1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-03623
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Nickolas G. Petersen, Esquire
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) certified on August 7, 2007. On July 31, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and Department of Defense Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (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. 
In a response dated September 11, 2008, Applicant denied the Guideline H
allegations, noting his disagreement with the wording of the allegations in terms of the
dates and frequency of drug use. With regard to Guideline F, he admitted to 8 of the 14
allegations raised. Applicant also requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative
Judge. I was assigned the case on December 15, 2008. Department Counsel and
 Tr. 14-36.1
 At times, the transcript misidentifies the number of documents offered by Department Counsel and accepted2
into the record, see, e.g., pages 2 and 17. The proper number is six, as shown at page 14. 
 Ex. R (Cover letter to submission package) contains a table of contents for documents designated as “a”3
through “k,” but does not include any documents identified as “a” or “b”. It does, however, include an additional
document that has been accepted as Exhibit YY. There is no break in the facsimile transmission pagination
to indicate an electronic transmission failure. Contrast Department Counsel’s Memorandum for Administrative
Judge Regarding Post Hearing Submissions, dated Feb. 19, 2009.
 The child’s mother did not want to marry, wished to remain a single mother, and made no request for child4
support. On his own initiative, Applicant “went and filed for child support against” himself in order to provide
assistance for their son. Tr. 113-114.
 Tr. 103. Applicant’s mother once gave him a singular pill of one of her prescribed medications for anxiety5
or tension (Xanax, a benzodiazepine). Tr. 114-115.
2
Applicant proposed a February 4, 2009, hearing, and a Notice of Hearing was issued to
that effect on January 16, 2009.
The hearing took place as scheduled. An amended Answer to the SOR, dated
January 22, 2009, was received during the hearing. That Answer denied all allegations
under Guideline F. After a series of objections regarding potential evidentiary
submissions,  testimony was given by Applicant and five witnesses for Applicant. The1
witnesses consisted of Applicant’s wife, his employer, and three character witnesses.
Accepted into the record as evidence were six documents from Department Counsel,
designated as exhibits (Exs.) 1-6.  Applicant’s proffer of 17 documents was accepted as2
Exs. A-Q. Applicant was given leave to supplement the record after the close of the
hearing. A post-hearing package of submissions, dated February 19, 2009, was
forwarded to Department Counsel. On March 2, 2009, I received a copy of that
submission and a statement from Department Counsel that she had no objection to its
contents. Those documents were accepted into the record as Exs. R-BB and the record
was closed.  In the interim, the transcript (Tr.) was received on February 23, 2009.3
Based upon a review of the case file, exhibits, and testimony, security clearance is
granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 31-year-old photo optic technician earning approximately $52,000
a year. He has worked for the same defense contractor for approximately two years. He
earned an associate of arts degree in May 1999. Applicant has been married for a little
over one year and the couple has an infant child. He also has a six-year-old child from a
previous relationship for whom he pays regular child support.4
Applicant was born into a military family in which illegal drugs were not tolerated.5
Being home-schooled, he was not exposed to drugs in high school. After completing
college in May 1999, Applicant left home and started work at a camera rental business,
working a regular 9-to-5 job. At that point, his focus was on building a career, although
 Tr. 67.6
 Tr. 68.7
 Tr. 109.8
 Tr. 115.9
 Tr. 57.10
 Id.11
 Tr. 62.12
 Tr. 62-63.13
 Tr. 58.14
 Id.15
 Tr. 12, 61; Ex. B (Statement of Applicant, notarized Jan. 22, 2009).16
3
he experimented with some drugs. The drugs “did not take hold” and he concentrated
on his work.  After three years, he decided to freelance in a capacity that permitted him6
to work on sets at the request of productions shooting in his town. He soon moved to a
major metropolitan city to do the same type of work. It was a “glamorous lifestyle” where
he met “movie stars and music stars, sports legends, political figures. . . .”  When he7
first encountered drugs on the set, he was appalled. He soon realized it “was always
around.”  Eventually, he developed relationships with many of his transient co-workers.8
He started to use cocaine in 2002 along with those peers, particularly on the longer
shoots offering significant overtime pay. He would sometimes contribute $10 to a kitty
on the set for its purchase.  During this time, other drugs were tried with these peers. 9
In 2006, Applicant met the woman he subsequently would marry in 2008. They
dated for about six months before she took the relationship seriously.  She was10
concerned, however, with his lifestyle: “He worked when he got a job, so it was here
and there. And he kind of lived the, I guess, a partyers [sic] lifestyle, drugs on the set.”11
She began to recognize certain signs indicating when he had used drugs, noting he
would become “very detached, emotionally. He was sloppy. He didn’t care about – –
much about his looks, about his household. Just kind of unfocused. Very into himself.”12
She also learned to link the presence of certain phone numbers and associates with his
drug use. She noticed that his periods of drug use coincided with low finances.  She13
did not wish to continue in a deepening relationship with a drug abuser. She spoke with
him about his drug use, which she considered to be “unnecessary.”  They “had very14
serious conversations about him stopping and not ever starting the use of drugs ever
again and about what his future was.”  He told her he would quit drugs, but he had a15
one-time relapse a few months later. Not wanting to jeopardize his relationship or to
return to a drug-related lifestyle, he made the commitment to stop using drugs in
around late February or early March 2007.  He left the city and returned to their16
hometown. Since then, Applicant married his girlfriend, fathered the couple’s daughter,
 Tr. 100.17
 Ex. B (Applicant’s Notarized Affidavit, dated Jan. 22, 2009); Tr. 19; content affirmed elsewhere in testimony,18
e.g., Tr. 100. Applicant’s counsel stated that the format for this affidavit was taken from the DOHA website.
Tr. 19. It appears to be intended to create a document meeting the requirements of Guideline H mitigating
condition 2, AG ¶ 26(b).
 Tr. 59, 53-54. 48, 43-46, 41-42.19
 Tr. 57.20
 Tr. 59.21
 Tr. 62-63.22
 Tr. 59-60.23
 Tr. 63.24
 Id.25
 Tr. 64.26
 Tr. 54; see also Tr. 42-43.27
4
dedicated himself to his current work, and became an active member of his wife’s
church. He also started coaching for the local Little League, where he currently serves
on the board of directors.
Applicant admits his past drug use, but notes “I have definitely left that lifestyle
and left that environment.”  Through testimony, he affirmed a notarized affidavit17
summarizing his past drug use and actions to quit drugs, and expressing his intent
never to return to drug abuse.  To the best of Applicant’s wife’s knowledge, as well as18
that of his boss and work peers, he has not used drugs since making the decision to
quit abusing drugs.  Drug free, she describes Applicant as a “wonderful husband” and19
the “best father.”  She will “absolutely not” tolerate his return to drugs.  She is aware20 21
of the signs of his drug use and is proactive on noting any potential signs.  She22
vehemently testified that should she see any sign of potential drug use by her husband,
she “would be furious and irate with him. [She] would probably pack up [their] daughter
and leave him.”  Since quitting drugs, his circle of friends has changed “dramatically.”23 24
He no longer associates with his former photography and drug using connections.25
Their current circle of friends include contacts from Applicant’s current place of
employment, local Little League staff, and friends of Applicant’s wife: “He likes all my
friends, and I choose good people to hang out with and associate with.”  26
At work, Applicant’s supervisor has noticed no sign of drug use by Applicant,
noting a person in Applicant’s position could not exercise the requisite expertise and
accuracy to execute Applicant’s job functions.  A local Little League official describes27
Applicant as “a responsible and positive role model[,] an active participant in our
 Ex. G (Little League Official’s letter, undated).28
 Ex. H (Letter, dated Jan. 28, 2009).29
 Id.30
 Ex. E and Ex. L (Drug testing reports), Ex. M (Five Panel Drug Screen profile); Tr. 81-82.31
 Ex. C (Company Policy Manual) at 11-12.32
 Id. at 12.33
See Tr. 74.34
5
community and an outstanding representative of the league.”  Based on testimony by28
his supervisor and peers, Applicant’s reputation in the community is not one of a current
drug user, at home, at work, or in his work with the local Little League. 
Applicant was examined by a Licensed Mental Health Counselor/National
Certified Counselor in January 2009. She noted that Applicant has “changed his
lifestyle significantly and has been clean for the past two years. He displays emotional
maturity and behaves responsibly. He has shown he is committed to family values and
social responsibility.”  She concluded that Applicant “has demonstrated that he has29
overcome his past issues with substance abuse,” noting he is a “productive, reliable,
and responsible person and will continue to serve the community in an even greater
capacity if given the opportunity.”  Drug test reports executed on October 20, 2008,30
January 19, 2009, and February 3, 2009, reflect certifications by a medical doctor as
having “negative” results for amphetamines, cannabinoids (including marijuana),
cocaine (including crack cocaine), opiates (including heroin), and phencyclidine.31
Applicant’s employer maintains a Drug Free Workplace policy and Applicant is subject
to a random drug testing policy.  It reserves the right to conduct drug/alcohol screening32
“following supervisory or employee observation of suspected drug or alcohol use; any
other event that could be reasonably construed to involve drug/alcohol abuse. . . .”  33
Applicant admits he has tried or used cocaine, crack, heroin, and marijuana in
the past. The record reflects inconsistencies, however, with regard to the time and
frequency of his drug use. Applicant disclosed his past drug use in his security
application. He was then interviewed on the matter on October 5, 2007, which was the
source for the SOR allegations. Applicant’s subsequent responses disclosed more
specific responses, resulting in inconsistencies in the record between the interview
notes, Applicant’s initial SOR response, and his amended response with regard to
cocaine use. Applicant credibly testified in terms of dates and frequency roughly
equivalent with the information contained in the amended response.34
 In amending his Answer, Applicant wrote that the SOR sources are based on “partial quote[s] from an35
October 5 , 2007, interview with government officials” which contain “material” omissions.th
 Contrast Tr. 74-76.36
 No frequency is given with regard to crack, heroin, or marijuana use. Consequently, there is no material37
inconsistency with regard to the frequency with which Applicant abused these drugs.
 Consistent with his original SOR Response, Applicant’s testimony at the hearing was that he only used38
marijuana through 2005.
6
SOR SOR Response Amended SOR
Response35
COCAINE - used “up to
five times per month, from
about 2002 to at least
March 2007”36
“used cocaine approxi-
mately 1 to 2 times per
month, but not every
month, from 2002 to 2005,
approximately 2 to 5 times
per month from 2005 to”
March 2007
used cocaine from about
2002 “and continued to do
so once a month or every
other month until 2005
when his cocaine use
increased to 2-5 times
each month until 03/2007”
CRACK - used “from 2005
to at least 2006”37
“used crack approximately
3 or 4 times in the Fall of
2005, a couple of times
(approximately two)
between 2005 and 2006
and discontinued use
thereafter”
“smoked crack between 3
and 4 times in the fall of
2005 and again a couple
of times between 2005
and 2006”
HEROIN - “in at least the
spring and summer of
2005”
“used heroin two or three
times in the Spring and
Summer of 2005, and
discontinued use
thereafter”
used “heroin as an
experiment [2 or 3 times]
in the spring and summer
of 2005”
MARIJUANA - “from 2002
to at least 2007”
used marijuana “a total of
three times between 2002
and 2005 and
discontinued thereafter”
used “marijuana a total of
3 times between 2002 and
2007”38
All these dates are approximate, based not on a record, but on personal estimates. 
In his security clearance application, Applicant admitted having had delinquent
accounts in the past or at the time of his application. Stating that his answer was based
on estimates, he enumerated five accounts of which he then had knowledge. This
included a possible IRS balance from an estimated time frame of April 2003, although
he stated “it is my intention to find out how much I might owe and pay it off.” (Emphasis
 See, e.g., Tr. 87.39
 In closing, Department Counsel conceded that the Government’s “primary concern” is Guideline H. Tr. 124.40
 At hearing, Applicant testified this obligation belonged to a former roommate and the matter was being41
examined. Ex. P (Debt status, dated Feb. 4, 2009). After hearing, Applicant wrote that he was submitting as
enclosure a) a document showing the $379 balance was settled for $126. As noted, supra, the submission
contained no such document. However, in Ex. 5 (Credit report, dated Aug. 16, 2007), the entry notes that the
account was reported and has a date of last activity shown as September 2002, less than seven years ago.
The record and the Applicant have demonstrated that none of the subsequent credit reports from 2008 or
2009 reference either that collection agent or underlying creditor. Consequently, its deletion can be assumed
to be the result of satisfaction or removal for error, not because the entry was stale.
 Applicant’s post-hearing submission indicates that enclosure b) shows satisfaction of this obligation, but42
there is no corresponding document noting either that amount or the referenced collection agent. Applicant’s
Ex. Q (Credit report, dated Feb. 4, 2009), however, reflects it remains on his credit report as unpaid.
 A receipt showing a zero balance for account number containing –52066 corresponds to its entry in  Ex. 543
(Credit report, dated Aug. 16, 2007) for an account including that same numerical sequence. 
 Ex. T reflects a collection effort for $5,536 with a current balance of zero.44
7
in the original). He was unaware of some of the delinquent accounts on his credit
report.39
At issue in the SOR are the following 14 delinquent debts, as depicted as entries
in credit reports dated August 16, 2007, and June 23, 2008. They include balances for
immediate medical care, most of which were initially attributed directly to Applicant
before his employer processed his paperwork for company health insurance coverage.
Most of the remainder of the debts were originally incurred when Applicant was
freelancing, between 2002 and 2006. Of those debts, seven are now paid in full
(approximately $9,150), two have been paid or otherwise deleted from Applicant’s credit
report within seven years (approximately $2,600), the status of two accounts remains
unknown (approximately $700), two debts were deleted as error (approximately $575)
and an IRS liability was not substantiated.  The accounts at issue are as follows:40
CREDITOR/SOR
ALLEGATION #
STATUS SOURCE
1.a - Telecommunication
collection ($379)
Deleted from credit report Ex. P, Ex. R41
1.b - Medical bill ($67) Unknown; no evidence of
payment
Ex. R; Tr. 11942
1.c - Medical bill ($142) Paid Ex. S43
1.d - Creditor ($669) Unknown; no evidence of
payment
See Ex. R
1.e - Creditor ($5,536) Paid Ex. T44
 Ex. 5 shows that this account was opened in 2006 for cable service. In Ex. P, Applicant stated this creditor45
was unable to locate his account. He testified he had disputed this account. Applicant’s 2009 credit report,
Ex. Q, and the Government’s 2008 credit report, Ex. 3, no longer reflect the entry as derogatory information.
 Ex. U shows telecommunication account including account numbers –70075 with a zero balance.46
 This account was not noted in the Government’s Ex. 5 (Credit report, dated Aug. 16, 2007) or Ex. 3 (Credit47
report, dated Jan. 29, 2009, nor does it appear in Applicant’s Ex. Q (Credit report, dated Feb. 4, 2009. It only
appears in the intervening Government Ex. 4 (Credit report, dated Jun. 23, 2008) for an account with a date
of last activity in 2007. That credit report also notes that Applicant disputed this entry. Inasmuch as seven
years have not passed, it may be assumed that its deletion from subsequent credit reports proffered by both
the Government and Applicant indicates its satisfaction or deletion as error.
 This debt is first reflected in Applicant’s June 2008 credit report, Ex. 4, where it is noted as having been48
listed in January 2008. It does not appear in his 2007 credit report, nor does it appear in any of the subsequent
credit reports. Consequently, it can be concluded the account has been paid or deleted as error. 
 After hearing, Applicant submitted Ex. AA (Collection statement, undated) indicating payment for this exact49
balance was made to this collection agent for account including the numerical sequence of –15431 at some
time in 2007. The credit report entry reflects that same amount and account number sequence.
 Ex. BB (Collection statement, dated Oct. 21, 2008) notes that account containing the number sequence50
–53906 now has a zero balance. That is the same account noted in the June 2008 credit report (Ex. 4).
 This obligation was not noted in any of the credit reports submitted by either party.51
 Based on Applicant’s security clearance estimate that he “might” owe a balance to the IRS from an52
estimated time period of April 2003, the SOR alleges an IRS indebtedness incurred in 2003. Applicant notes
he has made inquiries as to whether he has a balance owed. He wrote “The IRS does not have me on record
as owing them money.” He also notes it is not in his credit reports. He testified that after investigation, he does
not now believe he owes any taxes. Tr. 94, 123. There is no official evidence of any IRS liability.
8
1.f - Cable TV bill ($196) Deleted from credit report Ex. P, Ex. Q, Ex. R, Ex. 345
1.g - Telecommunication
collection ($172)
Paid; account in good
standing
Ex. U46
1.h - Insurance bill ($81) Paid Ex. V
1.i - Insurance bill ($101) Paid Ex. W
1.j - Medical bill ($2,288) Paid or deleted from credit
report after successful
dispute
Ex. 3, Ex. Q, Ex. R47
1.k - Medical bill ($356) Paid or deleted from credit
report as error
Ex. 4, Ex. 3, Ex. Q; Tr.
12248
1.l - Medical bill ($2,672) Paid Ex. AA49
1.m - Medical bill ($442) Paid Ex. BB50
1.n - IRS debt (no amount
indicated)51
Debt not established Ex. P; Tr. 94, 12352
 Tr. 83-84.53
 Tr. 86.54
 Tr. 97-98; see also witness testimony, Tr. 36-55.55
 W itness testimony, Tr. 36-55.56
 Tr. 98.57
9
Applicant currently nets approximately $3,100 per month after taxes,
garnishments, child support, and health/dental/vision insurance.  After paying rent,53
utilities, cable, internet, car insurance, phone service, his wife’s student loan, and a
10% tithe to his church, he has a remainder of approximately $621 per month to save
or spend on other expenses. He is now timely on his payment of bills.  While providing54
for his family, their needs are not extravagant. The majority of their social time is spent
with friends from their church or the Little League, or entertaining office associates and
friends at home. At work, he is considered a valuable asset and has received
recognition for his performance and work ethic.  He is particularly noted for his55
precision with intricate and delicate optic materials.  He has been recognized for taking56
over one of his company’s operations and nearly doubling its success rate in a very
short period.57
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. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).58
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).59
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).60
 Id.61
 Id.62
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.63
10
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a58
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable59
clearance decision is on the applicant.  60
 
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 EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access61
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily62
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the63
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I agree the following adjudicative
guidelines are the most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline H - Drug Involvement. The Concern: 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.
“Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include drugs,
materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970, as amended, (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants,
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 24.64
 AG ¶ 18.65
11
narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens) and inhalants and other substances. “Drug
abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from
approved medical direction.  64
Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The Concern: Failure or an 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.65
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate security
concerns, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions below.
Analysis
GUIDELINE H
Applicant admits he used various illegal drugs with varying frequency between
2002 and February 2007. He also once took a Xanax for anxiety or tension, which was
given to him by his mother. Occasionally, Applicant also contributed to the purchase of
drugs on the set of his assignments while freelancing in a major city. Consequently,
both Drug Involvement (DI) Disqualifying Conditions (DC) AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse)
and AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution) apply. With disqualifying conditions thus established, the
burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns.
Applicant left a regimented upbringing and eventually found himself in a big city
working in what seemed to be a unique and glamorous environment. Drug use he
initially found surprising and antithetical to the work soon seemed as commonplace as
the celebrities he routinely encountered. He succumbed to its use as he became closer
to his drug using associates and their cosmopolitan culture, as well as the possibility of
double pay for overtime. Since that time, he has sworn off drugs, moved back to his
hometown, married a strong willed woman who is adamantly against drug use and his
former lifestyle/profession, changed his circle of friends, became a father, and
refocused himself on his work and hometown community involvement. Additionally,
although the extent of her examination is unknown, he was given a highly favorable
assessment by a licensed counselor. Such assessment is due some degree of
consideration. Applicant’s conduct and the unique environment in which he used drugs
stands in large contrast to the passionate resolve and strong character he now displays
in his more recent situation. Given his return home, his family’s and professional peers’
influence and support, and Applicant’s personal resolve, there is no reason to believe
he would give up his refocused life and revert to drug use. Under such facts, DI
12
Mitigating Condition (MC) 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)
applies. 
Cocaine was Applicant’s drug of choice, with lesser use of crack, marijuana, and
some experimentation with heroin. Consequently, DI MC AG ¶ 26(c) (abuse of
prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs
were prescribed, and abuse has since ended) does not apply. Similarly, although
Applicant was given a favorable analysis by a licensed counselor, he did not undergo a
prescribed drug treatment program. DI MC AG ¶ 26(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) does not apply.
With his former girlfriend’s help, Applicant realized how far he had deviated from
his initial goals and upbringing while living what appeared to be a sophisticated lifestyle.
Wanting to return to his original professional goals and to not lose his girlfriend, he quit
drugs and the freelance life in his former milieu, ceased contact with those who use
drugs, moved back home from the city, found a professional niche that was both
challenging and enjoyable, wooed and won his bride, completely changed his circle of
friends, became a “wonderful husband” and “the best father,” joined a church, and
become civically involved. He has thrived in this new environment and demonstrated a
complete turnaround in his lifestyle. While this nearly two and one half year period may
be argued to be recent, recency is not an explicit bar to mitigation under this guideline.
Under facts and circumstances unique to this particular case, Applicant’s period of
abstinence is an appropriate period given the personal transformation and showing of
resolve he has demonstrated in that time. This conclusion is shared by a licensed
counselor as well as his wife and peers. All of these facts bolster the fact he has
certified and repeatedly stated his firm intent not to return to drugs in the future. Such
facts raise sections (1), (2), and (3) of DI MC AG ¶ 26(b) (a documented 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). 
With the aid of counsel, Applicant signed a statement reflecting he is aware of
Department of Defense drug policies and understands future drug use could result in
the loss of a security clearance and his current employment. In it, he also stated that he
has no intention of ever resuming illegal drug use. This notarized statement of intent not
to resume drug use was obviously executed as an attempt to invoke section (4) of DI
MC AG ¶ 26(b) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation). While technically it lacks an automatic revocation clause, its basis on a
DOHA example to meet this mitigating condition gives sufficient basis to conclude this
condition is met in part, with its technical deficiency duly noted. 
Since giving up drugs in February 2007, Applicant has dramatically turned his life
around from freelancing bachelor with a drug habit to a family man and settled
 Such character traits strike to the core of the concerns underlying Guideline H. See AG ¶ 24. 66
13
professional who is spiritually and civically active. His professional success and obvious
devotion to his family, combined with the persuasive testimony of both his peers and his
wife, do not reflect a man likely to return to drugs. Indeed, in light of the facts and
testimony, the Applicant at present is one possessing the requisite reliability,
trustworthiness, maturity, judgment, and willingness to comply with laws and rules
expected of any individual seeking a security clearance.  Guideline H security concerns66
are mitigated.
GUIDELINE F
Applicant was aware of some, but not all, of the derogatory information
contained in his credit reports when he executed his security clearance application.
While many of the enumerated accounts in the SOR were previously paid or entered in
error, several entries reflected genuinely delinquent accounts. Consequently, Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. With such conditions raised, the burden is placed on Applicant to overcome the
case against him and mitigate security concerns. 
Nearly half of the accounts at issue were for immediate medical care occurring
before Applicant’s current employer had processed his medical insurance application.
Evidence was provided showing all but a $67 balance of that debt has been addressed.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that
resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce
or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) applies.
The accounts at issue were mainly created between 2002 and 2007. Since that
time, Applicant has given up drugs and left his former lifestyle, factors his wife suggests
used to impact his finances. Today, he lives within budget. More than one delinquent
account, however, remains to be either paid or further investigated. While Applicant has
acted responsibly since learning of these accounts, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the 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) does not
apply.
Of those delinquent debts cited in the SOR, seven are now paid in full, two have
been paid or otherwise deleted from Applicant’s credit report within seven years, the
current status of two accounts remains unknown, two debts were deleted as error, and
the alleged IRS debt was credibly explained as based on error. Applicant is still
pursuing information on his two unknown and unresolved debts, involving a
manageable amount of, at most, about $700. Given these facts, FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the
 See, e.g., Tr. 124.67
 Applicant also consumed a Xanax given to him by his mother from her personal prescription. 68
14
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts) applies. 
Applicant disclosed what he thought were all of his delinquent accounts,
including one which ultimately proved to be nonexistent. He successfully disputed some
accounts and paid others. Only two accounts, representing no more than $700, remain
at issue. He is continuing to pursue their resolution. Otherwise, Applicant is living drug-
free, has stable employment, and is providing for his family within his means. Given
Applicant’s testimony and evidence with regard to the resolution of the accounts at
issue, I conclude financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. 
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 public trust position must be an overall common sense judgment based upon
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors noted above. Applicant is a credible and focused young man who has the
support of his equally credible witnesses. Applicant’s wife’s demeanor and testimony
was particularly credible, often critical and always candid. With regard to Guideline F,
Applicant has made significant strides in addressing his delinquent debt, is committed
to stying solvent and saving for his family’s future, and is now living within his means.
He has also removed himself from the temptations of his former milieu. Applicant
provided persuasive evidence that his financial situation is now under control and that
he is currently able to save for future contingencies. Remaining are concerns regarding
Guideline H.  67
Speaking against Applicant are his selection of drugs and both the length and
frequency of his drug use. In particular, cocaine, crack, and heroin are notoriously
“hardcore” drugs.  As noted by Department Counsel, they are particularly addictive.68
Despite his seemingly regular use of cocaine over a five year period and his more
15
sporadic use of other drugs during a shorter time span, however, there is no indication
that he developed an addiction so nagging as to prevent him from quitting drugs
successfully for nearly two and a half years, turning his life completely around, and
successfully engaging in highly intricate work. But for his past drug use, today’s
Applicant appears to be a model father, employee, and rising community leader.   
Many more facts speak for Applicant. When persuaded by his girlfriend to give
up  his freelancing lifestyle in a big city, he did so. His sole relapse was shortly after he
moved home, on his one visit back to his old environment before ultimately giving up
drugs for good in February or March of 2007. While that occasion triggered a relapse, it
was also a learning experience. He has demonstrated that his nearly two and a half
years of abstinence was an appropriate period inasmuch as he has accomplished
considerably more than most similarly situated individuals. He has matured and
demonstrated his ability to remain drug-free and thrive. Eschewing contact with his old
associates, residence, and lifestyle, he has built a new career and family life in his
hometown community. Unlike the situation with the mother of his first child, his wife is
as committed to their marriage, their family, and their current lifestyle, as he is. As a
couple, they are mutually supportive. Similarly, his employer is highly supportive of
Applicant, a valued and devoted employee capable of delicate and precise work. He
has become involved in a local church and is active in his community. He is lauded for
his professionalism on the job and for his community leadership working with children.
He is surrounded by a positive and supportive network of family, associates, and
friends, for which he appears properly appreciative. 
Applicant’s testimony revealed a man highly content with his current life and who
is thoroughly resolved about staying drug-free. There is no indication that he would
sacrifice his current life, work, or lifestyle, nor is there any indication he would ever
consider returning to drugs or his former milieu. In light of such facts, and given his
demonstrated growth and abstinence, no residual doubts remain. With drug
involvement security concerns mitigated, clearance is granted. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
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 F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
16
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge