KEYWORD: Drugs; Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant’s misuse of prescription painkillers in the late 1990s and from July to
December 2006, along with his alcohol abuse between 1998 and 2003, and continued use of
alcohol to at lest September 2006, when he began medication to help him abstain, falls within the
scope o the drug and alcohol guidelines of the Directive. While Applicant believes he has always
been honest about his substance abuse, the supervisor4 provided very little information about his
drug and alcohol use. Applicant claimed he kept appointments with his counselor throughout
each month of his relapse, but the counselor indicated he did not see Applicant during his
relapse. While Applicant’s job performance evidence is impressive, it does not overcome the
misrepresentations he made about his drug use. Even though Applicant added anti-craving
medication to his alcohol and drug rehabilitation regimen, the current period that he has been
abstinent from drugs and alcohol is insufficient to warrant findings in his favor under the drug
and alcohol guidelines. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 05-15035.h1
DATE: 09/27/2007
DATE:  September 27, 2007
In Re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-15035
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PAUL J. MASON
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John B. Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
 I am satisfied the “years” supplied in Applicant’s answer were clerical mistakes.  (Applicant’s answer to the1
SOR; Tr. 114)
2
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s misuse of prescription painkillers in the late 1990s and from July to December
2006, along with his alcohol abuse between 1998 and 2003, with continued use of alcohol to at least
September 2006, when he began medication to help him abstain, falls within the scope of the drug
and alcohol guidelines of the Directive. While Applicant believes he has always been honest about
his substance abuse, the supervisor provided very little information about his drug and alcohol use.
Applicant claimed he kept appointments with his counselor throughout each month of his relapse,
but the counselor indicated he did not see Applicant during his relapse. While Applicant’s job
performance evidence is impressive, it does not overcome the misrepresentations he made about his
drug use. Even though Applicant added anti-craving medication to his alcohol and drug rehabilitation
regimen, the current period that he has been abstinent from drugs and alcohol is insufficient to
warrant findings in his favor under the drug and alcohol guidelines. Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On March 29, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as reissued through Change 4
thereto, dated April 20, 1999, with revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) for Determining Eligibility
for Determining Access to Classified Information, made effective on September 1, 2006, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant indicating that based on his drug involvement
(Guideline H) and alcohol consumption (Guideline G), DOHA could not make the preliminary
affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied
or revoked. On May 1, 2007, Applicant provided answers to all allegations (his answers were
notarized on May 9, 2007) of the SOR and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. 
On June 29, 2007, this case was assigned to me. On July 10, 2007, this case was scheduled
for hearing on August 15, 2007. The Government’s two exhibits (GE), and Applicant’s three exhibits
(AE) were admitted in evidence. Testimony was taken from Applicant, his supervisor, and his
counselor. The transcript (Tr.) was received on September 4, 2007. 
RULINGS ON PROCEDURE
Pursuant to E3.1.17. of the Directive, I am amending the SOR so that it conforms to the
evidence presented. SOR 1.a. (pain killers) shall be amended by changing “June 2002" to “March
13, 2001.” Also, in SOR 1.a., “December of 2006" shall be modified “to December 9, 2006.”  SOR1
3
1.b. (gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB) is amended by changing “December 1998" to “December
1996.” (Tr. 118) SOR 1.c. (cocaine) is amended by replacing “through March 2001" with “to 2000
or earlier.” (Tr. 120) SOR 1.e. (marijuana) is amended by replacing “through June 1, 2002" with “to
the late 1990s.” (Tr. 121) 
As noted on page 17 of the transcript, Applicant sought to have AE D admitted in evidence.
Department Counsel observed the character statement was not signed. I marked the exhibit as AE
D, and returned the document to Applicant, and told him he could cure the deficiency in the exhibit.
(Tr. 17-19) No additional exhibits were submitted. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR has 11 allegations under paragraph 1; Applicant admitted each allegation with
explanation. The second paragraph has three allegations; Applicant admitted all allegations with
explanation. He considers his awards, his supervisor’s and counselor’s knowledge of his drug
history, his participation in AA, ongoing treatment, and demonstrated forthrightness in voluntarily
disclosing his past drug abuse and relapse, sufficiently mitigate the adverse evidence of his drug
history. 
Applicant is 29 years old and has been employed as an industrial engineer with a defense
contractor since December 2003. He seeks a secret clearance. He shares a dwelling with his
girlfriend (since November 2004) he plans to marry in 2008. 
Drug Involvement. Applicant began college in March 1993 and received his degree in
industrial engineering in 2003. While in college, he used mescaline (1.h.) in 1994 and 1995,
psychotropic mushrooms (1.g.) from 1994 to 1996, methamphetamines (1.f.) from 1995 to 1999, and
marijuana (1.e.) from 1996 to the late 1990s. The aforementioned drugs were used on an infrequent
or sporadic basis in the identified time periods.
Applicant used GHB (1.b.) on a daily basis, and was hospitalized twice in 1998 (1.j.) for
GHB overdoses. During two periods between January 1998 to March 13, 2001, and July 2006 to
December 9, 2006, as set forth in 1.a. of the SOR, Applicant abused prescription painkillers. In
October 1998 (1.k.), Applicant was terminated from his employment for misuse of pain medication.
He received intensive outpatient treatment (1.i.) from the summer of 1997 through 1998 for chemical
dependency and substance abuse.
Applicant began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in 1998. He indicates that he has
sustained participation in three AA chapters since 1998 at differing meeting frequencies. (GE 2, GE
3) He began consulting with his licensed professional counselor (LPC) in the summer of 1997 for
personal issues including alcohol use. Though the professional consultations have continued to the
present, Applicant’s abuse of unprescribed painkillers persisted until March 2001. Except for alcohol
consumption (Tr. 86), Applicant used no illegal drugs from March 2001 to July 2006, but his
painkiller abuse resumed to a frequency of about twice a month in July 2006. In August 2006,
Applicant indicated he increased his painkiller use to twice a week, and then to daily use for the first
 Applicant testified he was nominated and received a coveted award (the second highest honor that an employee2
can receive) during his worse drug use. (Tr. 134) His answer reflects he received the award in May 2007.
 Applicant also explained he advised his girlfriend about his drug use in late September 2006. (Tr. 135-137)3
 This award is referenced in footnote number 2.4
 Id. 5
 The LPC testified he performs essentially the same services as a licenced clinical social worker (LCSW). (Tr.6
60)
4
two weeks of September 2006 (Tr. 134),  before decreasing to lesser frequencies until he stopped2
all use in December 2006.
Applicant opined that his relapse in July 2006 resulted from becoming complacent and
overconfident about the strength of his recovery. While he indicates he continued to attend AA
meetings during his relapse, he was not doing the step work, a necessary component of AA and
successful recovery. In addition, he indicated the second reason for his relapse was that he was not
consulting with his LPC as frequently as he should have, although he claims he continued to see his
counselor throughout the course of the relapse. Applicant believes he advised the LPC of his relapse
in September 2006. (Tr. 128-131)  The counselor stated he did not see Applicant nor hear about his3
relapse until December 2006. (Tr. 92) Further, his LPC indicated Applicant told him the worse
period of abuse was in December 2006. (Tr. 90) Although the LPC could have been mistaken in his
recall about Applicant’s consultations and his most serious drug abuse, I do not find that explanation
the most reasonable under these circumstances. These different accounts of when the consultations
occurred and the most serious periods of his painkiller abuse between Applicant and his counselor
are resolved against Applicant. 
Applicant’s supervisor since December 2003 indicated Applicant was promoted from
industrial engineer to senior industrial engineer in less than two years after his hire. The supervisor
testified that Applicant produces outstanding work, and has become an expert for gauging project
costs. The supervisor endorsed a special recognition award for Applicant in March 2007 for his job
performance. According to the supervisor, Applicant also received another prestigious award in May
2007 because of his outstanding work.  4
When asked what he knew about Applicant’s most recent drug use, the supervisor stated he
didn’t know any details other than there were drug problems in the past. (Tr. 41) The supervisor did
not want to obtain the details of Applicant’s past drug use and Applicant did not offer any
information.5
After being qualified in the field of treatment of substance abusers(Tr. 62),  Applicant’s LPC6
testified about his professional relationship with Applicant since 1997. The LPC testified that his
consultations with Applicant occurred about once a month until the relapse in July 2006, and then
twice a month after he learned about the relapse in December 2006. Concerning Applicant’s use of
GHB in the middle to late 1990s, the LPC made an initial diagnosis of drug abuse, but changed it
to drug dependence after observing Applicant’s emerging denial mechanisms during his early
consultations with Applicant. The LPC has found Applicant always willing to share his knowledge
 The medication reduces cravings for alcohol and drugs. It does not allow alcohol or narcotics to metabolize,7
and has no side effects. (Tr. 67, 100)
5
with others in achieving successful recovery. (Tr. 76-78) Based on Applicant’s commitment to all
elements of AA, group therapy, his support network (including his parents and girlfriend), his
preventive medications, and his candor, specifically following his relapse, the LPC opined
Applicant’s prognosis was very good. (Tr. 70, 75, 78-80) 
When asked to discuss the relationship between Applicant’s drug use and alcohol use, the
LPC believed Applicant’s alcohol use was secondary to his drug use, explaining that the alcohol use
lowers the inhibition that curbs the activation of the addictive process. (Tr. 75). At some time, the
LPC recommended Applicant obtain medication like the one identified in 2.a.  of the SOR (Tr. 95),7
and he began taking the 2.a. medication after December 2006. (Tr. 94) The LPC believes that
discontinuance of the 2.a. medication by Applicant would not be helpful. The LPC envisions
Applicant returning to once-a-month therapy when his stress lessens. (Tr. 103)
Alcohol Consumption. There are three allegations under the alcohol consumption guideline.
As noted in the Drug Involvement section above, Applicant has been taking the 2.a. medication
since September 2006 to prevent alcohol use and more serious use of his drug of choice. Based on
Applicant’s understanding from his doctor that he can take the drug indefinitely because it has no
side effects, Applicant intends to continue taking the drug. (Tr. 141) In addition, taking the drug
provides his girlfriend piece of mind and a warning signal should he stop taking the drug. (Tr. 141-
142)
Applicant described his alcohol use over the last four years as approximately a couple times
a month until the beginning of 2006 when it became more infrequent. (Tr. 132) He is not certain
when his last binge drinking occurred, but surmised it may have been in late 2005. He made the
decision to stop drinking alcohol in September 2006, although he testified his last drink was in late
August 2006. (2.c; Tr. 133) 
Applicant’s supervisor testified he has traveled several times with Applicant to a midwest
military facility for meetings. While his supervisor observed Applicant consume alcohol on other
trips, the supervisor recalled Applicant drinking only club soda on the last trip. (Tr. 33) Regarding
Applicant’s overall alcohol use, his supervisor noted that Applicant mentioned something about a
question on the SCA that asked about participation in treatment; the supervisor then stated he did
not know about Applicant’s alcohol use. (Tr. 42) 
The LPC testified he began treating Applicant in 1997 while working at the hospital
(identified in 1.i. and 2.b.), and has continued consulting Applicant in private therapy. The LPC
testified that Applicant’s binge drinking occurred mainly in college, and was unaware of any visible
problems afterward. (Tr. 88) The LPC’s original diagnosis of Applicant in 1998 was alcohol abuse,
and continues to be alcohol abuse. (Tr. 106) 
Character Evidence. In addition to the seven performance awards listed in his answer to the
SOR, the record contains Applicant’s performance evaluation (AE A) for 2006 acknowledging his
extensive contributions to his employer’s projects. The special recognition award (AE B) was signed
by Applicant’s supervisor on March 5, 2007, and extols Applicant’s dedication to his project
6
assignments, as well as his performance on those assignments. On August 15, 2005 (AE C),
Applicant typed a one-page e-mail expressing his intention to abstain from illegal drug use and
misuse of legal drugs in the future; he also declared that a failure to comply with his intention to
maintain abstinence in the future would result in revocation of any security clearance. 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth guidelines containing disqualifying conditions (DC)
and mitigating conditions (MC) that should be given binding consideration in making security
clearance determinations. These conditions must be considered in every case along with the general
factors of the whole person concept. However, the conditions are not automatically determinative
of the decision in any case nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own
common sense. 
Burden of Proof
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualifies, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 531 (1988) “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven conduct under any of the Criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.” ISCR
Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct.
7, 1993)). 
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. “[S]ecurity clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Egan, 481 U.S. at 531; see
Directive E2.2.2.
Drug Involvement (DI)
Using illegal drugs or unprescribed legal drugs, which casts doubt regarding a person’s
reliability and trustworthiness, also raises questions about his willingness to comply with regulations.
Alcohol Consumption (AC)
Excessive use of alcohol leads to the exercise of poor judgment while presenting questions
about a person’s reliability and trustworthiness.
CONCLUSIONS
 As noted in section 24.b. of the Directive, drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a8
manner that deviates from approved medical direction. 
7
Drug Involvement (DI). The illegal use of drugs or the misuse of prescription drugs  casts8
doubt on a person’s reliability and trustworthiness and also his ability to comply with laws and
regulations. The record reflects Applicant abused several drugs from 1996 to March 2001. His abuse
of six of the drugs was primarily occasional in scope. His abuse of GHB must be characterized as
addictive in scope as he was using the drug on a daily basis, and was hospitalized twice for GHB
overdoses. The passage of about six years with no evidence of subsequent abuse of these illegal
drugs warrants favorable findings under subparagraphs 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.h., and 1.j.
Applicant’s overall use of painkillers, specifically his misuse from July to December 2006,
satisfies DI disqualifying condition (DC) 25.a. (any drug abuse) and DI DC 25.c. (illegal drug
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution) Since
the LPC is not a licensed clinical social worker, and provided no evaluation regarding Applicant’s
abuse of unprescribed painkillers, DI DC 25.e. (evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a
licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program) does not
apply. When the LPC (as a staff member of a recognized treatment program) delivered his diagnosis
of Applicant in 1998, it applied to GHB, not misuse of prescription painkillers. 
Applicant has repeatedly stated in his answer and during the hearing that he has been honest
in keeping the appropriate parties aware of his drug use and his relapse on painkillers. However, his
supervisor’s testimony reflects he knew very little about Applicant’s past drug use, and even less
about his alcohol abuse. The LPC testified he did not see Applicant until after the relapse in
December 2006 when Applicant told him his painkiller abuse was at its worse. 
The lack of detail by the supervisor regarding Applicant’s drug and alcohol abuse may be a
minor point. However, as stated in the factual findings, the supervisor’s lack of detail, coupled with
the substantial differences in testimony between when Applicant claims he saw his LPC, and when
the LPC saw Applicant, weakens the credibility of Applicant’s statements not only about his
continued treatment during his relapse, but other statements he made about his painkiller abuse, e.g.,
scope and frequency of the abuse, and the status of his recovery. In sum, I do not find Applicant was
being forthright when he claimed he consulted with his LPC throughout the relapse. In addition, I
find his misuse of prescribed medication was at its worse in December and not September 2006, as
he claims. Applicant’s lack of candor casts lingering security concerns about his reliability and
trustworthiness. These concerns have not been sufficiently mitigated by his character evidence or
DI mitigating condition (MC) 26.b. (a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future).
While Applicant has the support of his girlfriend and his parents in achieving a drug free
environment, eight months is insufficient time for me to confidently conclude he has his
unprescribed drug use safely in his past, particularly because of his compromised credibility.
Subparagraph 1.a. is found against Applicant. 
Alcohol Consumption (AC). As with abuse of illegal or unprescribed drugs, excessive
alcohol consumption may lead to questionable judgment while raising questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. The government’s evidence reflects binge consumption
of alcohol during his college years until 2003 as indicated by the LPC. AC DC 22.c. (habitual or
binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the
8
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent) applies. Applicant was
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser in 1998 when his LPC was a member of a recognized treatment
program. The LPC testified his diagnosis would continue to be alcohol abuse at the present time. I
find AC DC 22.e. (evaluation of alcohol abuse alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social
worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program) applies in conjunction with AC
DC 22.f. (relapse of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation 
program) based on (1) Applicant’s alcohol abuse history following outpatient treatment and AA
participation since the late 1990s, and (3) the counselor’s current alcohol abuse diagnosis/evaluation.
Given (1) Applicant’s history of excessive alcohol consumption characterized by his LPC’s
alcohol abuse evaluations in 1998 and currently, (2) his alcohol consumption to at least September
2006, even though he has been aware of likelihood he could return to his drug of choice with
continued drinking, AC MC 23.a. (so much time has passed, or behavior was so infrequent, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment) does not apply. 
Applicant acknowledges his alcohol abuse, and claims he has taken appropriate action to
resolve the problem. However, AC MC 23.b. (the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism
or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem, and has
established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)
has only limited application. There has been an ample amount of testimony of Applicant’s
participation in AA over the years. However, Applicant has continued to drink alcohol until
September 2006, notwithstanding his knowledge that drinking could increase the chances of
resumption of his drug of choice. The implementation of the anti-craving medication in September
2006 into Applicant’s recovery regimen is favorable as it decreases the chances he will use alcohol
in the future. However, using one medication to prevent the use of another drug or drugs raises
security concerns about the strength of Applicant’s recovery. Given his ten year alcohol history,
which has been diagnosed/evaluated as alcohol abuse by by his LPC, an insufficient period of
abstinence or responsible use has transpired for me to find Applicant has overcome the adverse
evidence under the AC guideline. 
AC MC 23.d. (the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling
or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such
as participation in meetings of AA or similar organization and has received a favorable prognosis
by a duly qualified medical professional or licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of
a recognized alcohol treatment program) does not apply because all the elements are not present.
While Applicant completed the outpatient counseling in February 1998, he continued to abuse other
drugs and alcohol to March 2001. The favorable evidence of abstinence from the other identified
drugs between 2001 to July 2006 must be balanced against Applicant’s occasional alcohol abuse and
use until September 2006, when he began use of a medication to help him abstain from alcohol use.
Even though his LPC furnished a good prognosis for Applicant, insufficient time has passed for me
to find in Applicant’s favor under the AC guideline. I find for Appellant under subparagraph 2.a. but
against him under subparagraphs 2.b. and 2.c.
In addition to the disqualifying and mitigating conditions connected to both guidelines of the
Directive, I have also considered the circumstances of this case under the whole person model of the
9
Directive. Applicant’s misuse of painkillers in the late 1990s, and from July to December 2006,
raises serious reliability and trustworthiness concerns. While Applicant has repeatedly declared his
openness about the painkiller use, his supervisor knew little or nothing about either drugs or alcohol.
Applicant unequivocally stated he kept his LPC advised throughout the entire course of his relapse.
But his LPC, who has treated him since 1998, did not see Applicant for at least three months of the
relapse. When he reestablished contact, Applicant identified December, not September 2006, as the
worse period of painkiller abuse. Applicant has furnished praiseworthy exhibits and testimony about
his job performance since December 2003. However, this favorable character evidence and his stated
intentions to forego future drug and alcohol use, provide little insight into the reasons for Applicant’s
misrepresentations about critical events during his relapse. These misrepresentations carry a negative
impact on his reliability and trustworthiness under the drug and alcohol guidelines that are not
overcome or excused by his topnotch character evidence.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 are:
Paragraph 1 (Drug Involvement, Guideline H): AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
Subparagraph 1. a. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.b. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.c. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.d. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.e. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.f. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.g. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.h. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.i. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.j. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.k. Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Alcohol Consumption, Guideline G):  AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
Subparagraph 2.a. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 2.b. Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 2.c. Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
10
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge