1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07990
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn E. Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: John N. Griffith, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I grant Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on February 10, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 24, 2011, detailing security
concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline E, personal conduct, that
provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny him a security clearance. 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 (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant received the SOR on March 30, 2011, and he answered it on March
31, 2011. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge and retained
GE 1; Tr. 75.1
GE 1; Tr. 76-77, 98, 100, 120.2
2
counsel. DOHA received the request, and Department Counsel was prepared to
proceed on June 2, 2011. I received the case assignment on June 20, 2011. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on July 6, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled
on July 26, 2011. The Government offered exhibits marked as GE 1 through GE 5,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and three
witnesses testified. He submitted exhibits marked as AE A through AE N, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. The record closed on July 26,
2011. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 3, 2011.
Procedural Ruling
Notice
Applicant may have received the hearing notice less than 15 days before the
hearing. (Tr. 10) I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to
receive the notice 15 days before the hearing. After consulting with counsel, Applicant
affirmatively waived his right to the 15-day notice. (Id.) 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted, with explanation, the factual
allegations in the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He
also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the
following additional findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 45 years old, works as a truck driver for a Department of
Defense contractor. He began his current employment in February 2009. He previously
owned and operated his own trucking business for five years. From 1995 until 2003, he
was a stay-at-home father. He served in the United States Marine Corps on active duty
from October 1983 until October 1987, when he was honorably discharged. He served
in the Marine Corps inactive reserves for an additional two years, receiving an
honorable discharge in August 1989.1
Applicant married his first wife in 1985. They separated in 2002 and divorced in
January 2008. He has a daughter, age 25, and a son, age 22, from his first marriage.
He married his second wife in October 2008. They have a daughter, age 5. He has two
step-daughters, ages 18 and 11. Applicant is a high school graduate.2
In December 1993, while married to his first wife, Applicant borrowed his
neighbor’s car to drive his wife to work. He returned the car an hour later. When he
stepped from the car, the police surrounded him as he approached his neighbor’s
GE 2; GE 4; Tr. 78, 104-106.3
Applicant’s brother-in-law died in a motorcycle accident in 2004. His brother-in-law had been involved with4
drugs, particularly methamphetamine. He never saw his brother-in-law use this drug, and he was not close
with his brother-in-law. Tr. 65-66, 81, 97.
Tr. 66-71, 80-85, 101-103.5
Id. 85-86, 102.6
3
house. The police then arrested him, searched his neighbor’s car, and found
amphetamines in the car. Because he was driving the car and drugs were in the car, the
police assumed the drugs belonged to him. During his court proceedings a year later,
the prosecutor determined that the drugs did not belong to Applicant and that he was
not involved in his neighbor’s drug activities. The court dismissed all the charges against
Applicant. Applicant had known this neighbor casually for a short time, did not socialize
with the neighbor, and did not have a relationship with the neighbor. After this incident,
Applicant moved.3
On March 10, 2010, Applicant’s wife asked him to clean out and dispose of her
deceased brother’s belongings still at their house. He placed the belongings on the
roadside, but his wife retrieved one box and asked him to go through the box more
carefully, then destroy the items. He decided he would burn appropriate items in his fire
pit. While sorting through his deceased brother-in-law’s belongings, he discovered a
camera case. He opened the camera case and found a bag with a brown powder
substance. Because he knew his deceased brother-in-law had been involved with
drugs, particularly methamphetamines (speed), he believed this substance was speed.4
Immediately, he thought about losing five pounds for his upcoming Jiu Jitsu tournament.
On impulse and without thinking about the consequences, he placed a small amount of
the speed on his finger and into his mouth. Almost immediately, he realized he had
made a “big mistake” with his action. He threw the speed into the fire pit with the other
items he was destroying. He walked into his house, took a shower, and laid in bed, as
was his normal activity at the end of a day.5
Applicant did not tell his wife immediately about his actions. He laid in bed trying
to decide the best approach to telling his wife about his use of speed, as he knew she
would be angry. He worried about what he did, about letting his wife down, about letting
the quality assurance safety consultant down, about testing positive at work, and about
the other people he disappointed. He stated this was not an enjoyable time for him and
that he wanted to go back in time.6
On March 11, 2010, Applicant reported to work and signed in for the work day at
6:00 a.m. He received notice at that time that he had been selected for a random drug
test.  Before he gave his urine sample for the drug test, he told the quality assurance
safety consultant, a friend, that he might test positive for speed. Applicant then told the
quality assurance safety consultant about the circumstances surrounding his use of
speed the previous evening. Concerned about a conflict, the quality assurance safety
Id. 35-38, 51, 53, 86-87.7
Id. 63, 65-67, 102.8
GE 3; AE D; Tr. 41-42, 88-91, 93.9
4
consultant referred Applicant to a Mr. B., another individual at the company. Applicant
told Mr. B about his drug use the previous evening, then gave his urine sample. On his
way to his work shop, Applicant encountered his supervisor and told his supervisor that
he might fail the drug test, explaining his conduct the prior evening. His supervisor
advised him that he would not be dismissed from work.7
That evening, Applicant told his wife about his use of speed as soon as he
walked in the door from work. He explained to her that he found speed in her brother’s
belongings in the back yard and that he used a small amount of the speed because he
wanted to lose weight for his upcoming tournament. His wife was extremely angry with
him.8
Approximately one week later, Applicant received word that he was being
suspended from work for testing positive for substance abuse. His employer gave him
the choice of seeking treatment from a substance abuse professional (SAP) at his own
expense or resigning his position. Applicant chose treatment and signed a SAP consent
form on March 18, 2010. Applicant visited a medical doctor about a week later. The
medical doctor performed a drug test, which was negative. The medical doctor also
referred Applicant to a licensed professional counselor. Applicant met with the
professional counselor on March 30, 2010 and April 6, 2010. At the conclusion of the
second session, the professional counselor concluded that Applicant did not meet the
criteria for a substance dependence problem and discharged him from care. His
medical doctor then provided him with a return to work document. Applicant took the
SAP report and medical documentation to his Human Resources officer and security
office. He return to work two weeks after he was suspended. Applicant’s employer now
requires him to take all random drug tests. Since May 2010, he has been tested four
times, and the test results have been negative.  9
Applicant’s wife testified to the facts surrounding his use of speed as told to her.
She verified that she asked him to destroy certain belongings of her deceased brother
and that her deceased brother used speed. She indicated that she was extremely angry
with Applicant for his conduct and that it took her some time to calm down before she
talked with him about his conduct. She also stated that Applicant was upset when he
told her, felt bad about what he had done, and knew he had made a mistake. Applicant
told her he would never use drugs again, and she believed him. Except for this incident,
she has not known Applicant to use drugs or to be involved with individuals who use
drugs. If he should use drugs in the future, she will divorce him, as drugs are not
acceptable. She and Applicant met in 2002 and began living together in 2002. She
Tr. 62-72.10
Id. 22-30.11
Id. 32-59.12
5
describes him as a good person who stepped up to help raise her two daughters.
Applicant is a responsible person and involved father.10
Applicant’s neighbor testified. She and her husband have known Applicant for
three years. She and Applicant’s wife are best friends, and their children are best
friends. The families spend a lot of time at each other’s homes and together. She knows
that Applicant tested positive in a drug test for speed, and she has been told the
circumstances under which he used the drugs. Her understanding of these
circumstances comports with the facts previously discussed. She was “surprised” by the
test results as she has never known him to use drugs. He has never used drugs in her
presence, and she has no independent knowledge, either personally or from hearsay,
that Applicant uses or used drugs. Applicant never discussed using drugs. She
discussed the drug incident with Applicant, his wife, and her husband a few days after
March 10, 2010. Applicant demonstrated remorse about his conduct, and she does not
believe he will use any drugs again as drugs are not something he does and not in his
character. She trusts Applicant around her children and allows him to drive her
children.11
Applicant’s friend, who is the quality assurance safety consultant at Applicant’s
place of employment and a retired service member of the Navy, testified on Applicant’s
behalf. He has known Applicant for four to five years. He socializes with Applicant on
average once a week, occasionally twice a week. He is not Applicant’s direct supervisor,
but they work for the same employer. On March 10, 2010, Applicant advised him that he
may test positive for drug use. Applicant explained the circumstances of his drug use to
him before he provided his urine sample. The witness confirmed the facts surrounding
Applicant’s drug use. Because of their friendship, the witness referred Applicant to Mr. B
before his drug test. The witness was surprised when Applicant indicated that he may
test positive for drug use, as the witness had not seen any signs of drug use by
Applicant nor a desire to use drugs. The witness verified that their employer had a drug-
free work place policy, which covered drug use on-and-off the job. He also verified that
the employer could have terminated Applicant based on the test results, but chose not
to do so because Applicant is a hard-working employee. He confirmed that under
company policy, if an employee tests positive for drug use, then the employee must be
tested every time the company performs a random drug test. He considers Applicant
trustworthy. He would trust Applicant with his life. He believes Applicant learned a
lesson from this incident.12
Applicant provided nine letters of recommendation, which included letters from
his three witness. All individuals describes Applicant as hardworking and trustworthy.
None of the letter writers indicate any knowledge of Applicant’s use of speed in March
AE C; AE F-AE N; Tr. 119.13
Response to SOR; AE C; Tr. 77-79, 95-96.14
An Administrative Judge’s credibility determinations are entitled to receive deference on appeal. Directive,15
Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. Although an Administrative Judge’s credibility determinations
are not immune from review, the party challenging such credibility determinations has a heavy burden of
persuasion on appeal. ISCR Case No. 01-14740 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2003). See also Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985); Bose Corp. V. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S.
485; Lincoln Elec. Co. V. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 210 F.3d 672 (6  Cir. 2000).th
6
2010. Applicant indicated at the hearing that he told each person about the March 2010
incident. Applicant signed a statement of intent not to use illegal drugs in the future and
agreed to the revocation of his clearance should he do so.13
Applicant acknowledged that he had an interim security clearance when he used
the speed. He denies associating with individuals who use drugs now or in the past. He
also admitted that he exercised bad judgment when he decided to use the speed to lose
weight. Except for the March 2010 incident, he has never used, purchased, or sold
illegal drugs. He has never been convicted on any charges related to drugs. Applicant
signed a statement of intent not to use drugs or associate with individuals who use
drugs. He understands that if he uses drugs in the future he will lose his job, and he will
impact his family.14
Applicant credibly testified at the hearing about his drug use. He provided straight
forward and honest answers to the questions presented. He accepted full responsibility
for his conduct and accepted the consequences imposed by his employer in March
2010 for failing the drug test. His witnesses testified credibly about his drug use, and
their testimony corroborated Applicant’s testimony on many facts in this case.15
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for 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 an 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
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.
(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
8
(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 the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance.
Applicant used methamphetamine, an illegal drug, one time after being granted
an interim security clearance. To use this illegal drug, he had to possess it. In addition,
the police arrested him 1993 for possession of amphetamines, which the police found in
a car he was driving. The Government has established its prima facie case under AG ¶¶
25(a)-25(c) and 25(g).
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
:
(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.
9
Applicant’s arrest in 1993 for drug possession not only occurred 16 years before
March 2010, but was the result of incorrect assumptions by the police. As the
prosecutor developed the case for trial, the prosecutor realized that the car, in which the
police found drugs, did not belong to Applicant, that Applicant had used the car only for
an hour one day, and that Applicant was not involved in his neighbor’s drug activities.
Once the prosecutor understood these facts, the prosecutor dismissed the case against
Applicant. Following his arrest, Applicant moved to a different neighborhood to avoid
any further contact with this neighbor. Based on the evidence of record, Applicant was
not involved with drugs in 1993. This drug arrest occurred a long time ago and under
unusual circumstances. AG ¶ 26(a) applies to the 1993 arrest.
Applicant signed a statement of intent not to use drugs in the future and not
associate with individuals who use drugs or be involved in any way with individuals who
use drugs. I find his statement genuine because his witnesses clearly and credibly
testified to his remorse immediately following his conduct and to their belief that his use
of speed was a one-time event that will not occur in the future. Although his brother-in-
law used speed at times before he died seven years ago, Applicant did not have a close
relationship with his brother-in-law. Applicant does not and has not associated with
individuals who use, sell, or purchase drugs. Drugs are not part of his life-style. He
spends a significant amount of time with his neighbors and his friend, all of whom have
never seen him use drugs or known him to show any interest in using drugs. His wife
will not tolerate drugs in their household and will divorce him if he used any illegal drugs
again. His one and only use of methamphetamine occurred nearly 17 months before the
hearing. AG 26(b) applies in this case.
Applicant sought treatment for substance abuse as required by his employer.
After two meetings with a licensed professional counselor, the counselor decided that
Applicant did not have a substance abuse problem and terminated his treatment. He
presented this information to his employer along with medical records from his primary
care doctor. His employer found the documentation satisfactory to show that Applicant
had completed a treatment program and returned him to work. Applicant has not used
any illegal drugs in the last 17 months and has a favorable prognosis for drug
abstinence. AG ¶ 26(c) applies.
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.
The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or
administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:
10
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate
with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a
security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or
releases, and cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation; and,
(b) refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of
investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in
connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern. I have
considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable:
(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, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group; and
(f) violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to
the employer as a condition of employment.
Applicant used speed, an illegal drug, in March 2010 while he held an interim
security clearance and in violation of his employer’s policy against illegal drug use. The
use of an illegal drug while holding a security clearance is a serious breach of the trust
given to Applicant by the Government. His disregard of company policy raises questions
about his judgment. The Government established its case under AG ¶¶ 16(e) and 16(f). 
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable:
(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.
Applicant knew immediately after he took the speed that he had made a “big”
mistake. He regretted his action and spent the remainder of the evening worrying about
telling his wife, letting down his friends, and keeping his job. He spent 24 hours deciding
how to tell his wife, because he knew she would be extremely angry with him. Within
11
days, he discussed his conduct with his neighbors and good friends. He made no
attempt to hide his actions from his wife or them.
Applicant received notice of a random drug test as soon as he arrived at work.
He immediately told the quality assurance safety consultant, his friend, that he may fail
his drug test and explained the reasons. Applicant told a second person at work about
his actions before he took the drug test, and he told his supervisor after the drug test.
He has always taken responsibility for his actions. When his employer provided him with
the option of treatment or resignation, he decided he would enter into a treatment
program at his expense. His treatment lasted two sessions because the professional
counselor determined that he did not have a drug problem and released him to return to
work. His employer accepted the counselor’s conclusion and allowed Applicant to return
to his job within a month of his positive test. Applicant does not associate with drug
users. The speed he used belong to his brother-in-law, who had been dead nearly six
years. Applicant use of speed occur because of a unique opportunity, not because he
associated with known drug users or sought out the drug for his own personal use. His
decision to ingest the speed was impulse, not need. He thought only of losing weight,
not the impact on his family, friends, or his job. Given his remorse for his actions, and
the actions he took in March 2010 and his abstinence, there is little likelihood that he will
ever consider any illegal drug use in the future. He knows the severe impact such a
decision will have on his life and has learned a valuable lesson. He has mitigated the
Government’s security concerns under Guideline E.
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 an 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
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
12
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
made a serious mistake when he decided to take a small quantity of speed to lose
weight for a tournament. His did so while holding an interim security clearance. He,
thus, breached the trust the Government had placed in him to handle classified
information. Applicant knows he made a “big” mistake, and he has taken full
responsibility for his actions. He did not hide his conduct from his wife, friends, or
employer. He accepted his work suspension and complied with the terms of his
suspension. He faced his wife’s anger and knows any future drug use will end his
marriage.
Applicant was a credible witness. His witnesses also presented credible
testimony about his none use of drugs and his one-time use of an illegal drug. I am
confident from Applicant’s sincere statement of remorse and his testimony that his use
of methamphetamine was a one-time occurrence. The negative consequences for any
future drug use are severe for him. He knows he will lose his family and his job should
he decide on any illegal drug use again. These consequences ensure that he will never
use drugs in the future. From the beginning, he acknowledged his action and told his
employer, wife and friends. Thus, his one time use of methamphetamine cannot be a
source of improper pressure or duress. After a complete review of all the evidence of
record, especially the witness testimony, Applicant has mitigated the Government’s
security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his drug involvement
under Guideline H.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
13
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge