1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-04753
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On November 24, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant enumerating security concerns
arising under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In a June 24, 2010, response, Applicant admitted all but one allegation raised
under both Guideline G and Guideline H, and admitted the singular allegation raised
under Guideline E. He also requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge.
DOHA assigned the case to another administrative judge on February 1, 2011. The
parties agreed to a hearing date of April 19, 2011, and a notice to that effect was issued
on March 4, 2011. For caseload considerations, the case was transferred to me on April
12, 2011. 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Applicant gave testimony and presented
four documents for consideration, which were accepted without objection as exhibits
 Tr. 43. Near the end of his marijuana use, Applicant used the drug daily. Tr. 44.      1
 Elsewhere, Applicant noted that he used marijuana on work breaks while working on a night shift. He      2
believes these incidents occurred before he was granted a security clearance. Tr. 47.
 Tr. 46.      3
 Tr. 44.      4
 At the time, ephedra was a common ingredient in over-the-counter dieting, exercise, and energy products.      5
Applicant stated that he used it for energy, noting that it “was like drinking five cups of coffee at once.” He
stopped using ephedra products by the time they were removed from over-the-counter sale. Tr. 45-46.
 Tr. 47.      6
 Tr. 30.      7
2
(Exs.) A-D. Department Counsel offered 20 documents, which were admitted as
exhibits (Exs.) 1-20 without objection. The parties were given until May 4, 2011, to
submit any additional documents for consideration. The transcript (Tr.) of the
proceeding was received on April 27, 2011. A final document was submitted by
Applicant and forwarded by Department Counsel without objection on May 10, 2011. It
was accepted as Ex. E and the record was closed. Based on a review of the testimony,
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden of mitigating the
security concerns raised. Clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 36-year-old inspector who has worked for the same defense
contractor for over 14 years. He earned a high school diploma and has attended some
college. He is currently engaged to be married. 
Beginning at about the age of 15, Applicant started abusing alcohol. When he
was about 20 or 21, in 1995, he started using marijuana with varying frequency, usually
two to three times a week, until he quit in February 2007.  During this time period, he1
bought the drug on some occasions and occasionally went to work under its effects.2
He used and purchased hallucinogenic mushrooms and tried LSD a “few times”
between 1995 and 1999.  He used, but never bought, cocaine about five times between3
about 2000 and, at the latest, February 2007.  Between 1999 and 2004, he used4
ephedrine.  5
In March 1999, when he was 24 years old, Applicant completed a security
clearance application (SCA) on which he denied using illegal drugs since the age of 16
or in the preceding seven years. He was granted a security clearance about six months
later.  He now admits that the omission was intentional and notes that he is “ashamed”6
of his volitional failure not to disclose his drug use.7
During his years of alcohol and drug abuse, Applicant was found guilty of
operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol (DUI) following an April 1999 arrest during
a highway stop. After a December 2000 incident, he was found guilty of driving under
 Tr. 17.      8
 Tr. 18.      9
 Tr. 48.      10
 See, e.g., Tr. 58. The hearing was conducted near Applicant’s hometown. Notice is taken that Applicant      11
lives in an area significantly under-served by public transportation and cab service. 
 Although Applicant initially sought treatment on his own initiative, the court later ordered that he complete      12
the program. Tr. 20.
3
the influence of alcohol (DUI), while other charges, including one for marijuana
possession, were dismissed. As a result, his driver’s license was revoked. A resultant
referral to local family services in January 2001 consisted of about two consultations
and a diagnosis of alcohol abuse.  A year later, between March 2002 and June 2002,8
Applicant voluntary received two or three treatments for alcohol and substance abuse
for a condition diagnosed as alcohol abuse and cannabis abuse. At the time, he did not
believe he had a problem, but he pursued counseling in order to have his driver’s
license reinstated.9
Between 2005 and 2007, as Applicant moved into his 30s, he enjoyed his
bachelorhood and local sports. During this time, his drinking increased significantly. By
2007, he was drinking everyday. He once arrived at work hung over and was told to go
home. In February 2007, Applicant was charged for multiple driving infractions plus
driving while intoxicated (DWI), a breath test violation, and possession of marijuana. For
the first time, Applicant realized that he needed help to quit drugs and change his life.
He truly wanted to get appropriate help for his problems.  Aside from the professional10
repercussions, Applicant understood that any subsequent DUI/DWIs would be treated
as a felony offense, would lead to imprisonment for at least one year, and include
permanent loss of his driving privilege.  11
Consequently, Applicant pursued rigorous treatment between about March 2007
and January 2008 in a recognized chemical dependency outpatient program for a
condition identified as polysubstance dependance (alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis).12
This weekly program included some participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and
cessation of drug and alcohol use during the program. Applicant was ultimately found
guilty of the DWI, was fined, his driver’s license suspended, and he was placed on
probation for the 2007 offense. At the time of his January 2008 discharge from the
outpatient program, he was given a “questionable prognosis.” The certified alcohol and
substance abuse counselor – trainee (CASAC-T) later noted in November 2009 that, “at
the time of discharge, [Applicant’s] prognosis was questionable due to his lack of sober
 Ex. 4, Interrogatories, at 9 (CASAC-T letter, dated Nov. 5, 2009). I take notice of the following: For the      13
requirements for being designated a CASAC in the state at issue, see [REFERENCE TO STATE
REDACTED]. The state at issue notes that a CASAC-T “will not authorize [one] to be considered a Qualified
Health Professional for any purposes.” [REFERENCE TO STATE REDACTED]. 
 Tr. 21. Feeling his alcohol use was not a dependency, but a transient condition based on his unbridled      14
use of alcohol on those occasions when alcohol was consumed (abuse or binge drinking), Applicant did not
find the milieu AA offered to be compatible with his needs. See, e.g., Tr. 21-22.
 Tr. 19, 49.      15
 Tr. 23.      16
 Tr. 55. Applicant noted the type of sports and seasons in his depiction of his region. Note: the transcript      17
text uses the word “county,” rather than “country” in describing his region.
 Tr. 50, 56. Applicant noted that he will not drive even if he has only had one beer.      18
 Tr. 57.      19
 Tr. 51.      20
 Ex. 4, supra, note 13.      21
 Tr. 25.      22
4
support.”  This conclusion was based, at least in part, on Applicant’s decision not to13
continue with AA.  In January 2009, he completed his probationary period early.14 15
Applicant has not used drugs or consumed alcohol to excess since February
2007.  He resumed moderate use of alcohol about two years ago. He limits his alcohol16
consumption to beer. He will have a few beers (about three) on the weekends he
chooses to imbibe. These weekends usually center on sporting events which are
particularly popular in his region and often involve beer consumption.  He will not17
operate a vehicle if he consumes any beer.  If he consumes any beer, he will either18
use a designated driver, stay where he is, or otherwise have made advanced plans so
that his “driving situation [is] all taken care of if [he is] going to be” drinking it outside of
his home.  He consciously monitors the amount and frequency of his beer19
consumption.  He cannot risk losing his driver’s license and going to prison, nor does20
he want to jeopardize his upcoming nuptials and job. 
During the investigation related to Applicant’s security clearance renewal, a
report was requested from Applicant’s 2007-2008 substance abuse counselor. In 2009,
the counselor wrote: “On January 28  of this year [Applicant] was re-evaluated . . . inth
order to facilitate the reinstatement of his driver’s license. Based on the findings at that
time, including collateral contact information, [Applicant] was found to be not in need of
additional treatment.”  Applicant noted that he still does not attend AA, but that he now21
has a support system and has since entered into a mature relationship with a woman
who is now his fiancée. His fiancée does not use drugs and seldom consumes
alcohol.  She is supportive of his attempts to remain drug-free and to drink22
 Id.      23
 Tr. 22-23. “That’s what’s driving me for everything. . . . I wouldn’t have a relationship if I was still [doing      24
drugs and drinking every night].” 
 Tr. 24.      25
 Tr. 24.      26
 Id.      27
 Tr. 25, 31.      28
 See, e.g., Tr. 28.      29
 Tr. 28-29.      30
 Tr. 29; Ex. E (Statement of May 10, 2011).      31
 Ex. A (Letter, dated Apr. 15, 2011).      32
 Exs. B-D (Performance reviews, Nov. 2008–Dec. 2011)      33
 Id.      34
5
responsibly.  Due to their relationship, their plans to wed, and his need to remain23
financially stable in order to both build a life with his fiancée and a home for them as a
family, Applicant feels his current situation provides a stable, supportive environment.24
This is compounded by his desire and financial need to keep his present job.  He no25
longer socializes with those who use drugs or frequents places where drugs are used.26
He has made new friends “with a better base of people that have . . . families, they
have homes, and they’re respectable people in the community.”   He does not hide his27
past drug and alcohol issues; he makes it clear to others that he is trying to live a
cleaner life and do better for himself.  Applicant’s driver’s license has been reinstated.28
In describing his past use of alcohol, Applicant stated that he was an alcohol
abuser, not alcohol dependant.  He keeps this in mind at all times and consistently29
keeps his alcohol consumption within certain parameters.  Also, Applicant submitted a30
signed statement of intent not to use drugs in the future, violation of which would lead to
automatic revocation of any security clearance granted.31
At work, Applicant’s manager is aware that Applicant had “some personal
difficulties in his life that” initiated this process.  He indicated his full support of32
Applicant in overcoming his personal issues and maintaining his security clearance.
Since quitting drugs in 2007, receiving counseling in 2007-2008, and learning to
moderate his alcohol consumption, Applicant has received excellent work-related
performance reviews. He received appraisal scores of 5, 5.3, and 5.5 out of 6 in the
past three years, and received at least one pay increase.  He is currently noted at work33
for his focus, organization, interpersonal skills, cooperation, efficiency, and leadership
as a primary inspector.   34
 Tr. 46, 64-65.       35
 See 21 U.S.C. 830, as revised by the President on Mar. 6, 2006.      36
 Tr. 36-37.      37
 See note 13, supra.      38
 Id.      39
6
During the hearing, I took notice of the fact that the availability of the drug
epherdrine (ephedra) did not become restricted until after Applicant stopped using the
component drug.  In 2006, as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, the35
US Code was amended restricting the sale and distribution of drugs containing
ephedrine.36
In addition, I take notice that the DSM-IV (2000) defines polysubstance
dependence as a diagnosis given for a behavioral pattern exhibited by an individual
who has been using a minimum of three psychoactive substances within a 12-month
period without the use of one outweighing the other. These substances do not include
caffeine or nicotine.There is currently no independent diagnostic label under the DSM
for polysubstance abuse, only dependence.
Finally, during the hearing, I expressed my concern that neither party had
introduced any evidence as to what a CASAC-T was in the state at issue.  To the37
extent that a state agency regulates the practice of CASACs, CASAC-Ts, and other
substance abuse workers, reference was made to official state government documents
regarding the qualifications and authority of a CASAC-T in the state at issue.  A38
CASAC-T may be counted toward the staffing requirements of a certified chemical
dependence program, but is not considered a qualified medical provider.  As a trainee,39
he or she is not the equivalent of a fully licensed clinical social worker. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. 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. 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 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      40
  ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      41
 Id.      42
 Id.      43
7
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
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
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a40
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  41
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 safeguard
.classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation about 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 access42
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.43
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),
Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the most
pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to these AGs that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such
concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
 AG ¶ 21.      44
 There is insufficient evidence establishing that a CASAC-T is a qualified medical professional or the      45
equivalent of a licensed clinical social worker so as to raise AG ¶¶ 22(d)-22(e).
8
Analysis
Guideline G – 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.  In this case, Applicant admits he has44
received multiple DUI/DWIs, that he consumed alcohol to excess on numerous
occasions, and was once asked to leave the work place while suffering from a
hangover. Such facts are sufficient to raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying
Condition (AC DC) AG ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as
driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace,
or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent), AG ¶ 22(b) (alcohol-related incidents at work,
such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on
the job, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or
alcohol dependent), AG ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent), and AG ¶ 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse
or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program).  Consequently,45
the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
After his February 2007 arrest, Applicant acknowledged he had a problem with
alcohol and chemical substances. He immediately ceased all alcohol and drug use,
including cocaine and marijuana. With those drugs no longer an issue, he obviated
continued application of the then-applicable polysubstance dependence diagnosis, and
was found “not to be in need of additional treatment.” 
As for alcohol, the sole remaining substance of issue he currently uses,
Applicant acknowledges that he had been an alcohol abuser, but that he now
moderates his use appropriately. Since resuming alcohol use about two years ago, he
has consumed it in moderation. He has not imbibed alcohol to excess in nearly four-
and-a-half years. Moreover, he will never drive after using any alcohol. Underlying his
now responsible use of alcohol is his clear understanding that he will lose his driver’s
license and go to jail if he again abuses alcohol in conjunction with his driving privilege,
and that he will jeopardize both his career and his engagement if he again lets alcohol
control his life. Now, with his family and fiancée actively involved, he has a network in
place to help him control his drinking within acceptable social parameters. Given his
successful transition to moderation, his acquisition of a support network, and his
understanding of the dire consequences of again abusing alcohol, I find that AC DC
Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 23(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
 AG  ¶ 24.      46
9
or does not cast doubt on individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgement) and AG ¶ 23(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)) apply.
Applicant is no longer receiving treatment or pursuing counseling, obviating AG ¶
23(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).
Applicant underwent and successfully completed all requirements of the
counseling program that culminated in a 2008 diagnosis of polysubstance dependence.
While his diagnosis was not negative, he was given a “questionable” prognosis due to
his lack of a sobriety support system. No independent diagnosis, however, was
rendered with regard to just his alcohol use, only its use in conjunction with other
substances (cocaine and cannabis), which he no longer uses. Since that time, he has
adopted his family and fiancée as a sobriety support system, learned to drink in
moderation, and will not drive if he consumes so much as one beer. Upon reevaluation
in 2009, he was found not to be in need of further treatment. Such facts substantially
raise AG ¶ 23(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 meeting with [AA] or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified or a licensed
clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program).
Applicant acknowledges his past abuse of alcohol and how that abuse was, for a
period of time, linked with drug abuse. He quit drugs and successfully went without
alcohol during his counseling period, demonstrating his ability to control his drinking and
helping to show his diagnosed dependence on the substances was not uncontrollable.
He has consumed alcohol in moderation with a support system in place for nearly four-
and-a-half years. That system includes not only caring individuals, but a plan that
dispels any concerns about his driving after alcohol use in the future. Given the fact he
would lose his driver’s license, go to jail, and end his marital prospects should he ever
again abuse alcohol, Applicant has an exceptionally high motivation to keep his alcohol
use within acceptable social parameters.
Guideline H - Drug Involvement
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,46
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      47
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      48
 Assuming that a diagnosis of polysubstance dependence is the equivalent of a diagnosis of drug abuse      49
or drug dependence, there is insufficient evidence establishing that a CASAC-T is a qualified medical
professional or the equivalent of a licensed clinical social worker so as to raise AG ¶¶ 25(d)-25(e)
10
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, 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 a47
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  48
Applicant used and bought hallucinogenic mushrooms and tried LSD a couple of
times between 1995 and 1999. Applicant admitted he used, and occasionally
purchased, marijuana from about 1990 until  February 2007, after being granted a
security clearance in 1999. He also used, but never bought, cocaine about five times
between about 2000 and 2007 while maintaining a security clearance. Such facts are
sufficient to raise Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug
abuse), AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia), and
AG ¶ 25(g) (any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance).  His use of49
ephedra, however, occurred while it was commonly available for unrestricted public
purchase and consumption, and there is no suggestion he either abused it excessively
or used it for a prohibited purpose. Therefore, that drug use is not amenable to
application under Guideline H. Regardless, given the disqualifying conditions otherwise
raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant made the decision to quit using drugs after he was arrested in
February 2007. In 2009, it was determined he was not in need of additional treatment
for polysubstance dependence. Since becoming drug free, he has changed his life,
excelled at work, gotten engaged, moderated his use of alcohol, and become diligent at
work. He has taken responsibility for his past illegal drug use and was candid in his
portrayal of it. To demonstrate his commitment to remaining drug free, he also signed a
statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any future drug use.
Therefore, Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions (DI MC) AG ¶ 25(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), AG ¶ 26(b)(3) (an appropriate period of
abstinence), and AG ¶ 26(b)(4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation
of clearance for any violation) apply. 
In addition, Applicant has changed his circle of friends. He no longer socializes
with those who use drugs or frequents places where drugs are used, preferring instead
to socialize with “a better base of people.” Consequently, DI MC AG ¶ 26 (b)(1)
 AG ¶ 15.      50
 Id.      51
11
(disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts) and AG ¶ 26 (b)(2) (changing
or avoiding the environment where drugs were used) also apply.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because “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.“  In addition, “any failure to50
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  In51
March 1999, when he was 24 years old, Applicant completed a SCA on which he
denied using illegal drugs since the age of 16 or in the preceding seven years. He
admits that the omission was intentional and notes that he is ashamed of his volitional
failure not to disclose his drug use. Although the incident occurred over a decade ago,
this admission is sufficient to raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC)
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) applies. With a PC DC raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate
the security concerns.
There is no evidence that Applicant immediately disclosed complete facts about
his past marijuana use in sufficient time to raise Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition
(PC MC) AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts). 
Applicant admits that he purposefully misled investigators when he failed to
disclose his past drug use on his 1999 SCA. At the time, Applicant was 24 years old.
Considerably older today, over 12 years later, he is contrite about his omission. That
Applicant of 1999 is not the same Applicant that appeared in 2011. Since 1999, he
gave up drugs in February 2007, completed counseling, no longer associates with
those who use drugs, and has matured considerably. He was found to no longer be in
need of additional treatment. He does not hide his past drug use. Applicant
demonstrated genuine candor in his testimony and takes full responsibility for his
misleading answer on the 1999 SCA. Consequently, PC MC AG ¶ 17(c) (the offense is
so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened
under circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has
taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress), and AG ¶ 17(g) (association with persons involved in criminal activity has
12
ceased or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations)
apply. None of the other PC MCs apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based on 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. Applicant is a credible and forthright 36-year-old inspector who has worked for
the same defense contractor for over 14 years. He is a high school graduate who has
attended some post-secondary courses. After years without focus, experiments with
various drugs, problems with alcohol abuse, and long-term use of marijuana, he
decided to turn his life around in February 2007. He completed a counseling program
that helped him face his abuse of multiple substances. He quit drugs and learned to
comport his consumption of alcohol within acceptable social parameters. He maintains
a support system consisting of his family, his manager, and his soon-to-be wife. He is
no longer considered to be in need of additional treatment. Applicant’s professional life
has improved and he is excelling at work. His employer now describes him as a leader
among peers. Applicant will not risk losing his lucrative career, fiancée, or driving
privilege by again abusing alcohol or recklessly driving. Given these facts, and in light of
a thorough consideration of the “whole person” factors, I have no concerns that
Applicant will again abuse alcohol. 
Also at issue are the personal conduct concerns raised by Applicant’s
falsification on his 1999 SCA. At the time, Applicant was a young man in his early 20s.
He demonstrated immaturity in concealing his drug use, a problem that would continue
until his early 30s. Although his use of mushrooms and cocaine was already in the past,
he made the mature decision to quit marijuana and eschew those who use drugs after
his February 2007 arrest. At the hearing, his expressions of contrition over his
falsification, which occurred over a dozen years ago, were highly credible and genuine.
The evidence shows that he has been open about his drug use since he finally
accepted his substance abuse problems in 2007. It also reveals that he has been
forthcoming during this investigative process. Given his contrition, the length of time at
issue, and his forthcoming nature with regard to his past drug use, I find that personal
conduct security concerns are mitigated. 
Applicant started using illegal drugs in about 1990. When he was granted a
security clearance in 1999, he continued to abuse drugs even though he knew their use
was illegal and antithetical to the standards expected of one maintaining a security
13
clearance. His abuse of illegal drugs during this time period remains a significant
security concern. This is particularly true in terms of the duration of his drug use, and
the number of years he abused drugs while holding a security clearance. In light of
these factors, a period of less than five years is insufficient to demonstrate that he has
both the commitment to remain drug free – and the ability to do so. Having only quit
drugs in February 2007, the potential for future drug abuse while maintaining a security
clearance remains a valid concern. As previously noted, 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 access to
sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information.
Clearance is denid. 
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 G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.i: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge