1
  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-00968
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
__________
Decision
__________
ABLARD, Charles D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated security concerns regarding Drug Involvement (Guideline H).
Alcohol Consumption (Guideline G), and Financial Considerations (Guideline F).
Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On February 6, 2006, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF
86). On August 11, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to him, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended,
(Directive), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President
on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
The SOR detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative
finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
2
or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative
judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or
revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR allegations in a sworn statement with one
document attached. The answer was signed on September 2, 2008. He admitted most
of the factual details of the allegations of the SOR relating to drug use in his answer but
questioned the extent of the use. He admitted all of the allegations relating to alcohol
use except for the dates of treatment. He denied five financial allegations and admitted
ten with explanations for some of them appended to the answer. He requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. 
The case was assigned to me on October 20, 2008. DOHA issued a notice of
hearing on November 5, 2008, for a hearing on November 19, 2008, and it was held on
that day. At the hearing, the government offered seven exhibits (Exhs. 1-7) that were
admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant submitted ten exhibits (Exhs. A-J) at
the hearing. He testified on his own behalf as did four witnesses from his company.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on November 26, 2008. At the request
of Applicant, the record was held open for 30 days and three evidentiary documents
were submitted within that time and admitted without objection (Exhs. K, L, and M). 
          Procedural Rulings
Notice of Hearing
The hearing notice was dated less than 15 days before the hearing date. I
advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice before
the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to the 15 days notice and indicated
he was ready to proceed (Tr. 10).
Documentary Evidence
Applicant objected to one document (Exh. 6) as irrelevant to this proceeding that
relates to an allegation concerning a bankruptcy discharged in 1996. The objection was
overruled on the basis that it was relevant to the more recent financial allegations. The
document was admitted in evidence (Tr. 19-21).
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor since January 2006
working as a senior data collector and trainer of over 100 employees in collecting and
reporting testing information (Tr. 32). He is well regarded by his corporate employer.
Applicant is a recovering alcoholic and former drug addict. He drank alcohol to
excess between 1992 when he was 20 years old and 1998 at which time he was
arrested for DUI (Tr. 46-48). He pled guilty to a lesser offense of reckless driving. He
was fined $500 and lost his license for four months. This was a wake-up call and his
3
drinking declined until 2001 when he drank almost nothing. Now he does not drink any
alcoholic beverages (Tr. 97-98). However, he failed to realize that his alcohol problem
was only part of larger problems involving depression and related mental health issues
(Exh. F).  
When Applicant moved to a large West Coast city in 2001, he became involved
in the club scene, and began using drugs (cocaine and crystal meth) (Tr. 51). He also
used gamma (GBH) to bring down the effect of meth (Tr. 58). He became addicted and
would occasionally sell drugs as well as use them. He used crystal meth daily for
approximately one and a half years until 2003. In February 2003 Applicant was arrested
by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and charged with possession of meth
and transporting it for the purpose of sale (Tr. 61). In July 2003 he enrolled in the 12
step program of Alanon (Tr. 72) in which he participated until May 2005. He agreed to
cooperate with the DEA and, in return, was never tried for the drug charge. He worked
for the DEA from 2003 until June 2005. During the treatment period he was under the
care of a psychiatrist, attended regular weekly meetings, and met with group counselors
(Tr. 41-42, and 67). He has now been free of substance abuse for nearly six years. In
June 2005 he moved away from the drug scene to a smaller city where he now lives.
After several months of unemployment with short periods of employment, he was hired
for his present job in January 2006.
Applicant has been diagnosed with an endocrine parathyroid disease in the last
two years for which he is being treated at considerable expense. The treatment requires
travel to out-of- state medical facilities (Tr. 15). Although he has health insurance he is
required to make co-payments that have depleted the excess income over expenses
that he reported in his interrogatories (Exhs. 2 and 3). Several of the hospitals and
medical agencies have reduced his bills because of his income (Tr. 139). However, he
still has medical bills which he is paying (Tr. 115). He has had two surgeries in the past
year and now is faced with the probability of open heart surgery sometime in 2009 (Tr.
116). Despite the medical bills, he has been able to prevent accumulating further debt
during this health care crisis. He continues to be able to work (Tr. 43). His net income
every two weeks is $2,200 after deductions (Tr. 138). He has never married and has no
other persons for whom he is responsible. 
Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy for $16,000 in debts that were
discharged in 1996 after a security business failed that he had formed with a partner
(SOR ¶ 3.a.) (Tr. 103). His current alleged delinquent debts arose during the time when
he consumed alcohol to excess and used drugs. He has a tax accountant and
counselor who testified at the hearing concerning his work with Applicant to resolve the
financial problems. The tax debts are with the IRS and the California tax authorities
(SOR ¶¶ 3.b. and c.). He has paid down the IRS debt that was originally $14,000 to less
than $10,000 of which only $3,000 is principal. Some payments have been made with
tax refunds which he has managed by overstating withholdings on the advice of his
employer. His advisor is working to have the interest and penalties removed (Tr. 114).
The state tax debt is $1,114 and is under investigation by the state authorities (Tr. 135).
He denies two debts (SOR ¶¶ 3. l. and m.) totaling over $1,700, and is contesting them
(Exh. J). The remainder of his delinquent debts are for 11 credit card accounts (SOR ¶¶
4
3.d.-k. and n.). totaling approximately $11,000 ranging in size from $500 to almost
$4,000. Six have been charged off and almost all are over six years old. None are in
active collection
Applicant’s accountant and financial advisor testified by telephone conference
call at the hearing. He noted that most of these debts are very old, some are beyond the
statute of limitations of seven years in his state, some have been dropped, and none
are in active collection (Tr. 122-130). He is working with Applicant to manage his debts
and pay the remaining ones in a realistic manner in view of his continuing medical
problems and treatment. 
Applicant is highly regarded by his supervisors who describe him as “consistently
outstanding” (Exh. A), and as having excellent abilities that he uses in training over a
hundred employees (Tr. 98). The manager of the corporate office where he works
testified for him along with three other supervisors at different supervisory levels. He is
loyal, competent, reliable, focused, and hard-working. His supervisors and colleagues
strongly supported his integrity, work ethic and loyalty (Tr. 28-34, and 90-103). He has
received several awards for his service (Exhs. D and E 1-5) including employee of the
quarter in 2006. He also works with other recovering drug abusers, alcoholics, and
tobacco addicts to help them break the habits (Tr. 14). Letters of recommendation were
submitted by several who testified and others who did not (Exhs. A, B, C, and I). He
does not handle or work with classified materials but needs a security clearance to
enhance flexibility of assignments for his employer (Tr. 32).
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
5
In the decision-making process, the Government has the initial burden of
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR by “substantial evidence,”
demonstrating, in accordance with the Directive, that it is not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s access to classified information.
Once the Government has produced substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition,
the burden shifts to Applicant to produce evidence “to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and [applicant]
has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the
Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995), Section 3.
Analysis
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all
appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions, including those described briefly
above, I conclude that the following Adjudicative Guidelines provide the standard for
resolution of the allegations set forth in the SOR. 
Guideline H Drug Involvement
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in
AG ¶  24: 
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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
6
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed
in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include
any drug abuse AG ¶ 25 (a), or illegal drug possession including sale of drugs (AG ¶ 25
(c). 
         Applicant’s admissions of drug use and the evidence introduced establishes that
the potentially disqualifying condition has been met. 
AG ¶ 26 provides several possible conditions that could mitigate security
concerns:
(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;
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements,
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional.
Drug involvement with illegal drugs is mitigated by the passage of time over a
period of six years. He entered the drug treatment program in 2003 and has removed
himself from contact with drug users. He completed the treatment program in 2005 and
has been completely free of drugs since entering it. Thus, I conclude that he has
mitigated the allegations relating to the use of drugs. 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption in
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.”
7
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The relevant ones to this matter are:
(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;
(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;
         Thus, the evidence submitted clearly raises these potentially disqualifying
conditions. 
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) so much time has passed, or the 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 good judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol
abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and
has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);
(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling
or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse,
and is making satisfactory progress; and,
(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 Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.
        Applicant’s alcohol problems were largely resolved in 1998. Since that time he has
been treated for both alcohol and drug abuse, successfully completed a program over
three years ago, and is free of both substances. He has mitigated the security concerns.
8
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18: 
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated the delinquent debts cited in the SOR and
was unable or unwilling to pay the obligations for several years. The evidence shows
that he has been able pay some of the debts and has worked out a payment plan for
others consistent with his limited income. Thus the evidence clearly raises these
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes several mitigating conditions (MC) that could mitigate
security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
condition may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so
infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does
not cast doubt on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ 
AG ¶ 20(b) provides that the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person’s control through business downturn or unexpected
medical emergency. Most of Applicant=s first financial problems arose as a result of his
business failure in 1996, and his current medical condition and the requirements for
treatment were and are beyond his control. Thus, this mitigating condition is applicable
for those issues. 
AG & 20 (c) applies when the person has received or is receiving counseling for
the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control. Applicant has received and continues to receive good advice from his
credit counselor and has a plan that is being implemented with the income available. 
AG & 20 (d) applies where the evidence shows the person initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. While it not necessary that
all of the delinquent debts be resolved for mitigation to apply, it is necessary that a
significant portion of the debts be settled or paid. 
AG & 20 (e) applies when the person has a reasonable basis to dispute the
legitimacy of of the debt and provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue. Applicant
has shown that the two denied debts are being disputed with the help of professionals. 
9
Applicant has shown that both his federal and state tax debts are being resolved
and that he is not accumulating further debt. His professional advisor has analyzed the
status of the remaining credit card debts to my satisfaction. They are being resolved as
best Applicant can and they pose no threat to national security. The mitigating
conditions are applicable. 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and all the facts and
circumstances, in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has mitigated
the concerns. By his mid-thirties he changed himself from an alcoholic drug abuser to a
worthwhile citizen holding a responsible position in the defense industry. He is admired
and trusted by his employer and his supervisors. He has removed himself from the drug
scene and does not drink even on social occasions. His health is a continuing problem
but it is not adding to any of the issues presented to me. 
I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan,
484 U.S. 518 (1988), a careful consideration of the whole person factors and supporting
evidence, application of the pertinent factors under the adjudicative process, and
interpretation of my responsibilities under the guidelines. Applicant has mitigated or
overcome the government’s case. For the reasons stated, I conclude he is eligible for
access to classified information.
Formal Findings
Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
10
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d.:For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G:FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraph 2.a.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.d.:For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT 
 Subparagraph 3.a.:For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 3.b.:For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 3.c.:For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 3.d.:For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 3.e.:For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 3.f.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 3.g.:For Applicant
 Subparagraph 3.h.:For Applicant 
Subparagraph 3.i.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.j.: For Applicant
 Subparagraph 3.k.:For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.l.:  For Applicant
 Subparagraph 3.m.:For Applicant
 Subparagraph 3.n.:For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by lthe record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue eligibility for a security
clearance for Applicant at this time. Clearance is granted. 
Charles D. Ablard
Administrative Judge