1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ----------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-06964
SSN: --------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
While holding a security clearance for her duties with a defense contractor,
Applicant used cocaine from January 2006 until August 2006, when she was arrested
for possession of cocaine and risk of injury to a minor. She relapsed twice in 2007 while
she was in counseling, including one time after she had completed a court-ordered
pretrial drug education program. She intends to maintain a lifestyle free of illegal drugs,
but the drug involvement and related personal conduct concerns are not fully mitigated.
Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on November 20, 2007. On May 29, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline E, personal
conduct, that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny her a security
clearance. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
There is nothing in the record to indicate when a hearing was requested. She did not object when1
she received the Notice of Hearing and agreed to a change in the hearing date.
2
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense as of September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on July 9, 2009, and requested a decision based
on the written record without a hearing. On August 6, 2009, the case was assigned to
me to conduct a hearing and to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  On August 12, 2009, I1
scheduled a hearing for September 15, 2009. Due to a schedule change, I rescheduled
the hearing for September 16, 2009, with the agreement of the parties.
I convened the hearing as rescheduled. Five government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and
five Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-E) were entered into evidence without any objections, and
Applicant testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on September 25, 2009.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline H (drug involvement) that Applicant used cocaine
from about January 2006 to at least March 2007 (SOR 1.a); that she purchased cocaine
(SOR 1.b); that she was charged in about August 2006 with possession of cocaine and
risk of injury to a minor (SOR 1.c), for which she completed ten hours of drug education
classes and 32 hours of community service before the charges were nolled [sic] (SOR
1.c); and that she received treatment from August 2006 to about November 2006 (SOR
1.d), and from September 2006 to March 2008 (SOR 1.e), for diagnosed cocaine abuse.
Applicant’s use and purchase of cocaine and her arrest for possession of cocaine were
cross-alleged under Guideline E (SOR 2.b). DOHA also alleged under Guideline E that
Applicant used cocaine after she had been granted a security clearance in about 1994
(SOR 2.a).
Applicant admitted the allegations under Guidelines H and E, clarifying that she
used cocaine from January 2006 to August 2006, and relapsed twice, once in January
2007 and once in March 2007. Applicant denied the implication that she was unreliable
and untrustworthy because of her illegal drug involvement, and averred that she was
completely truthful on her security clearance paperwork and during her subject
interview. She maintained she had been abstinent for the past two plus years and
intended to maintain that lifestyle. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and
transcript, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 43-year-old senior electrical engineer who has worked for her
employer, a defense contractor, since February 1988, when she was still pursuing her
undergraduate degree. She seeks to retain the secret security clearance that she has
held since October 1994 (Ex. 1).
The date of her daughter’s birth is incorrect on the e-QIP. Her youngest child was born in 2001. See2
Ex. 4.
3
Applicant, who drank to excess on the weekends in college, also used cocaine
during her senior year on occasion (“just a night out type thing”) (Ex. 4, Tr. 62). In June
1989, she was awarded her bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering (Ex. 1).
In April 1992, Applicant and her now ex-spouse married, and they had a daughter in
1995 (Exs. 1, 4).  By the mid to late 1990s, Applicant was drinking and gambling at a2
local casino, which caused some problems in her marriage (Ex. 4). Following a driving
under the influence offense in September 1998, Applicant stopped going to the casino,
and in 1999, she completed inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment for alcohol
abuse. She also began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings on a weekly
basis, even though her spouse was not supportive of her AA involvement, and she
stopped drinking alcohol (Exs. 3, 4). Applicant and her spouse later had a son in June
2001 (Ex. 1).
Following a car accident in March 2004 (Ex. A, Tr. 61), Applicant began to suffer
chronic pain due to spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease. Surgery was
contraindicated (“last option”) due to other medical issues. In September 2004, she
started taking a prescribed narcotic (Vicodin) for post-procedure pain after steroid
injections for her lumbar discomfort (Ex. A, Tr. 26, 32). At the recommendation of an
orthopedist, she received treatment from a chiropractor for ten weeks and then from a
physical therapist for another ten weeks, but these treatments failed to alleviate her pain
(Tr. 32). Her Vicodin dose was increased over time as her pain became overwhelming
(Tr. 30-31). As of mid-January 2005, she was taking 5 milligrams of Vicodin two to three
times a day (Ex. A). She remained abstinent from alcohol, although in 2005, she
stopped going to her weekly AA meeting because she felt guilty attending AA when she
was addicted to Vicodin (Exs. 2, 3, 4, Tr. 73). Additional steroid injections in the fall of
2005 provided no significant lasting relief from her pain (Ex. A).
Applicant used cocaine at a New Year’s Eve party on December 31, 2005, or
January 1, 2006 (Tr. 63). Feeling stress because of her failing marriage and her medical
problems, and dependent on Vicodin, Applicant began to use cocaine in January 2006
to reduce her  stress, relieve her pain, and because it was “fun” (Ex. 2, Tr. 64). She
used the drug  while socializing with friends and also at home alone. She purchased
cocaine about ten times from the same person, who worked at a local bar (Tr. 66-67).
She continued to snort the drug after two surgeries. Her first surgery, which was in
March 2006, left her in worse pain and unable to work. Her dosage of Vicodin was
increased. In late May 2006, she had surgery for her herniated disks, which led to a
reduction in her pain, and consequent decrease in her Vicodin dose (Exs. 2, 3, 4, A, Tr.
26). In early July 2006, she returned to work for the defense contractor (Ex. A).
Applicant continued to use and purchase cocaine, knowing that it was illegal. She gave
no thought at the time to whether it was against her employer’s drug policy and DoD
security guidelines (Tr. 68-69).
About four hours after snorting cocaine in August 2006, Applicant took her
children and one of their friends to the local mall where she lost her wallet containing
Community service records indicate Applicant was required to complete 32 hours of community3
service by July 6, 2007. She completed her hours between July 13, 2007, and July 20, 2007. Despite her
belated compliance, the court dismissed the drug charge and the state dropped the felony risk of injury to a
minor charge.
4
cocaine. Mall security acquired possession, and found three small packs of cocaine,
each containing about a half gram of the drug. Local police were called, and Applicant
was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and with felony risk of injury to a
minor (Exs. 2, 3, 4, Tr. 79). At the referral of her attorney, Applicant was evaluated by a
clinical psychologist in August 2006, who diagnosed her with major depressive disorder,
recurrent, moderate level, with opioid dependence, and with cocaine abuse (Ex. 4, Tr.
80). Applicant attended weekly treatment sessions with the clinical psychologist starting
August 25, 2006 (SOR 1.d), and she resumed weekly AA meetings. She was spending
about $150 per week on lottery tickets, but managed to avoid casino gambling, and she
abstained from the use of cocaine. By the time she appeared in court in late September
2006, she had weaned herself off her narcotic analgesic medication under a plan
devised with the consultation of the clinical psychologist and her physician (Exs. 3, 4, A,
Tr. 28). The court approved her application to enter a pretrial drug rehabilitation
program, and continued her case until July 2007 pending her completion of 32 hours of
community service and the drug program (Exs. 2, 3, B).
In addition to her weekly AA meetings and sessions with the clinical psychologist,
on September 20, 2006, Applicant began attending a weekly relapse prevention group,
and biweekly individual mental health and substance abuse counseling sessions with a
licensed alcohol and drug counselor (LADC) employed as a clinical supervisor at the
counseling center (SOR 1.e) (Exs. 4, 5, Tr. 28). A psychiatrist affiliated with the center
started Applicant on a second medication for bipolar issues to supplement the
antidepressant that she had been taking since 2001 (Exs. 4, 5).
Following an incident of domestic violence against her in October 2006, Applicant
and her spouse decided to divorce. With the social supports of AA and the relapse
prevention group, and with her divorce progressing smoothly, Applicant was not
gambling, or using any illegal drugs as of her last session of record with the clinical
psychologist on November 6, 2006. The clinical psychologist assessed her prognosis as
very good to excellent (Ex. 4).
Despite her ongoing individual counseling and group sessions at the counseling
center (Ex. 1), and weekly AA attendance (Tr. 29), Applicant relapsed and used cocaine
at a party on January 1, 2007 (Ex. 2, Tr. 70). A friend gave her the cocaine (Ex. 2). In
February 2007, Applicant completed the court-ordered 12-hour pretrial drug education
class at a local alcohol rehabilitation center (Exs. 3, B, Tr. 28-29). Yet, she used and
purchased cocaine while at a bar with a friend on March 17, 2007 (Ex. 2, Tr. 71). In July
2007, Applicant completed the community service hours required by the court, and the
drug charge was dismissed.  The felony risk of injury charge was nolle prossed (Ex. 3).3
In August 2007, Applicant’s divorce was final (Ex. 1).
5
Applicant completed an e-QIP on November 20, 2007, for a periodic
reinvestigation of her security clearance. She listed her past counseling with the clinical
psychologist, and her ongoing counseling with the LADC and psychiatrist affiliated with
the substance abuse counseling center. In response to inquiry concerning her police
record, she disclosed her August 2006 drug offense. Concerning illegal drug use in the
past seven years, she indicated that she used cocaine five times from April 2006 to
August 2006, which led to her arrest in August 2006 (Ex. 1). She did not disclose the full
extent of her cocaine abuse, including her relapses in 2007. Applicant’s explanation is
that she guessed about the extent of her cocaine use, “based on [her] best recollection
of what [she] could remember” (Tr. 81).
On February 6, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator
about her cocaine use. She indicated that she snorted cocaine every other weekend
from January 2006 until her arrest in August 2006, and she disclosed her relapses in
January 2007 and March 2007. Applicant denied any use of cocaine after March 17,
2007, and any intent to use cocaine in the future (Ex. 2).
On March 4, 2008, Applicant was discharged from her counseling with the LADC.
Applicant was considered stable in her recovery from “co-occurring Bipolar disorder and
Cocaine and Alcohol Abuse diagnosis.” She had been compliant with treatment,
including taking her antidepressant and bipolar medications and maintaining sobriety as
evidenced by drug screens. The LADC recommended that Applicant continue her
medication regimen and AA/NA for support with her recovery. In an undated letter, the
counselor recommended to DOHA that Applicant maintain her security clearance based
on her observations that Applicant had maintained sobriety and remained stable in her
recovery program (Ex. 5).
Applicant continued to attend AA on most Sundays through late August 2009.
She had not attended an AA meeting in the two weeks preceding her September 16,
2009, hearing, and gave no reason for her failure to attend (“Don’t particularly know.”)
(Tr. 73-74). She intends to continue her current level of commitment to AA (Tr. 44).
Applicant has had two sponsors in AA. She obtained a sponsor when she first went to
AA for help in maintaining sobriety from alcohol. When she returned to AA after her
arrest in 2006, she acquired a new sponsor. Applicant did not call her sponsor as often
as she should have, and she terminated the sponsorship after only six weeks (Tr. 90).
On her discharge from her counseling in March 2008, Applicant began a
therapeutic relationship with a new psychiatrist, primarily for monitoring of her
medications, although also for help controlling urges, including to gamble and to use
alcohol and cocaine (Tr. 56-57, 84). While she had not gambled at an establishment in
the last five years, she had a problem in the past with overspending on the lottery
(scratch tickets) (Tr. 56-57). Applicant met with the psychiatrist once a month until July
2009,  when he reduced the frequency of their sessions to once every three months (Tr.
44-45, 48-49). At the recommendation of the psychiatrist, Applicant began counseling
with someone in his practice in the spring of 2008. Applicant did not feel comfortable
and only went to two sessions with the counselor (Tr. 86-87). After she expressed
concerns about an increase in stress and pressure at work, the psychiatrist suggested
6
that she might want to seek counseling with someone else, but she chose not to (Tr.
87).
Applicant has been abstinent from illegal drugs since her last use on March 17,
2007 (Tr. 71). At times, including as recently as September 2009, she has had thoughts
of using cocaine to cope with stress from her children and work (Tr. 84-86). She has no
plans to use cocaine (Tr. 85). She has not consumed any alcohol since February 1999
(Tr. 30, 76). Her intent is to maintain a lifestyle free of illegal drugs and alcohol (Tr. 43).
Applicant is still friendly with someone with whom she used cocaine in the past. They
get together about once a month. Applicant testified that this friend no longer uses
cocaine, although she was unable to testify as to when her friend last used cocaine.
Applicant has not been in the presence of someone using cocaine since March 2007
(Tr. 77). She no longer goes to the bar where she bought cocaine in the past (Tr. 78).
Applicant’s cocaine abuse did not impair her work performance with the defense
contractor. She exceeded job requirements for the appraisal periods March 2007 to
March 2008 (Exs. 3, D), and March 2008 to March 2009 (Ex. D). The manager of
engineering for her department, her second level supervisor, has had a professional
association with her since 1994. He attests to Applicant having responsibility for
technical and task management of diverse development and testing projects. She
demonstrated a commitment to completing requirements and a record of appropriate
attentiveness and accountability in handling classified assignments over the years. The
engineer who directly supervised Applicant in the first phase of her career, and then
from about 2005 through at least March 2009,  considers her to be “a long-time and
values [sic] asset” to the engineering department, and he recommends that her
clearance be continued (Ex. C). Applicant informed both supervisors of her arrest for
possession of narcotics. She did not tell them that the drug involved was cocaine or that
she had ever used cocaine (Tr. 70).
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security
emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security
clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In
addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines
list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to
be considered 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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and commonsense 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.
7
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. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the
government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or
proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of
persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
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
that 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).
Analysis
Drug Involvement
The security concern about 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:
(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
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(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.
This clinical psychologist also diagnosed Applicant with opioid dependence, presumably because4
of her addiction to the narcotic analgesic Vicodin. Yet, absent evidence that Applicant abused her prescription
by using the drug in a manner that deviated from approved medical direction, her use of Vicodin is not drug
abuse within AG ¶ 24.
In ISCR Case No. 07-00558, decided on April 7, 2008, the DOHA Appeal Board cautioned against5
an overly strict definition of the terms medical professional and licensed clinical social worker. Although that
case involved the alcohol consumption guidelines AG ¶ 22(d), “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence,”
and AG ¶ 22(e), “evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who
is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program,”  the issue is whether the person is qualified to
diagnose substance abuse problems, alcohol or illegal drugs or both. The clinician in question here is a LADC
who serves as a clinical supervisor at a state human service and community development agency. 
DOHA alleged Applicant’s use of cocaine while she held a security clearance under Guideline E.6
Department Counsel conceded in her closing argument that the use of drugs after being granted a security
clearance more appropriately raises Guideline H concerns, but she did not move to amend the SOR.
Nonetheless, the circumstances under which Applicant used the illegal drugs covered under SOR 1.a must
be considered in determining the applicability of Guideline H’s disqualifying and mitigating conditions.
8
Applicant used cocaine approximately every other weekend from January 2006
until August 12, 2006, when she was arrested for possession of cocaine. She relapsed
twice while in counseling with a LADC and attending weekly AA and substance abuse
relapse prevention meetings. She snorted cocaine at a party on January 1, 2007, and at
a bar on March 17, 2007. AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” applies. Applicant purchased
cocaine at least ten times in 2006 and again on March 17, 2007, and had possession of
the drug when she used it and when she was arrested on August 12, 2006, so AG ¶
25(c), “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia,” is implicated. Furthermore,
AG ¶ 25(d), “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical
psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence,” and AG ¶ 25(e),
“evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who
is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment program,” are also pertinent. The
clinical psychologist who treated Applicant in 2006 diagnosed her with cocaine abuse
and opioid dependence.  The LADC, who counseled Applicant from September 20064
until March 2008, indicated on Applicant’s discharge that Applicant had “exhibited
improved social functioning with management of co-occurring Bipolar disorder and
Cocaine and Alcohol abuse diagnosis.”  AG ¶ 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being5
granted a security clearance,” also applies in light of the fact that all of Applicant’s
cocaine use occurred while she held a secret security clearance.6
Applicant has not used any cocaine since March 17, 2007. However, her abuse
of cocaine was not limited to the five times she reported on her e-QIP. She told a
government investigator in February 2008 that she used it every other weekend from
January 2006 until her arrest on August 12, 2006, and she relapsed twice in 2007.
Applicant did not detail the frequency of her involvement when she was questioned at
her September 2009 hearing. But she admitted she had purchased cocaine about ten
times, and she used the drug when home alone as well as with friends. AG ¶ 26(a), “the
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
9
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot reasonably be applied.
Concerning whether Applicant has demonstrated an intent to forego future drug
abuse sufficient to satisfy AG ¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in
the future,” Applicant maintains an active friendship with one of the women with whom
she used cocaine in the past, but this friend has not used cocaine in her presence in the
past few years and Applicant believes her friend is no longer using illegal drugs. Since
Applicant is no longer associating with persons whom she believes use drugs at
present, AG ¶ 26(b)(1), “disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts,” is a
factor that must be considered in her favor in assessing whether she has made the
necessary changes to maintain a lifestyle free of substance abuse. AG ¶ 26(b)(2),
“changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used,” applies in that she no
longer frequents the bar at which she purchased cocaine. I cannot apply AG ¶ 26(b)(3),
“an appropriate period of abstinence,” because of her relapses in 2007 while she was in
counseling, and her ongoing urges, albeit not acted on, to use cocaine to cope with
stress as recently as September 2009. Applicant has repeatedly expressed her intent to
abstain from illegal drugs, orally to a government investigator in February 2008 (Ex. 2)
and at her hearing (Tr. 43), and in writing when she answered the SOR. AG ¶ 26(b)(4)
requires a written commitment to abstain under the penalty of automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation. Applicant’s notarized statement of intent to maintain a drug-
free lifestyle is not sufficient to apply AG ¶ 26(b)(4).
Applicant’s efforts to deal with her cocaine abuse problem are consistent with a
credible intent to abstain. Her initial counseling with the clinical psychologist cannot be
considered completely voluntary because she was facing serious criminal charges for
cocaine possession and felony risk of injury to a minor. However, Applicant participated
in treatment well beyond the pretrial drug education program required by the court. She
completed 18 months of counseling with the LADC, who presumably had a favorable
assessment of Applicant’s prognosis since she recommended to DOHA that Applicant
retain her security clearance because of her sobriety and stability in her recovery
program. Applicant followed up with recommended medication management with a new
psychiatrist, and she attended AA on most Sundays. There is no evidence of recurrence
of drug abuse since March 17, 2007, when Applicant abused cocaine while in treatment.
But I cannot apply 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.” Family and work-related stress have led Applicant to think about using
cocaine and alcohol as recently as the week before her hearing in September 2009. Her
treating psychiatrist in summer 2009 reduced the frequency of their sessions from once
a month to once every three months. While it would indicate a stability in her
medications, Applicant is without any professional counseling for significant periods.
The psychiatrist had recommended in 2008 that she obtain counseling, but she went to
only two sessions because she did not feel comfortable with the clinician. AA could
provide Applicant with the necessary support to maintain her sobriety. Yet, despite
being a frequent attendee at AA meetings over the past three years,  Applicant has not
10
had a sponsor in AA since late fall 2006. As of her hearing in September 2009,
Applicant had not attended AA in two weeks despite recent stress, and she offered no
explanation for her absence from AA. Based on the record evidence before me, I cannot
safely conclude that her drug abuse is safely in the past.
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in Guideline E, AG ¶ 15:
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.
Applicant exercised poor judgment within the context of AG ¶ 15. She used and
purchased cocaine while she held an active security clearance. She may not have been
thinking about her clearance obligations, or that cocaine use was against DoD policy
when she used the drug, but she knew she was violating the law by doing so. Applicant
risked the health and safety of her children and one of their friends by using cocaine
before taking them to a local mall in August 2006. Furthermore, 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,” is
pertinent. Cocaine abuse is conduct which, if known, could affect her reputation at work.
The two supervisors, who attested favorably to her character and work performance
(Ex. C), are not aware that she used cocaine or that her arrest involved cocaine.
Applicant was also not completely forthright about the extent of her cocaine
abuse when she completed her e-QIP. She reported that she used cocaine only five
times between April 2006 and August 2006. During her subject interview, she indicated
that she used the drug every other weekend from January 2006 until her arrest in
August 2006, and she relapsed twice in 2007. At her September 2009 hearing, she
admitted she purchased cocaine on about ten occasions, and there is no evidence that
she bought the drug for someone else’s consumption. It is simply not credible that
Applicant would fail to recall in November 2007 that she had used cocaine in January
2007 and again in March 2007. Deliberate omission of such recent drug involvement
would implicate AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of
relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award
fiduciary responsibilities,” but the government did not cite falsification of her e-QIP as a
basis to revoke her security clearance. Applicant’s minimization of her illegal drug
involvement is nonetheless relevant in assessing her security worthiness under the
whole-person concept, infra.
11
Applicant’s cocaine abuse, especially while she held a security clearance, is too
recent and serious to satisfy mitigating condition AG ¶ 17(c), “the offense is so minor, or
so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such
unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” By the summer of 2006,
Applicant was using cocaine primarily for fun and to cope with emotional stress rather
than to alleviate debilitating pain.
AG ¶ 17(d), “the person has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors,
circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur,” applies in part. Since her arrest for
possession of cocaine, Applicant has been in treatment for her admitted cocaine abuse
problem, and for mental health issues. But as discussed under Guideline H, supra, she
has not strengthened her commitment to AA or followed through with the counseling
recommended by her psychiatrist despite ongoing stressors. Her lack of candor about
her cocaine abuse on her e-QIP raises doubts about the extent to which she is willing to
acknowledge her behavior.
Furthermore, while Applicant cannot reasonably be expected to inform all of her
coworkers about her cocaine abuse, she continues to conceal her cocaine abuse from
those supervisors who authored character reference letters on her behalf. Issues of
vulnerability to pressure or exploitation have not been adequately mitigated. AG ¶ 17(e),
“the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress,” does not apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of her conduct
and all the circumstances in light of 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 commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
Treatment itself is viewed favorably. Her cocaine abuse problem, which necessitated the treatment,7
is covered under SOR 1.a-1.b.
12
Applicant showed extremely poor judgment in using and purchasing cocaine in
knowing disregard of its illegality. She used the drug for fun while she held a security
clearance, after a court had accepted her application for a drug rehabilitation program,
and the state had agreed not to prosecute her for the felony risk of injury charge if she
completed the program. Her extended counseling with the LADC was voluntary and
reflects favorably on her, as does her good work record for the defense contractor. But
concerns persist about whether she has the level of support necessary for her to
maintain her sobriety. She receives no professional counseling at present other than
what the psychiatrist provides once every three months. Her commitment to AA at this
point is questionable, given her lack of any effort to obtain a sponsor since 2006.
Applicant’s minimization of her cocaine abuse on her e-QIP, and her failure to provide a
credible explanation for the inaccurate disclosure, also cast doubt about whether she
can be counted on to put her obligation of candor before her self-interest. Based on the
record before me for review, I am unable to conclude that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to continue Applicant’s access to classified information at this time.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant  7
   Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge