem, they did not -- nor could they -- offer testimony that he had not used drugs in the recent past. <7>Moreover, Drs. XXXXX and XXXXXX did not even unequivocally conclude that the individual does not have a substance abuse problem. Dr. XXXXX's recommendation that the individual enter a drug rehabilitation program indicates that, to the contrary, there may well be a substance abuse problem. Dr. XXXXXXX's conclusion that the individual does not have a substance abuse problem was based solely on information received from the individual. He implied that this information was not necessarily reliable by stating that if the individual were to test positive again, this would clearly indicate that there was an addiction problem. Finally, as the individual had been given prior notice of the drug tests which he passed, he could have abstained from drugs for a short time before these tests even if he were a regular user.

Logically, it is unlikely that this use of cocaine is an isolated occurrence. A one-time use of illegal drugs before a scheduled drug test is difficult to believe. This is supported by the testimony of the DOE security specialist who stated, based on her experience, that when an individual with advance notice of a drug test fails such a test, this failure might indicate regular usage. It is further supported by the fact that, based on a positive drug test, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX required the individual to enter into a rehabilitation program as a condition of his continued employment.

4. Rehabilitation

Finally, the individual has not completed a rehabilitation program. While it is true that he finished the portion of the program which could be completed within the time available, he has not yet completed that part of the rehabilitation program which requires abstinence over a period of a year.

C. The Individual's Violation of the Drug Certification

The individual has also failed to provide evidence of factors that would mitigate the security concerns caused by his violation of the Drug Certification. The individual was a mature person at the time that he signed the Drug Certification as a pre-condition to the grant of his original clearance in 1993. This was a recent event which the individual does not claim to have forgotten.

On January 20, 1996, the individual violated the Drug Certification by using cocaine. He knew of the scheduled drug test before he used the drugs. He told Dr. XXXXX that, even though he was aware of this drug test, he believed that he would not test positive for the drug. Each of these actions demonstrate a profound lack of judgment and responsibility. Given the possible consequences of testing positive -- i.e., loss of his security clearance and a possible loss of his job -- the lack of judgment manifested here is inherently unreasonable.

This lack of judgment and responsibility causes security concerns which cannot be outweighed by the individual's management abilities. Thus, the fact that the individual was an excellent employee does not resolve this issue.

I do not credit the opinions of the mental health professionals that the individual is not a security risk. While a mental health professional can opine on an individual's mental health, the question of whether an individual constitutes a security risk is not a question that mental health professionals are qualified to answer. It is a legal question on which the individual bears the burden of proof. As such, deference to mental health professionals is not required.

Because of the known imminence of a scheduled drug test, the circumstances presented here are far more compelling than those which justified a similar result in Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0035, 25 DOE ¶ 82,767 (1996). In that case, the Hearing Officer stated:

The DOE security program is based on trust. If an employee breaks a written promise to the DOE, that trust is violated. It was precisely because of the individual's prior illegal drug use that he was asked in 1988 to sign a Drug Certification, promising that he would never again use illegal drugs while employed in a position requiring an access authorization. He clearly violated this promise when he used cocaine twice in 1994. Moreover, the violation of his agreement with the DOE occurred in the very recent past and cannot be excused as a youthful indiscretion. Thus, I find that the DOE had ample justification to rely on 10 C.F.R. §710.8(l) in suspending the individual's access authorization.

Accordingly, I find that the individual's access authorization should not be reinstated.

VI. CONCLUSION

In view of the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 710, I cannot find that restoring the individual's access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be consistent with the national interest. As such, the individual's access authorization should not be restored.

The regulations governing this proceeding provide that either the DOE's Office of Security Affairs or the individual may file a request for review of this Opinion. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(a). The request must be filed within thirty calendar days of receipt of this Opinion. Within fifteen calendar days of filing such a request, the requesting party must file a statement specifying the issues upon which it seeks review. The other party may file a response to the statement of issues. It must do so within twenty calendar days of receipt of the statement of issues.

All submissions must be filed with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0107. In addition, a party must send a copy of each of its submissions to the other party.

Linda Lazarus

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date:

<1>/ Section 710.8 sets forth the principal types of derogatory information which create questions as to an individual's eligibility for access authorization. Under subsection (k), derogatory information includes information that an individual has possessed, used or experimented with an illegal drug. Under subsection (l), derogatory information includes information that an individual has engaged in unusual conduct or is subject to circumstances that tend to show that he is not honest, reliable or trustworthy or which furnishes reason to believe that he may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress that may cause him to act contrary to the best interest of the national security. Information that an individual has violated a Drug Certification may constitute derogatory information under subsection (l).

<2>/ On January 31, 1996, during a PSI, the individual explained his recent drug use by stating that "we were at a party and then it, it was getting late and, you know, we had a few cocktails and somebody'd come up and offered a little shovel for a wake up to get a ride home . . ." Exhibit 3 at 10. On February 9, 1996, during a psychiatric evaluation, the individual stated that he used cocaine at a party when he snorted a small amount of ?the stuff being passed around." Exhibit C. During the Hearing in this matter, the individual stated that he had not seen or been aware of any drugs being passed around. He indicated that he was surprised when a man tapped him on the shoulder, stuffed cocaine up the individual's nose, and told him to "sniff." Although the individual conceded that he knew that the substance was cocaine and sniffed it voluntarily, he indicated that he did not have time to process the significance of his actions. Transcript at 33-34.

<3>/ The individual's girlfriend did not see any drugs at the gathering and did not see the individual snort cocaine. Transcript at 241. She was not aware that the individual had used cocaine on the night of January 20,1996, until after the individual told her that he had tested positive for drugs. Transcript at 241-242.

<4>/ Dr. XXXXXXXX was the only mental health professional to testify at the Hearing. However, the findings and opinions of Dr. XXXXX, Dr. XXXXXXX and Mr. XXXXXX were entered into evidence, without objection, through the testimony of Dr. XXXXXXXX and the introduction of their notes and records.

<5>/ Mr. XXXXXX also believes that the individual did not have a substance abuse problem.

<6>/ I find that the individual met his burden in regard to his use of drugs before 1980. The individual testified that most of this drug use occurred when he was in high school. He told the DOE about this drug use before he was hired in 1992. He was given a clearance at that time because there was no indication of current usage and he agreed to sign a Drug Certification. Based on the immaturity of the individual at the time of this usage, the remoteness of these events, and the fact that DOE had granted the individual a clearance with full knowledge of these events, I find that the individual's use of drugs before 1980 standing alone does not require that his security clearance remain suspended.

<7>/ Moreover, Dr. XXXXXXXX's conclusion is predicated, in part, on the assumption that the individual's use of drugs resulted from social pressure at a party. As this assumption may not be true, the conclusion is also suspect.