1
Applicant’s legal given name is ----------- -------- -------- ---------. Since the age of six he has used the name -------
-------------- ------------. Both names appear in various parts of the record, and refer to Applicant.   I amended
the original SOR to reflect his correct name.
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------, ------------- ------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-063851
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Stephanie N. Mendez, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant abused drugs and alcohol from 1998 to 2003, to the point of developing
dependencies. After two Minor in Possession of Alcohol (MIP) and one Driving Under
the Influence (DUI) convictions, he entered three inpatient and one outpatient treatment
programs. The latter two of those were successful, and he has been clean and sober
since May 2003. He deliberately falsified and omitted relevant facts concerning this
history at various stages of the security clearance process. Applicant mitigated drug and
alcohol-related security concerns, but failed to mitigate resulting criminal and personal
conduct security concerns. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, testimony,
and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on September 24,
2007. On August 5, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under
2
Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and
J (Criminal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information that went into effect within the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 17, 2009. He answered
the SOR in writing on September 2, 2009, and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge. Applicant failed to respond to the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and
4.a in this response. On September 25, 2009, DOHA resubmitted the SOR to Applicant
to correct this error. Applicant again answered the SOR in writing on October 14, 2009.
This answer (AR) was identical to his initial answer, but also admitted to SOR ¶ 1.a. He
again failed to respond to SOR ¶ 4.a, which essentially alleged the facts set forth in
SOR ¶ 1 by reference. 
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on November 16, 2009, and the
case was assigned to me on November 18, 2009. Appellant was performing assigned
work at a shipyard in another state until mid-February, so DOHA transferred the case to
a different administrative judge responsible for that area on December 17, 2009. That
administrative judge convened the hearing on January 28, 2010, and initially denied
Applicant’s motion for a continuance to obtain counsel and further prepare his case.
After Department Counsel’s opening statement, and before introduction of any
evidence, Department Counsel withdrew his earlier objection to Applicant’s motion for a
continuance, and the judge granted the motion. DOHA received the transcript of this
session of the hearing on February 12, 2010, and reassigned the case to me on
February 18, 2010. 
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on March 25, 2010, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on April 9, 2010. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through
8, which were admitted without objection. The Government also submitted Hearing
Exhibits (HE) II and III in support of a request for administrative notice of the contents of
the Controlled Substances Act. This request was not opposed, and was granted.
Applicant offered exhibits (AE) A through L, which were also admitted without objection.
He and his wife testified on his behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave the record
open until April 23, 2010, for submission of additional evidence. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on April 21, 2010. Applicant submitted AE M before the
April 23, 2010 deadline. Department Counsel also forwarded four pages of GE 7 that
were inadvertently omitted from the original exhibit. This evidence was admitted without
objection, and the record was closed. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a major defense contractor, where he has
worked since 2007. He has no military service, and this is his first application for a
GE 1.2
AR; Tr. 12-19.3
GE 3; GE 4; GE 5; GE 6.4
AR; GE 7 at I-99; Tr. 67, 90-97.5
AR; GE 7; Tr. 101-103.6
AR; GE 4.7
3
security clearance. He is married with no children.  In his response to the SOR, he2
formally admitted all of the factual allegations, although he did not respond to SOR ¶
4.a, which incorporated the information set forth in SOR ¶ 1 by reference. During the
hearing, through counsel, he initially admitted SOR ¶ 4.a, then changed his mind and
denied that his falsifications were deliberate and intentional.  Applicant’s admissions,3
including his statements in response to DOHA interrogatories,  are incorporated in the4
following findings.
Applicant began using marijuana and alcohol when he was 15 years old. By age
17, which he reached in November 2000, he was using marijuana daily and drinking
about ten beers a week, frequently to the point of intoxication. That year he also began
regularly using cocaine, methamphetamine, and psilocybin mushrooms. He also
experimented twice with LSD, prescription codeine, and ecstacy
(methylenedioxymethamphetamine).  5
During July 2001, Applicant was charged with his first MIP offense, for which he
received probation and court-ordered alcohol treatment. He completed a one-month
inpatient treatment program during September and October 2001. Following a probation
violation, he was ordered back into inpatient drug and alcohol treatment in December
2001. He was expelled from that program after three days for bringing marijuana into
the facility. After that, he served some time in jail.    6
During April 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI after being
stopped for running a stop sign and testing two to three times over the legal limit. He
subsequently pled guilty and was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine, serve five years
probation, and undergo additional alcohol treatment. During August 2002, he was
arrested again for MIP, together with obstructing justice for giving the arresting officer a
false name, and a minor theft charge. He pled guilty to these offenses, and was given a
suspended three-year jail sentence, fined $1,000, and ordered into alcohol treatment.7
Applicant continued abusing alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine into
2003. He entered and successfully completed another inpatient drug and alcohol
treatment program in a different city from May to July 2003. He then successfully
completed an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment program from November 2003 to
May 2004. As reported during the intake evaluation for this latter program, Applicant’s
primary drug of abuse was marijuana, and the secondary was alcohol. He used each of
AR; GE 8 at 2, 12, Tr. 90-93, 97, 105-107. 8
GE 8 at 2-3; AE B; AE D; AE E; AE F; AE I; Tr. 50-51, 68-79, 88-90, 110-126. 9
AR; GE 5 at I-19; Tr. 16-19, 58-61, 66, 78-82, 136-137.10
AR; Tr. 61-65, 78-79, 82-83.11
4
these on a daily basis until May 16, 2003, when he entered his latest inpatient
treatment. His other drug of choice was methamphetamine, which he used three times a
week until April 20, 2003. He was diagnosed as dependent on all three substances.   8
Applicant was discharged from his outpatient treatment with a prognosis from his
counselor that he was at low risk of relapse with continued attendance at Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He has complied with this
recommendation, and remained clean and sober since May 2003. He has changed his
lifestyle, and no longer associates with his former alcohol and drug abusing friends. He
is married to a very impressive and supportive woman, with whom he has developed a
pattern of healthy living, remaining free of alcohol and drugs. He also submitted a
statement of intent to never abuse drugs in the future, agreeing to automatic revocation
of his security clearance for any violation, and three recent urinalysis reports showing
negative results for all drugs tested.9
When Applicant completed his SF 86, he answered “No” to question 24 that
asked whether he had illegally used any controlled substance since the age of 16 or in
the last seven years, whichever was shorter. Applicant turned 16 during November
1999, and signed his SF 86 on September 24, 2007. He admitted that he deliberately
failed to list the information concerning his drug use detailed above, and set forth in
SOR ¶¶ 2.a through 2.h, in his response to the SOR. During his hearing, he changed
his position on this point, and claimed that he misunderstood the question. His
explanations  to that effect were not credible, and his demeanor during that testimony
was unconvincing. His subsequent efforts to conceal his drug involvement during
questioning about his alcohol-related offenses and court-ordered treatment programs
corroborated his intent to conceal that aspect of his substance abuse. I find that his
false “No” answer and omission of his history of drug use was a deliberate attempt to
deceive the Government concerning those matters. Applicant testified that he is a good
reader, and understood his legal obligation to answer all questions fully and truthfully.  10
In his response to question 25, concerning whether he had undergone any
alcohol-related treatment or counseling in the last seven years, Applicant said “Yes”, but
incorrectly stated that this treatment occurred at his last outpatient treatment center
from January 2003 to January 2004. He admitted in his SOR response that he
deliberately omitted listing his three earlier inpatient treatment programs discussed
above. He said that he did not disclose the earlier treatment because he believed it was
under juvenile records and possibly was sealed. Nobody advised him not to disclose
this information, he just thought it would not be discovered.  11
GE 4 at I-10.12
AR; Tr. 65-66, 82-83.13
AR; GE 4; Tr. 65-66, 83-85.14
GE 4 at I-9, I-12.15
AR; Tr. 99-100, 105-106.16
GE 5 at I-15.17
5
During his November 2007 interview with an investigator from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), Applicant disclosed that he had undergone, “one month
in inpatient alcohol treatment in late 2002,” in the city where he underwent his last
inpatient treatment from May to July 2003. He said he could not remember the name of
the facility. He also discussed the follow-on outpatient treatment. He told the
investigator that he had not received any other alcohol treatment, nor had any other
treatment been recommended.  He admitted in his SOR response that he deliberately12
failed to disclose his earlier inpatient treatment following his 2001 MIP conviction,
including his dismissal from the December 2001 treatment for using marijuana during
the program. He offered no satisfactory explanation for this failure to disclose this
treatment to the investigator.13
Applicant also admitted in his SOR response that during his OPM interview he
deliberately failed to disclose that his 2001 inpatient programs included treatment for
diagnosed dependency to marijuana and abuse of various other drugs, and that his
outpatient program from 2003 to 2004 included treatment for diagnosed dependency to
marijuana and methamphetamine as well as alcohol. Applicant offered no explanation
for this deception, except to claim that he was not directly asked about drugs, which
corroborates his ongoing effort to conceal his drug use from the Government.14
During his OPM interview, Applicant claimed that his last drink of alcohol was
during August 2002, coinciding with his latest MIP arrest. When asked to verify the
accuracy of this statement in response to DOHA interrogatories, he added “I would like
to note that I failed to mention a relapse of alcohol on 5/16/03. I initially quit drinking in
August of 2002 but had a misstep in my recovery.”  Applicant actually continued15
regular alcohol use until he reached his “rock bottom” in May 2003. He admitted in his
response to the SOR that this failure to disclose the additional alcohol consumption
during the interview was deliberate.16
In his September 2008 response to DOHA interrogatories concerning drug use,
Applicant claimed that had used marijuana one to three times a week between ages 16
and 18, and used methamphetamine once every other week for about six to eight
months while he was age 17. He claimed that his last drug use was on June 12, 2002.17
He turned 18 years old in November 2001. Intake documents obtained from his latest
outpatient treatment program revealed that he used marijuana daily until May 16, 2003,
GE 8 at 12.18
AR; Tr. 98-99; 105-107.19
GE 1 at 12.20
6
and used methamphetamine three times a week until April 20, 2003.  Applicant18
confirmed during the hearing that his drug use continued into 2003 as indicated in the
outpatient treatment records, and provided no credible explanation for his false
response to the interrogatory. In his SOR response, he admitted to deliberately
falsifying these facts and failing to disclose his continuing drug use for almost another
year after June 2002.19
Applicant signed his SF 86 under the certification that he understood that a
knowing and willful false statement on that form can be punished by fine or
imprisonment or both, including a citation to “section 1001 of title 18, United States
Code.”  That statute reads, in relevant part:20
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally. 
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the
offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section
2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to
an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591 [18
USCS §§ 2241 et seq., 2250, 2251 et seq., 2421 et seq., or 1591], then
the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more
than 8 years.
Applicant submitted his performance evaluation for June 2008 to June 2009,
reflecting satisfactory to exceptional results. He also provided the record of his
extensive training and increasingly responsible job assignments. Numerous supervisors,
coworkers, friends, and family members wrote letters describing his good character,
GE 5 at I-28-31; AE A; AE B; AE C; AE G; AE H; AE J; AE K; AE L; AE M.21
7
successful rehabilitation from his earlier substance abuse problems, and outstanding
potential. He presented himself in an impressive manner throughout his hearing.  21
Policies
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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
8
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes the DCs under this guideline. The specific Guideline E
concerns raised by the SOR allegations are:
(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; and
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative.  
Applicant is an intelligent individual who communicates sufficiently well, orally
and in writing, to have known he was deliberately falsifying, concealing, and failing to
disclose relevant facts concerning his drug and alcohol abuse and treatment on his SF
86, during his OPM interview, and in his response to DOHA interrogatories. The clear
weight of the evidence compels the conclusion that his falsifications and omissions of
relevant facts on his SF 86 and in response to interrogatories, was deliberate, raising
AG ¶ 16(a). The falsifications and omissions during Applicant’s OPM interview, as
alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e, were also clearly deliberate. These acts shift the
burden to him to establish mitigation.
AG ¶ 17 provides personal conduct MCs. The only MCs with potential
applicability to the foregoing security concerns are:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
9
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(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;
(d) the individual 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; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Mitigation under AG ¶ 17(a) was not established because Applicant did not
disclose any of the information he was attempting to conceal until confronted with the
facts during subsequent steps in the investigation process. He offered no evidence that
would support application of AG ¶ 17(b). No mitigation under AG ¶ 17(c) was
established, since the falsifications were numerous, and took place in connection with
the present security clearance eligibility determination. AG ¶ 17(d) was not established
because he unpersuasively tried to retract his admissions to these deliberate
falsifications during his hearing. Applicant did not demonstrate positive steps to reduce
or eliminate his vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation or duress. His employer
remains uninformed of the extent of his prior substance abuse, and his multiple
attempts to conceal those facts demonstrate his understanding of their potential
negative impact on his reputation. AG ¶ 17(e) was therefore not established.
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption:
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about
an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs supported by the SOR allegations and asserted by Department
Counsel are:
10
(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; 
(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; and
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol treatment program.
Applicant’s alcohol-related incidents in 2001 and 2002 included one DUI and two
MIP incidents. He admitted consuming alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of
intoxication, from approximately 2000 to at least May 2003. He was diagnosed as
alcohol dependent during three inpatient and one outpatient alcohol treatment
programs, and admitted to multiple relapses after his 2001 diagnosis of alcohol
dependence and completion of inpatient treatment in October of that year. These facts
clearly raise security concerns under AG ¶¶ 22(a), (c), (e), and (f).
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption 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
11
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 last alcohol-related incident occurred almost eight years ago, and he
has not consumed any alcohol since May 2003 when he entered his last inpatient
treatment for his diagnosed alcohol and drug dependence. He has completely changed
his former lifestyle, married a woman who is highly supportive of his continuing
abstinence, and demonstrated his ongoing intention to remain sober. His original
relapse behavior following his first court-ordered treatment program occurred before he
realized the extent of his problem and made a decision to stop abusing alcohol and
drugs. He continues to participate in NA and AA aftercare programs, and received a
favorable prognosis from his counselor following completion of his last outpatient
treatment in May 2004. Although his relapses between 2001 and 2003 preclude
application of AG ¶ 23(c), Applicant met his burden to establish full mitigation of alcohol-
related security concerns under AG ¶¶ 23(a), (b), and (d).
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption:
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.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs raised by the facts in this case are:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); and
12
(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.
Applicant admitted to illegally abusing numerous drugs at age 17, as set forth in
SOR ¶ 2. He abused marijuana and methamphetamine until age 19, and to the extent
that he developed dependence on both of those drugs. This dependence was
diagnosed by the social workers serving as counselors in each of the three alcohol and
drug treatment programs that Applicant completed. 
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The MCs with
potential application under the facts in this case are:
(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,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation; 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.
For the same reasons discussed above concerning alcohol abuse, Applicant has
met his burden to establish mitigation under the foregoing three MCs. His drug abuse
completely ceased more than seven years ago, when he decided to embrace treatment
and change patterns of substance abuse that characterized his late teenage years. He
relocated to another city, disassociated from his drug-using former friends, and has
established a clear pattern of abstinence after successful completion of inpatient and
outpatient drug treatment programs from May 2003 to May 2004. He signed a statement
of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation, and was entirely
credible in testifying that he fully intends to remain clean and sober. His favorable
prognosis was not from a “duly qualified medical professional,” but his counselor’s June
2004 statement that his risk of relapse was low with continued participation in AA/NA
has proven true. 
13
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct: 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The condition supported by this record is ¶ 31(a) “a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses.” As alleged in SOR ¶ 4.a, each of the falsifications and
omissions of material facts set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f were knowing and willful,
thereby constituting violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate criminal conduct security
concerns. These are: 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
For the same reasons that Applicant failed to establish the parallel MCs under
Guideline E (Personal Conduct), he failed to meet his burden with respect to these
MCs. The multiple falsifications were recent, and his unpersuasive attempts to justify
them during the hearing demonstrate his lack of rehabilitation in this respect.     
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 relevant 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
14
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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s drug and alcohol
abuse occurred when he was young and irresponsible. He successfully completed
treatment for those addictions during 2003 and 2004, and has remained clean and
sober since then. He established an excellent reputation for responsibility and good
character at work and among friends and family. His maturation and changed living
circumstances are commendable, and fully mitigate any ongoing security concerns
based on those earlier issues. 
However, failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security
clearance process is of special concern. Applicant’s untruthful statements throughout
his application and investigation demonstrated a lack of understanding or respect for the
obligations inherent in the Personnel Security program. The criminal nature of these
decisions is of collateral concern. The primary issues are Applicant’s lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and ongoing potential for coercion or
duress demonstrated by his consistent attempts to conceal and minimize his past
substance abuse. He did not adequately explain or otherwise mitigate his conduct in
this regard.
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate
the security concerns arising from his personal conduct and criminal conduct.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.j: For Applicant
15
Paragraph 3, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.h: For Applicant
Paragraph 4, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 4.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge