1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-06824
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Thomas Albin, Esquire
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On May 5, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline G
(Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Activity). DOHA took action 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 May 20, 2011, response, Applicant admitted all allegations raised under
Guideline G and Guideline H, admitted four of the six allegations raised under Guideline
E, and admitted two of the three allegations raised under Guideline J. He also
requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. DOHA assigned the case to
another administrative judge on July 5, 2011. The case was transferred to me on
September 28, 2011, for caseload considerations.  The parties proposed a hearing date
of October 18, 2011. A notice setting that date for the hearing was issued on
September 29, 2011. I convened the hearing as scheduled. 
 Tr. 118-119. At times, Applicant also contributed to the purchase of the drug. Tr. 127.      1
 Tr. 86. “Five years ago, six years ago. Things started to really get out of hand.”      2
 As noted in the SOR, Applicant’s cocaine use started, or at least continued, after he was initially granted      3
a security clearance and while he was maintaining a security clearance. See, e.g., Tr. 76-79. Although his
abuse of cocaine had been limited, he was concerned that it could become a problem. Tr. 129-130. He knew
it was an illegal drug. Tr. 118-119.
2
Applicant gave testimony, introduced one witness, and was given until November
1, 2011, to submit any documents. The Government introduced eight documents, which
were accepted into the record without objection as Exs. 1-8. The transcript (Tr.) of the
proceeding was received on October 28, 2011. No post-hearing submissions were
offered by the Applicant. The record was closed on November 1, 2011. Based on a
review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his
burden of mitigating security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 54-year-old construction mechanic who has worked for the same
defense contractor for 35 years. He has earned a high school diploma. Applicant is
married to a homemaker. The couple has two grown children. Applicant has held a
security clearance for approximately 15 years. He completed at least two previous
security clearance applications before submitting a May 2009 application for a security
clearance renewal.
Applicant was born in 1957. He first consumed alcohol in the early 1970s, when
he was about 13 years old. In 1976, after completing high school, Applicant was hired
by his present employer as a laborer. By the early 1980s, he had been promoted to
construction mechanic, a position that was both more demanding and more lucrative.
He had also tried cocaine, a drug he would use about four more times until 2007.1
Except for a nine-month-long lateral transfer in 1986, he has continued in that position
to date, albeit for a different facility. Due to the nature of his position and his
experience, his work entails only nominal supervision. He has always been considered
a reliable worker. 
Until recently, Applicant’s personal and work-related conduct has been without
incident. His use of alcohol on weekends, when he sometimes drank to the point of
intoxication,  increased in about 2006.  In April 2007, he started outpatient treatment at2
a major medical facility for alcohol dependence and cocaine abuse.  His relationship3
with his wife was discussed during the program. He adamantly disagreed, however,
with a counselor’s suggestion that his relationship with his wife was contributing to his
 Tr. 111-112. Despite this suggestion, Applicant concedes that his marriage went through a sour spell in      4
the late 2000s, but noted that they have since made their nearly 35-year-long marriage stronger. 
 Tr. 112.      5
 Tr. 130-131.      6
 Tr. 132.      7
 Tr. 136. Applicant did not want to be physically restrained with handcuffs because of the difficulty in      8
maintaining a behind-the-back arm position. Applicant is approximately 5'11" and about 280-300 pounds. Tr.
153; Ex. 1 (Application, dated May 11, 2009) at 6 of 39.
 Tr. 70. The weapon at issue was a “tire checker.” Applicant conceded that the marijuana pipe found in his      9
automobile console was from “way back” and the amount of marijuana found was “residue in the pipe.” See
Tr. 72. He believes it belonged to one of his daughters. Tr. 125. His own marijuana use was limited to his high
school years. Tr. 119.
 Tr. 105.      10
 Tr. 110, 133-134.      11
3
drinking.  In part, Applicant attributes his continued drinking as a reaction to his4
counselor’s questioning about his marital relationship.  5
In October 2007, he received a ten-day suspension from work for aggressive or
loud comments that were thought to constitute threatening conduct. The incident was
not alcohol-related. He left his treatment program in November 2007, partly because he
continued to be dissatisfied with the counselor.  By that point, he had quit using6
cocaine. However, he continued to use alcohol on weekends, usually at bars. He
estimates that, at that time, he drank to intoxication about every other weekend.7
In June 2008, Applicant was asked to leave a local bar. He was intoxicated and
he insisted that he would not leave without his vehicle. Applicant went for a cup of
coffee. When he returned, police officers “ripped [him] out of the vehicle” and he was
arrested. Applicant was charged with disorderly conduct, interference with an
officer/resisting arrest,  illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, use of drug8
paraphernalia, and possession of less than four ounces of marijuana.  He was9
ultimately found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) and creating a public
disturbance. 
In January 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with evading responsibility
(property damage/injury) and following too closely while driving his vehicle, but was only
found guilty of the former charge. Applicant admits that he was angry at another driver
at the time, but that his slight impact with the other driver was unintentional.  Applicant10
was not intoxicated at the time, although he had consumed alcohol that day.11
 Tr. 68, 87-88.      12
 Tr. 59. Applicant stated that it was at this point he realized that it “was time to stop” using alcohol.      13
 Tr. 64.      14
 Tr. 60.      15
 Tr. 15-30, 80.      16
 Tr. 81-82. Applicant noted, “I still go to this day, off and on. . . . Maybe twice a month.,” As for alcohol, he      17
noted, “I think I’ve gotten over that, that I don’t need that in my life anymore. . . .” Tr. 83.
 Tr. 122-123.      18
 Tr. 85.      19
4
In March 2009, Applicant was in a fight with his wife at a local cocktail lounge.
She struck him, upset that he was drinking.  He left the bar and she called the police to12
report that he was intoxicated. He was arrested and charged with operating a motor
vehicle under the influence of alcohol/drugs (OUI), speeding, and failure to drive in he
proper lane. He spent the night in jail. Applicant was issued a temporary restraining
order requiring his separation from his wife. He then went to stay with his mother. 
The arrest proved to be a “turning point” for Applicant.  After his arrest, he quit13
using alcohol, briefly separated from his wife, and thought about his life. As for the
charges, he was ultimately found guilty of OUI, lost his driver’s license for a year, and
was ordered to perform community service.  Applicant sought help through his14
employer’s employee assistance program (EAP) where, with his wife’s support, they
also worked on their marriage.  Despite his past alcohol abuse, he was not previously15
known to have had a drinking problem at his workplace.  Around this same time,16
Applicant also started attending Alcoholic’s Anonymous (AA). He continued in AA for
about a year.  At his own urging, he was prescribed Antabuse (Disulfiram) for about six17
months during that time.  He quit using the medication when he felt it was no longer18
needed. The longer he was sober, the more supportive his wife became. She often
drove him to work while he lacked a driver’s license. Although he concedes that every
day is still a struggle, he now believes he has control over his alcoholism.  He has19
spoken with his sponsor about two times in the past year. Applicant reconciled with his
wife, upon whom he mostly relies on for support and with whom he attended the
hearing. He also finds support through attendance at AA twice a month and by
occasional contact with his AA sponsor. He is contrite about his past abuse of both
alcohol and drugs.
In May 2009, Applicant completed his most recent security clearance application.
On that application, in response to Question 23, he denied having illegally used any
controlled substances, including cocaine, in the preceding seven years. He also denied
having ever illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a security clearance.
To the extent that Applicant had used cocaine and sought treatment for cocaine abuse
 Tr. 92-96, 99, 114-116. Applicant does not use computers.      20
 Tr. 95-96.      21
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      22
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      23
5
as recently as 2007, both answers were incorrect. Applicant admitted that his answers
were incorrect, but denied that his answers were intentionally false. He testified that the
2009 application was his first attempt at the electronic format. In order to speed its
completion, he substantially copied his answers by hand to a blank copy of the
application from a hard copy of his earlier, non-computer generated applications. He
then handed it in for someone else to enter on a computer.  In the process of20
transposing his answers, he did not closely read each of the questions presented
thoroughly. He does not recall reviewing the final printed version of the application after
it was completed and before he signed it.  21
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
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 a22
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  23
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
 Id.      24
 Id.      25
 AG ¶ 21.      26
6
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in those 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 access24
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.25
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) is  the most pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to this AG 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.
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 started drinking26
alcohol as a teen. While his alcohol consumption was sometimes to the point of
intoxication, it did not become problematic until 2006, when his life began to get “out of
hand.” While Applicant vehemently disagreed with a counselor’s suggestion in 2007
that issues with his wife might be contributing to his growing alcohol dependence, it is
clear that marital discord was a major issue in his life by 2008. In 2009, he hit rock
bottom when faced with a serious alcohol-related driving charge and a public marital
spat that led to a temporary separation. Such facts are sufficient to raise Alcohol
Consumption Disqualifying Conditions 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(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)
7
(relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol
rehabilitation program). Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related
security concerns.
Applicant underwent treatment as an alcohol dependent that ended four years
ago in November 2007. He continued to drink on weekends. His continued weekend
drinking was often to the point of intoxication and contributed to his June 2008 and
March 2009 arrests. In March 2009, he quit using alcohol in an attempt to reconcile his
life. With his estranged wife’s support, he sought counseling with an EAP program,
voluntarily used Antabuse for about six months, and attended AA meetings regularly for
one year. He continues to attend AA as needed, about twice a month. He relies on
support from his wife, with whom he has reconciled and whose objection to his abuse of
alcohol appears to have led to much of their prior marital discord. He also maintains
periodic contact with his AA sponsor. He reflects a true understanding of the basic
tenets of AA in acknowledging that he is an alcoholic and in noting that battling
alcoholism is a constant struggle. Despite this self-awareness, he has been sober since
March 2009, signifying nearly three years of sobriety after about three years of self-
acknowledged alcohol abuse (2006 through March 2009). He feels that he has his
former alcohol abuse under control, noting that he no longer needs alcohol in his life.
He is highly content with his current life and marriage. Applicant seems committed to
staying sober and not again jeopardizing his life, marriage, or career. Alcohol
Consumption 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 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. Moreover, he
suffered a relapse after his 2007 treatment. Such facts obviate application of 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) and 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).
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,
 AG  ¶ 24.      27
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      28
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      29
8
rules, and regulations.  “Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior altering substances,27
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 a28
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  29
Back in the 1970s, Applicant used marijuana in high school. He used and
contributed to the purchase of cocaine about five times between the 1980s and early
2007. In 2008, Applicant was charged for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and
possession of a small amount of marijuana after a marijuana pipe with some residue
was found in his vehicle. While he was ultimately not found guilty of the marijuana-
related charges, and although it appears the aged marijuana pipe was not his,
Applicant’s more recent use of cocaine occurred in the mid to late-2000s – after
Applicant first received a security clearance in the mid-1990s. 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). Consequently, the burden shifts to
Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant’s testimony regarding the origin of the marijuana pipe found in his
vehicle in 2008 was both credible and plausible, particularly in light of the fact he has
consistently maintained that he has not used that drug since high school. Applicant
used cocaine about five times. The last time he used the drug was probably as recently
as early 2007. However, while counseling that year was unsuccessful with regard to
alcohol, it did help him commit to not using cocaine in the future. He has not used the
drug for about four-and-a-half years. He seems committed to staying drug free and
there is no evidence that he is a habitue of venues at which drugs are used. Therefore,
Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions 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)(2) (changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used) apply with regard
to his past association with marijuana paraphernalia and cocaine use, per se. 
None of these mitigating conditions, however, apply to Applicant’s use of
cocaine, a drug he knew to be illegal, while he maintained a security clearance. While
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), for example, is applicable with
regard to his current judgment regarding drugs, it does not discount his knowing use of
 AG ¶ 15.      30
 Id.      31
9
an illegal drug well into the 2000s – after being entrusted with a security clearance in
the 1990s.
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 to30
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.  In May31
2009, Applicant completed his most recent security clearance application. On that
application, he denied having illegally used any controlled substances, including
cocaine, in the preceding seven years. He also denied having ever illegally used a
controlled substance while possessing a security clearance. Applicant admitted that his
answers were incorrect, but denied that his answers were intentionally false. His
plausible testimony as to how transposing his previous application answers to a blank
form prepared for a third-party to enter electronically was underscored by his
straightforward and highly credible demeanor. There is no evidence that Applicant
intentionally falsified the truth in providing his answers. Consequently, neither Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition 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) nor any of the other disqualifying
conditions apply to these allegations. 
Moreover, Applicant’s alcohol and drug related incidents are best examined
under Guideline G and Guideline H, where they have already been discussed.
Therefore, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse
information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be
sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all
available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard protected information) and the other disqualifying conditions do not apply,
except with regard to his workplace outburst in October 2007 and his drug use after
being granted a security clearance. Those incidents are both sufficient to independently
raise AG ¶ 16(d). With a PC DC raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate the
security concerns.
While his workplace obviously knew about the behavior that led to his ten-day
suspension, there is no evidence that Applicant immediately disclosed his illegal use of
cocaine while he maintained a security clearance. Personal Conduct Mitigating
 AG ¶ 30.      32
10
Condition AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) does not
apply. However, his outburst occurred over four years ago and was an isolated
disciplinary action; it was not related to alcohol, drugs, or criminal conduct. It was his
only adverse workplace incident in a 35-year career with the same entity. It was clearly
an aberrational incident about which he has been both candid and credible. It is no
likely to recur. 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) and AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive
steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress) apply
with regard to the outburst and suspension. However, none of the available mitigating
concerns are applicable with regard to Applicant’s drug use after he was granted a
security concern. 
Guideline J – Criminal Conduct 
The concern under this guideline is that “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.”32
In this case, Appellant admitted that he illegally used cocaine after being granted a
security clearance and that he was convicted of alcohol-related impaired driving,
although, as previously noted, he credibly denied intentionally falsifying answers on his
security clearance application, as discussed above. Such facts are sufficient to raise
both Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses) and AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or
convicted). Consequently, it is Applicant’s burden to mitigate the security concerns
raised.
As noted above, the drug and alcohol-related conduct has been discussed under
other guidelines. With regard to the impaired driving, however, Applicant has since
committed to living alcohol-free and demonstrated his efforts to accomplish this goal.
Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since the
criminal behavior happened, 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) applies. Given the facts, his recent employment record, his
contrition, and his willingness to take responsibility for such activity, AG ¶ 32(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 service). However,
none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to his illegal use of cocaine through
2007, after he was granted a security clearance. 
11
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 sincere and candid 54-year-old construction mechanic with a high school
education. He started his current work directly after high school and has worked for the
same employer for 35 years. Despite an isolated disciplinary action in 2007, he
maintains a reputation as a reliable and productive laborer. Despite some domestic
difficulties in the 2000s, he has maintained a marriage that has survived over three
decades. He has overcome the marital discord that marred his marriage in the late
2000s. The vast majority of the allegations raised are related to the period of 2006-2009
when his marriage was strained. Now that Applicant is alcohol and drug-free, his marital
tension has been relieved and he once again leads a contended, substance-free life.
Given his understanding that alcohol and drugs contributed to the discord in his life
between 2006 and 2009, and in light of his current contentment, I do not believe that he
will relapse in those areas.
What remains a genuine security concern is the fact he used cocaine, an illegal
drug, after being granted a security clearance. While his alcohol-related offenses and
misbehavior also posed concerns to the extent that they occurred while he maintained a
security clearance, it is acknowledged that, at the time, he was clinically an alcohol
dependent. His sporadic use of cocaine (about five times between the 1980s and early
2007) and his occasional contribution to its purchase, however, were clearly matters of
personal choice. The fact that he chose to so abuse cocaine in full knowledge that it
was illegal, and in violation of his obligations as both an employee and as one
maintaining a security clearance, is particularly worrisome. 
Using Applicant’s own figures, he used cocaine up to five times between the
1980s and 2007. The exact dates of those five times are unknown. On average,
however, he used the illegal drug about once every five years, including a period when
he held a security clearance. Consequently, a period of less than five years since
quitting such sporadic drug use is insufficient to demonstrate his ability to completely
refrain from its use and regain that level of trust expected of one who seeks access to
sensitive information. This is not to say that Applicant is a disloyal or fundamentally
untrustworthiness person. It only indicates that Applicant currently fails to meet the
criteria and high standards expected of one seeking to maintain a security clearance. In
this case, he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his drug use after
receiving a security clearance. As noted, 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 denied.
 The adverse findings at ¶¶ 3.e, and 4.b are reiterations of the allegation set forth at  ¶ 2.b (“You used      33
cocaine after being granted a security clearance,” regarding the cocaine use that apparently continued until
April 2007, less than five years ago).
12
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:33
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 2.c-2.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a-3.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 4, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 4.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 4.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 4.c: 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