DATE:  October 31, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01044
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JUAN J. RIVERA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
From 1998 to February 2006, Applicant consumed and sometimes binged on alcohol to the
point that his judgment was impaired as evidenced by his illegal use of drugs in at least 11 different
occasions. There is no evidence of illegal drug use or excessive alcohol consumption since February
2006. Considering the evidence as a whole, his favorable information is not sufficient to mitigate
the security concerns raised by his behavior under the Guidelines for alcohol consumption, drug
involvement, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.
  See Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960, as amended,1
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan.
2, 1992) (Directive), as amended. On August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) published a
memorandum directing application of revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) to all adjudications and other determinations
made under the Directive in which the SOR was issued on or after September 1, 2006.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 10, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts and security concerns under Guideline H (Drug
Involvement), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The SOR
informed Applicant that, based on available information, DOHA adjudicators could not make a
preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him
access to classified information and submitted the case to an administrative judge for a security
determination.  On July 25, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.1
The case was assigned to me on August 29, 2007. The Notice of Hearing was issued on
September 5, 2007, convening a hearing on October 3, 2007. The hearing was convened as
scheduled. The government presented two exhibits, marked GE 1-2, to support the SOR. Applicant
testified on his own behalf, and presented 11 exhibits, marked AE 1-11. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) on October 11, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations. His admissions are incorporated herein as
findings of facts. After a thorough review of the record evidence, I make the following additional
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 28-year-old senior information systems engineer who has worked for a
Department of Defense (DoD) contractor since April 2006 (Tr. 36). He is single and has no children.
He attended college from September 1997 to May 2002, and received a bachelor’s degree in computer
science. In January 2007, he started his masters degree in information systems with a concentration
in management (Tr. 102).
Applicant’s employment history reflects that after college he was unemployed from May 2002
to July 2003. From July 2003 to April 2006, Applicant worked for three difference companies. As
part of the hiring process, he was required to participate in drug testing, which he passed. He also was
subject to unannounced drug testing while in those job positions (Tr. 91). In April 2006, he was hired
by his current employer and moved from his home state to his employer’s state. There is no evidence
he has mishandled or compromised classified information while working for his employer. 
Applicant’s security concerns arose as a result of his alcohol consumption and his illegal use
of drugs. He began consuming alcohol at age 17 while attending high school. He consumed alcohol
during parties and the weekends, usually sharing a six pack of beer with friends (Tr. 74). During
college he consumed alcohol occasionally, drinking approximately a six pack of beer at a sitting
during the weekends and at parties. He played inter collegiate soccer and did not drink alcoholic
3
beverages during the soccer season from June to October (Tr. 75). While in college, he binged on
alcoholic beverages on at least two occasions at fraternity parties (Tr. 76). 
At his hearing, Applicant initially claimed that after graduating from college he only
consumed alcoholic beverages occasionally (Tr. 78). During cross-examination he admitted, however,
that after college he went through a “spurt” when he drank one gallon of beer a day, one or two times
a week, for about two months (Tr. 96-97). He reduced his drinking after receiving a job offer around
July 2003.
Applicant testified that since April 2006, when he started working for his current employer,
he only consumes alcohol occasionally (during ball games and parties), and in moderation (Tr. 85).
He currently consumes between three to six beers at a sitting, approximately three times a month (Tr.
79). He does not believe he has a problem with alcohol. He modified his drinking habits for several
reasons, i.e., he wanted to do well at his current job, he was concerned about his health, and
disappointing his parents.
Applicant’s illegal use of drugs is related to his alcohol consumption. He illegally used
Percocet (in March 2005) (Tr. 37-40), Vicadin (three times in April 2005) (Tr. 45-47), and Darvocet
(in February 2006) to enhance the effects of alcohol (Tr. 68-69). He did not have a prescription when
he used these drugs. He used these drugs before going out to parties so that he could get “buzzed”
quickly without having to consume too much alcohol to get into a dancing mood (Tr. 40). He illegally
used Vicadin to get rid of the effects of his hangovers. His then girlfriend had a prescription for
Percocet and she gave Percocet to him. She also gave him the Vicadin and the Darvocet, which she
acquired from her friends.
Applicant provided several explanations for his illegal use of drugs, i.e., he was curious about
the effects of the drugs, and the effect of the drugs mixed with alcohol; he self-medicated himself for
his hangovers; and he broke-up his relationship with his girlfriend of six and one-half years (Tr. 44-
45). He claimed he never used drugs before age 25, even while at college. He explained he was a
member of the Boy Scouts until he was 18 years old and stayed away from drugs. Moreover, his two
older brothers were addicted to drugs. His 39-year-old brother was addicted to cocaine, underwent
treatment, and has been clean for 15 years. His 38-year-old brother was addicted to “crystal meth,”
underwent treatment, and has been clean for two years (Tr. 94). He never used drugs with his
brothers. He experienced his family being ripped apart by his brothers’ addiction and he did not want
to add to his parent’s pain (Tr. 43). His father was an alcoholic and, when Applicant was growing up
he advised him against using illegal drugs and drinking alcohol (Tr. 83).
In September 2005, Applicant used ecstasy while at a party where he had been drinking
alcohol (Tr. 49). A friend offered it to him, and he took it out of curiosity. He used cocaine twice
during September 2005, and once in November 2005 (Tr. 53-59). He explained he used cocaine the
first time out of curiosity. The second time he claimed he was somewhat forced to use it. He
accompanied his friend to purchase cocaine and Applicant was too scared to refuse it when it was
offered. He used marihuana in September 2005, because of peer pressure (Tr. 63-64). Applicant
illegally used Adderall twice in February 2006. Both times he had been drinking the night before and
woke up tired and with a bad hangover. A friend suggested he take the Adderall to boost up his energy
level and help him get rid of the hangover, and he did. Applicant did not have a prescription for the
Adderall (Tr. 65-66). Applicant knew his use of these drugs was illegal. 
  AG ¶ 2(a). “. . . The adjudication process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole2
person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should
be considered in reaching a determination. . . .” The whole person concept includes the consideration of “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 individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the
extent to which participation is voluntary; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence. . .”
4
Applicant averred he has not used any drugs illegally since February 2006, when he received
the job offer from his current employer. He knows that such behavior will not be tolerated, and that
his job is at stake if he were to use illegal drugs. He has not participated in any alcohol or drug
rehabilitative treatment or counseling (Tr. 71). Applicant has no intention to use drugs illegally ever
again. He is concerned about losing his job, his heath, and not causing any more pain and
disappointment to his parents (Tr. 73). His parents are not aware of his use of drugs. When asked to
explain why he experimented with drugs if he knew that his brothers’ drug abuse had ripped his
family apart, Applicant stated “I knew it was a mistake, and I guess I didn’t think about my family
at the time” (Tr. 93). 
Applicant claimed he no longer has contact with most of the friends with whom he used drugs
and/or consumed alcohol. When he was hired for his current job he moved from his home state to his
current state of residence. He only visits his family at his home state every two to three months, and
has infrequent contacts with his high school and college friends (Tr. 87). He still has infrequent
contact with at least three of the people with whom he used drugs, but he claimed they no longer use
illegal drugs.
Applicant expressed remorse for his past behavior. He promised never to engage in such
behavior again. He considers himself to be reliable and trustworthy, and asserts he has good
judgment. In support of his assertions, he submitted a performance evaluation report (AE 1). His
supervisors and coworkers consider Applicant technically proficient, reliable, and recommended him
for a position of responsibility. He is characterized as a hard-working, honest  person, with
outstanding duty performance, and excellent work ethics (AE 2-11). In general, his references attest
to Applicant’s honesty, trustworthiness, good judgment, and dependability. Because of his significant
contributions to his employer, he was awarded his company’s annual achievement award. Moreover,
his references confirm Applicant distanced himself from old friends who were bad influences, and
note his willingness to consume alcohol in moderation.
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines (AG) which must be considered in evaluating
an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. The administrative judge must take into
account both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each AG applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The guidelines are not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion
for or against an Applicant. Each decision must reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive, and the whole person concept.2
  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).3
  ISCR Case No. 98-0761 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 27, 1999)(Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less4
than a preponderance of the evidence); ISCR Case No. 02-12199 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2006)(Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the record); Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
  Egan, supra n.3, at 528, 531.5
  See id.; AG ¶ 2(b).6
5
Having considered the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline H (Drug Involvement),
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the applicable relevant
AGs.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The purpose of a security clearance decision is to determine whether it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified
information.  A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship3
with the government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling
interest to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability and trustworthiness of
one who will protect the national interests as his or her own. 
The government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in the SOR. To
meet its burden, the government must establish by substantial evidence  a prima facie case that it is4
not clearly consistent with the national interest for the applicant to have access to classified
information. The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant carries the burden
of persuasion.  The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any5
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information in favor of
protecting national security.6
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited. Nothing in this Decision should
be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied
determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.  Executive Order 10865, § 7. 
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline H, the government’s concern is that the use of an illegal drug or misuse of
a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both
because it may impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. AG ¶ 24.
The government established its case by showing that from March 2005 to February 2006,
Applicant used illegal drugs, i.e., cocaine (twice), and marihuana and ecstasy (once each). During the
same period of time, he illegally used prescription drugs (Percocet and Darvocet once each, Vicadin
  The AGs do not define “recent,” and there is no “bright-line” definition of what constitutes “recent” conduct.7
See ISCR Case No. 03-02374 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2006) The Judge is required to evaluate the record evidence as a
whole and reach a reasonable conclusion as to the recency of an applicant's conduct. ISCR Case No. 03-02374 at 4 (App.
Bd. Jan. 26, 2006). 
6
three times, and Adderall twice) without a prescription. Drug involvement disqualifying conditions
AG ¶ 25(a): any drug abuse, applies.
Applicant’s evidence raised several mitigating conditions that I considered potentially
applicable under AG ¶ 26:
(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): a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and,
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence.
According to his testimony and character references, Applicant has not used drugs illegally
for approximately 19 months. Applicant disassociated himself from most of his drug-using friends,
and has avoided environments where drugs are used. His change in behavior resulted from his work-
related move to another state, as well as his desire to remain drug abstinent, to consume alcohol in
moderation, to pursue a healthy lifestyle, and to protect his job. His testimony and change in lifestyle
demonstrate his intent not to use illegal drugs and to consume alcohol in moderation. Mitigating
condition AG ¶ 26(b) applies.
Based on my evaluation of the record evidence as a whole,  I conclude AG 26(a) does not7
apply. I find Applicant’s questionable behavior recent, and it raises serious about his judgment and
willingness to follow rules and regulations. Applicant’s father was an alcoholic and counseled him
against the dangers of drugs and abusing alcohol. Two of his brothers were addicted to illegal drugs
and their addiction “ripped apart” his family. Applicant started using drugs at age 25, after completing
college, because he broke-up with his girlfriend, and he was curious about the effects of drugs
combined with alcohol. 
His drug abuse is intertwined to his alcohol consumption. He mixed illegal drugs and alcohol
to enhance the effects of the alcohol. He then used illegal drugs the next day to arrest the adverse
effects of his bad hangovers. Considering his history of excessive alcohol consumtion, Applicant’s
combined abuse of alcohol and drugs heightens the security concerns raised by his behavior.
Applicant continues to consume alcohol albeit allegedly in moderation. He presented no evidence to
show he has participated in any drug or alcohol treatment or counseling. Because of the number of
times he used illegal drugs, and his history of alcohol consumption, I find his use of drugs to be
frequent. Considering the totality of the circumstances in Applicant’s case, I find his favorable
evidence fails to establish his questionable behavior is not likely to recur. Moreover, his behavior cast
serious doubts on his trustworthiness, judgment, and willingness to comply with the law.
7
Under Guideline G, the government’s concern is that excessive alcohol consumption often
leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. AG ¶ 21.
The government established its case by showing that from about 1998 to February 2006,
Applicant consumed, and sometimes consumed alcohol to the point that his judgment was impaired
as evidenced by his illegal use of drugs on at least 11 different occasions. AG ¶ 22(a): alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse,
disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; and AG ¶ 22(c): habitual or binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent, apply.
Applicant has acknowledged his problems with alcohol, and provided evidence to show he
is taking action to overcome this problem. He has established a pattern of responsible use as
demonstrated by his outstanding work performance. There is no evidence he has been involved in any
misconduct related to alcohol or drug use.
Notwithstanding, for the same reasons outline in the discussion of Guideline H (above), I find
Applicant’s alcohol related concerns are recent. His favorable information fails to establish his
questionable behavior is not likely to recur, and his questionable behavior still casts doubts on
Applicant’s good judgment and trustworthiness. 
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) the government’s concern is that conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during
the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 15.
The government established its case by showing that from about 1998 to February 2006,
Applicant consumed, and sometimes consumed alcohol to the point that his judgment was impaired
as evidenced by his illegal use of drugs in at least 11 different occasions. Applicant’s behavior
showed questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations. Personal Conduct disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(e): personal conduct, or concealment
of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress, such as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal,
professional, or community standing . . ., applies.
Applicant’s use of illegal drugs constitute serious offenses, and as such they cannot be easily
dismissed. For the same reasons discussed under Guidelines H and G, incorporated herein, I consider
Applicant’s behavior under Guideline E not mitigated by the passage of time. Considering the
evidence as a whole, not enough time has transpired since his questionable behavior for Applicant
to establish that his behavior is unlikely to recur. Additionally, Applicant failed to disclosed his past
questionable behavior to his parents. Applicant’s friends and supervisors provided him with excellent
recommendations. It is not clear, however, whether his character references knew the extent of
Applicant’s drug and alcohol involvement when they provided their recommendations. Applicant has
failed to reduce the possibility of vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. After
8
considering all the personal conduct mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17, I find that none of the
mitigation conditions apply.
I have carefully weighed all evidence and applied the disqualifying and mitigating conditions
as listed under the applicable AGs. I specifically considered Applicant’s testimony; his age, education,
work experience, and the testimony of his character references. I also considered that there is no
evidence he has engaged in questionable conduct for over one and one-half years. In light of the
totality of the circumstances, I find Applicant’s favorable evidence is not sufficient to mitigate the
security clearance concerns.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings regarding each SOR allegation as required by Directive Section
E3.1.25 are as follows:
Paragraph 1, Drug Involvement AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Alcohol Consumption AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.d Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Personal Conduct AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a Against Applicant
9
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.
Juan J. Rivera
Administrative Judge