1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-09123
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Raashid S. Williams, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Philip D. Cave, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On May 16, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant enumerating security concerns arising under
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal 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) implemented by the DOD
on September 1, 2006. 
In a June 7, 2011, response, Applicant admitted all nine allegations raised under
Guideline H and two of the three allegations raised under Guideline J. He also
requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. DOHA assigned the case to
me on July 25, 2011. The parties agreed to a hearing date of September 7, 2011, and a
notice to that effect was issued on August 17, 2011. At Applicant’s request, the hearing
was rescheduled for September 27, 2011. A notice to that effect was issued on
September 6, 2011. I convened the hearing as scheduled. 
Applicant gave testimony, introduced two witnesses, and presented 14
documents for consideration, which were accepted without objection as exhibits (Exs.)
 Tr. 25-27. The professor, who lost a sibling to drug abuse, is aware of Applicant’s past drug use. She has      1
witnessed no indication that he has used drugs since meeting him when he arrived on campus in 2008-2009.
 Applicant noted, “sometimes I would use a couple of times a month. Sometimes I wouldn’t use it at all. I      2
would go a month or two without using.” There were also long periods when he did not use it at all. His cocaine
use was similarly sporadic. Tr. 50-52. 
 Tr. 30.      3
 At allegation ¶ 1.f, the SOR inaccurately states that Applicant used “heroine,” a term commonly used to      4
describe a legendary or literary female character having the characteristics of a hero. The SOR is hereby
amended to read “heroin,” the controlled opiate narcotic, to comport with the evidence.  
2
A-N. Department Counsel offered two documents, which were admitted as exhibits
(Exs.) 1-2 without objection. The parties were given until October 5, 2011, to submit any
other documents for consideration. A final document was timely submitted by Applicant
and forwarded by Department Counsel without objection. It was accepted as Ex. O. The
transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on October 6, 2011, and the record was
closed. Based on a review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant
met his burden of mitigating the security concerns raised. Clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old full-time doctoral student and college professor. He is
the recipient of a government-sponsored research scholarship. He is considered to be a
gifted student and a valued employee.  A professor who has known him for several
years remarked that she has seen him mature considerably in the past couple of
years.  He is single and has no children.1
In 1997, after completing an associate’s degree in audio production, Applicant
began using marijuana with varying frequency.  He spent about $50 each time he2
bought marijuana. With his audio training, he moved to a major metropolitan area and
entered the music industry, where he was “exposed to a lot of illegal substances.”3
Applicant began using other drugs.  He used ecstasy twice in  2000, used heroin  twice4
between October 1999 and March 2000, and began using cocaine with varying
frequency in 2000. He spent about $20 each time he used cocaine. In August 2002, he
moved to another major city. There, he used mushrooms twice, spending about $40 to
$80 each time he used them. Applicant also used crack cocaine two or three times
between August 2002 and December 2002. His non-marijuana drug use was mainly
with peers associated with the music industry. 
In 2006, Applicant’s grandfather died suddenly. In his grief, he contemplated
changing the direction of his life and maturing. Meanwhile, he had a dispute with an
associate who would not return or pay for recording equipment he had acquired from
Applicant, and Applicant refused to continue business with the man under the
circumstances. Applicant was unable to resolve the impasses successfully despite
repeated attempts. The man reported Applicant for making harassing phone calls.
Unable to conduct other business while his equipment was in the associate’s
possession, Applicant went to the man’s house, kicked in the door, and retrieved his
 Tr. 58.      5
 Tr. 29.      6
 Tr. 36.      7
 Id.      8
 Tr. 39.      9
 Applicant earned a second associate’s degree in 2008 and a third associate’s degree in 2009 at the      10
college where he presently studies and works. Tr. 41-43; Ex. A (Security Clearance Application, dated Aug.
20, 2009).
 Tr. 37.      11
 Ex. O (Statement of intent, dated Sep. 29, 2011).      12
 Tr. 49-50. Applicant has not previously signed any commitments not to abuse drugs.      13
 Tr. 53. Applicant noted, however, that he was willing to pursue       14
3
possessions. He then left a message offering to repair the door after his possessions
were collected. Applicant contacted the police about retrieving other equipment that the
man held that was not in the house. A few weeks later, he was arrested in May 2007 for
Malicious Destruction of Building Over $200 and Breaking and Entering – Illegal Entry,
but the charges were nolle prosequi under a deferred prosecution program and under
the condition Applicant “stay out of trouble.”  Applicant has never had any other adverse5
experiences involving the police.
In late 2007, Applicant used a financial inheritance from his late grandfather to
return to college and leave his current professional milieu. There, he started to distance
himself from “those people mainly that I was hanging around with to get away from that
drug use.”  In 2008, he chose to move to another state, committed to changing his life.6
There, Applicant decided to quit using illegal drugs entirely. He accomplished that goal
in July 2008, knowing that drug use was incompatible with his aspirations to follow a
career path in information security.  He had no physical problems associated with his7
cessation of drugs. He concentrated on his studies and developed a new circle of
friends who were appreciative of his goals and his commitment to stay clear of drugs.8
He chose to associate only with successful people because he believes “that will help
[him] be successful ultimately.”  He is committed to remaining drug-free and maintaining9
his 4.0 grade point average in his current studies.  Applicant has completed two10
master’s degrees since December 2009 and is now working on a doctorate. He does
not “want to jeopardize everything” to “go back to that old person I was. . . .”  Applicant11
signed a statement of intent not to use drugs in the future, accepting that to do so would
lead to the automatic revocation of any security clearance granted.  In accepting his12
government-sponsored scholarship, Applicant also affirmed that he would not use
drugs in the future.  In anticipation of the hearing, he met with a drug counselor who13
did not find it necessary to recommend treatment at this time.14
 Tr. 38.      15
 Response to the SOR, Allegation ¶ 1.j.      16
 Tr. 47.      17
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      18
  ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      19
4
Although Applicant has quit using drugs, he acknowledges that they are present
on his college campus. He has been aware of students using drugs and notes that
drugs have been offered to him.  One such incident occurred shortly before the15
issuance of the SOR.  Applicant actively avoids drug users and drugs. He lives off-16
campus. He no longer visits students in dormitories because he knows drugs may be
encountered there.  Aside from avoiding places and situations where drugs are used,17
he only socializes with those who do not use illegal substances. Many of those
individuals are professional or staff members. He is committed to not jeopardizing either
his studies or his continued success in his career path with any criminal activity.    
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 a18
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  19
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.      20
 Id.      21
 AG  ¶ 24.      22
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      23
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      24
5
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 access20
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.21
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.
Analysis
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,22
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 a23
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  24
Applicant used and bought marijuana from 1997 to July 2008, and used and
bought cocaine between January 2000 and July 2008. Prior to December 2002, he
twice used and purchased mushrooms, used crack cocaine three or four times, used
6
ecstasy twice, and used heroin twice. Such facts are sufficient to raise Drug
Involvement Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse) and AG ¶ 25(c)
(illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale,
or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia). With disqualifying conditions
otherwise raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant’s use of mushrooms, crack cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin occurred
between December 1999 and December 2002. While those drugs are considered to be
the some of the most hardcore drugs available, his use occurred during the height of
his career in the recording industry, was notably infrequent, and has since been ceased
without recurrence.  Although he continued to use marijuana and cocaine until July
2008, he successfully quit those drugs without difficulty. Since that time, he has
matured considerably. Applicant has since completed additional college degrees,
excelled in his studies, maintained a 4.0 grade point average, started a doctoral
program, and received a prestigious and competitive scholarship. His achievements
have earned him the respect of his academic peers and a place on the teaching staff. 
Since quitting drugs, Applicant has actively sought to avoid those individuals who
use drugs and venues at which drugs may be used. He left the music industry in favor
of the groves of academe in a new city in an effort to change his life in a positive
manner. He lives off-campus and avoids mingling with students in the dormitories. A
doctoral student and instructor, he is considerably older and more mature than the
average undergraduate and graduate students he teaches. He has surrounded himself
with a new set of friends and professional associates who are appreciative of his
attempts to eschew drugs and avoid their usage. During a recent evaluation, drug
counseling was not recommended. He will not do anything that might jeopardize his
studies, scholarship, or career. He has been drug-free for three-and-a-half years. His
maturation during that period is reflected in the record and been noted by both himself
and a professional superior. There is no indication that he will again resort to illegal
drug use. He affirmed that he will not use drugs in the future when accepting his
scholarship, and he signed a statement of intent with automatic revocation of any
security clearance granted for any future violation. Under these circumstances, Drug
Involvement Mitigating Condition 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).
Such facts also give rise to AG ¶ 26(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; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation).
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
 AG ¶ 30.      25
7
question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”25
In this case, Appellant admitted the past drug involvement discussed above. In addition,
he was arrested for malicious destruction of a building and breaking and entering after
a reported incident that constituted phone harassment. 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.
Applicant’s dispute with a former associate about the return of his recording
equipment nearly five years ago resulted in a phone harassment claim and an arrest for
breaking down the associate’s door to retrieve his audio equipment. The described
dispute appears to be the sort of “he-said-he-said” impasse that demanded third-party
intervention. There is no doubt that Applicant behaved inappropriately and criminally
during these 2007 incidents. However, the dispute seems to be an isolated incident in
the life of a man who is now in his mid-30s. Given that the detaining of his equipment
hindered his ability to work, his obvious frustration with the situation, as credibly
conveyed during the hearing, must have been extreme when it led to this atypical
conduct. Since that time, there have been no similar incidents. By all accounts,
Applicant has comported his behavior within legal and appropriate boundaries since
giving up drugs in July 2008, three-and-a-half years ago. 
Applicant committed to changing his life when he relocated in 2008. He quit
drugs, changed his milieu and profession, and made a concerted effort to avoid drugs
and all criminal activity. Now entrenched in academia, he has fixated on his studies and
professional aspirations. He maintains a 4.0 grade point average and completed
multiple degrees. Applicant is now a trusted peer and instructor at his college. He has
literally devoted the past three-and-a-half years to reinventing himself as a successful
and talented academician and specialist in his field. That field, as well as his current
scholarship, demands that he maintain high personal standards. He is committed to
avoiding any behavior or activity that might jeopardize his current status and
aspirations. Applicant has been forthcoming about all the criminal activity set forth in the
SOR, and he has not tried to minimize its significance. He credibly regrets his past
criminal activity. Given the passage of time since his criminal activity, remorse,
successful attempts to rehabilitate himself, and his subsequent achievements, I find
that  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) and 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) apply. None of the other
mitigating conditions apply.  
8
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 34-year-old scholarship recipient and
professor who has been associated with the same institution since mid-2008, around
the time he chose to turn his life around. Since that time, he has completed multiple
collegiate degrees, started work on a doctorate, become a valued college instructor,
and matured considerably. He is respected by his superiors and peers, both for his
personal qualities and professional expertise. He is single and has no children. He has
completely abandoned his former career and lifestyle in the recording industry.
Applicant is devoted to his research and his future in his chosen field. 
Applicant’s 2007 criminal conduct regarding the harassing phone call and his
self-initiated retrieval of his recording equipment plainly demonstrated immaturity and
poor judgment. However, both incidents were related to the same issue, were
aberrational in the context of his entire life, and are now regretted. To the court’s
satisfaction, the incidents were disposed of through a nolle prosequi and Applicant’s
demonstrated ability to not commit any similar incidents in the following year. Since that
time, Applicant has matured considerably. The following year he quit drugs, returned to
school, and started to achieve his recent successes. 
Of the utmost concern is Applicant’s past use of illegal drugs. It cannot be
overlooked that his drug use went well beyond the illegal use of marijuana, the so-
called “gateway drug,” to more hardcore substances. His use of those substances,
however, was highly infrequent, and he ceased their use many years ago. While he did
continue to use marijuana and cocaine on occasion until June 2008, his use was
apparently infrequent or sporadic. He quit them without difficulty. There is no indication
that substance abuse or related counseling is warranted. 
Applicant’s cessation of all drugs in 2008 was part of his purposefully
implemented plan to change his life. In executing that plan, he did considerably more
than become drug-free. As previously noted, he has also achieved much academic and
professional success through hard work and diligence. In the process, as noted by one
superior and reflected by the record, he matured considerably. While three-and-a-half
years may not seem like a long time, it is a significant period in the life of a 34-year-old.
He has shown that he is capable of avoiding the temptations of campus life while
leading the life of a professional adult.  He has no intention, after all the hard work and
success he has earned since implementing his plan to change his life, of jeopardizing
9
his personal and professional future. That fact, in tandem with his demonstrated ability
and commitment to eschew drugs, helps me conclude that he will continue to eschew
drugs and criminal activity. In light of these considerations and the facts of record, I
conclude that Applicant met his burden in mitigating drug involvement and criminal
activity security concerns. Clearance is granted. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.c: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge