1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-09055
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on March 10, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 16, 2011, detailing security concerns
under Guideline H, drug involvement, and Guideline J, criminal conduct, that provided
the basis for its preliminary decision to deny her 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. 
 
A number of these exhibits were unsigned letters of recommendation. Signatures were requested, and1
Applicant submitted the letters with signatures post-hearing.
The following exhibits now include a signed document: AE B, AE D, AE I, AE J, and AE Q. AE O remains2
unsigned.
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient3
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
2
Applicant received the SOR on May 24, 2011. She answered the SOR on June
6, 2011. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA received
the request, and Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 27, 2011. I
received the case assignment on August 3, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
October 7, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 25, 2011. The
Government offered exhibits marked as GE 1 through GE 13, which were received and
admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and four witnesses testified. She
submitted exhibits marked as AE A through AE V, which were received and admitted
into evidence without objection.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on1
November 1, 2011. I held the record open until November 9, 2011, for Applicant to
submit additional matters, including previously submitted letters of recommendation with
signatures.  Applicant timely submitted AE W - AE FF, which were received and2
admitted without objection. The record closed on November 9, 2011.
Procedural Ruling
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on October 18, 2011, less than 15 days
before the hearing. (File) I advised Applicant of her right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive
to receive the notice 15 days before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived her right
to the 15-day notice. (Tr. 10) 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a-1.f,
2.a-2.c, and 2.e-2.h of the SOR. Her admissions are incorporated herein as findings of
fact. She denied the factual allegations in ¶ 2.d and partially denied the factual
allegations in ¶ 2.i of the SOR.  She also provided additional information to support her3
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.  
GE 1; AE BB - AA EE.4
GE 1; AE V; Tr. 110.5
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 111-113.6
GE 2; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 114-115.7
SOR ¶ 1.d alleges that Applicant was charged with possession of a weapon. The Federal Bureau of8
Investigation criminal records report does not reflect such a charge, and the court records in the case record
do not show that Applicant was charged with possession of a weapon. In two cases, her co-defendants were
charged with possession of a weapon and found guilty. GE 3; GE 4; GE 5. 
3
Applicant, who is 38 years old, works as an engineering technician and data
collector for a Department of Defense contractor. She began her current employment in
March 2009. Her supervisors give her good performance reviews and describe her as a
highly motivated worker, upon whom they can rely.4
Applicant married twice and divorced twice. She has a 19-year-old son from her
first marriage and an 18-year-old daughter from another relationship. She also has a
one-year-old granddaughter, who is under her care. The State, in which she lives,
determined that she provided a safe home environment for her granddaughter and
granted her full custodial rights in July 2011. Her daughter is the mother of her
granddaughter. Her daughter is immature and involved with drugs, and thus, unable to
properly care for the granddaughter.  5
Applicant experimented with marijuana on a dare at age 9. When she was a
sophomore in high school, she dropped out of high school. At age 16, she began using
marijuana. She met her first husband at age 17. He used methamphetamines
recreationally and introduced her to this drug. She began using the drug whenever she
could obtain it. Her marriage to her first husband lasted two years. He has full custody
of their son, and to her knowledge, her first husband has not used any illegal drugs in
the last 15 years or more.6
In 1992, Applicant met R.R., the father of her daughter. She described R.R. as a
full-time criminal, whose criminal enterprises included buying and selling drugs. During
her on-and-off nine-year relationship with him, she used drugs daily. This relationship
lead to her first arrest in 1992 for use of a dangerous drug, possession of marijuana,
possession of stolen property, and possession of paraphernalia. The court found her
guilty of use of a dangerous drug, sentenced her to 24 months probation, and fined her.
At the same time, the police charged R.R. with multiple felonies, including possession
and sale of drugs, and trafficking in stolen property. The court convicted R.R. and
sentenced him to 17 years in jail. He appealed and was released after serving 2 ½
years of his sentence.7
Between 1994 and 2001, the police arrested Applicant six times for drug-related
offenses.  The court dismissed the charges filed against her on May 13, 1999 and May8
GE 1; GE 2; GE 3; GE 5-GE 12.9
GE 2; AE Y; AE Z; AE AA; Tr. 120, 159.10
GE 2; GE 12; Tr. 119-122.11
GE 2; Tr. 123-125, 140.12
GE 1; GE 2; GE 12; AE S; Tr. 122.13
4
30, 1999, with prejudice (the prosecution could not file the case again) and on August 5,
2000, without prejudice (the prosecution could file these charges again, but did not). As
to the remaining three arrests for drug-related criminal charges, the court gave her
probation and fined her. Applicant acknowledged these arrests on her E-QIP and
admitted that she used methamphetamines during this time.9
During this same period of time, the court also directed Applicant to participate in
drug counseling on two different occasions. In 1994, she received in-patient treatment
for her methamphetamine use, after which the court placed her on intensive probation.
She completed the program, but returned to her drug use. In 2001, she again enrolled in
an in-patient drug rehabilitation program and attended Narcotics Anonymous, as
required by the court. During this time, she worked and performed community service.
After her release from probation, with the help of another person, she opened the first
half-way house in her area for women in drug recovery. She received a community
service award in 2003 for her work with the half-way house.10
While attending Narcotics Anonymous, Applicant met her second husband, a
recovering addict. They married in 2003. He started using pain medication, then
returned to drinking and using methamphetamines. She returned to using
methamphetamines with him after a two-year absence. In February 2004, the police
stopped them and found methamphetamines in her pocket and marijuana in his pocket.
The police arrested them.  11
Six months later, while out on bail, Applicant’s then boyfriend used her car and
drove to a local department store, where he stole some items. The store security called
the police, who attempted to arrest her boyfriend. Her boyfriend used her car in a high
speed chase, which ended in his arrest at another friend’s house where Applicant was
visiting. Because there was an active warrant on her, the police searched her purse and
found drugs. The police arrested her and again charged her with drug-related crimes.
The police charged her boyfriend with endangerment, reckless driving, and other
crimes.12
In November 2004, Applicant pled guilty to three drug-related charges connected
with both cases. The court sentenced her to five years in prison. She began her prison
sentence in November 2004, and the prison paroled her in September 2008. She
completed her parole in 2009. While in prison, Applicant divorced her second husband.
She does not have any contact with him.13
AE FF; Tr. 126-130.14
GE 2; AE T; AE U; AE W ; Tr. 148-151.15
AE S; AE X; Tr. 156-159.16
5
Shortly after her arrival in prison, Applicant realized that she needed to take care
of herself and that no one else would take care of her. During her incarceration,
Applicant learned about a concept used to mimic outside society inside her prison.
Through this concept, she learned how rewards and incentives were earned in prison.
She investigated the prison programs offered, which would help her earn money to
purchase items in the prison store and which would help her with self improvement. She
was not eligible for incentives, such as a good paying job, lower security, and more
recreational time, unless she made better decisions. Good behavior, not discipline,
determined what rewards or incentives she would receive. She decided that she wanted
to work in the best paying job in her prison, which was as a telemarketer. To do this,
she completed her GED education and passed her GED test. She received her high
school diploma and successfully worked as a telemarketer. She served on a prison
committee, which did fund-raising. The profits from the committee’s fund-raising went to
women’s shelters or to victims of disasters. Applicant used her time in prison to improve
herself through education and work. Just prior to her release from prison, a journalist
interviewed Applicant about her prison experience and her plans for her future. The
journalist published her story, which references Applicant and her drug history.14
Upon her release from prison in 2008, Applicant lived with her parents until she
could support herself. In compliance with the requirements of her parole, she enrolled in
a counseling and treatment program, which she successfully completed in 2009, and
she attended Narcotics Anonymous until October 2010. She no longer attends
Narcotics Anonymous on a regular basis because she wants to move forward with her
life and not be surrounded by recovering drug addicts. If she needs to attend a meeting,
she will go. Her sister is a positive force in her life. Her extended family, close friends at
work, long-time high school friend, and friends from recovery all provide a support
system for her.15
During her time in prison, Applicant received one disciplinary action for not
following an order. Applicant has not been arrested since her release from prison three
years ago, nor has she used drugs. When asked by Department Counsel if she had any
concerns about a relapse to her past drug use, Applicant responded: “I can honestly say
that I’m done.” Applicant expressed an intent not to use drugs in the future at the
hearing and signed a letter agreeing to immediately resign her job should she be
involved in criminal activity or illegal drug use. She agreed to continue disassociating
with individuals in her past who choose to engage in criminal activities and illegal drug
use. Her company has a no tolerance drug policy. She has not been subject to drug
testing at work, but volunteered to be drug tested at anytime.16
AE B; AE H; AE K; AE L; Tr. 73-74, 78-82, 89-92,97-99,132-137.17
AE A; Tr. 145-147.18
On two occasions, Applicant reported concerns about co-worker behavior to her supervisor. Tr. 42-44.19
AE F; AE N; Tr. 42-69.20
AE C - AE E; AE G; AE O - AE Q. 21
6
Since her release from prison in September 2008, Applicant has chosen to stay
away from her previous friends who use drugs, a fact verified by long-term friends. She
has no contact with her second husband. She refuses to be in the same room with her
brother, a fact verified by her sister, because he continues to be involved in his drug
lifestyle. She discovered that her daughter brought marijuana into her apartment in May
2011. Since her daughter was 18 years old, Applicant banned her daughter from her
apartment. Applicant also gained custody of her granddaughter because of her
daughter’s drug use. Applicant will support her daughter’s non-use of drugs, but will not
support her daughter in using drugs.17
Applicant renewed and rebuilt her relationship with her son since leaving prison.
They have visited with each other, despite living many miles apart. She has also
developed a friendship with his father, her former husband. Concerning R.R., Applicant
still talks with him periodically about their daughter and their granddaughter. R.R. is
serving his third prison term (42 years) in a state many miles from her. She has no
desire for any personal relationship with him.18
Applicant’s immediate supervisor and her group manager wrote letters of
recommendation and testified on her behalf. Both know she served time in prison for
drug-related charges, but do not know all the specifics of her past criminal conduct and
drug use, as they do not believe they need to know this information. Both also confirm
that their employer has a random drug testing policy. Her supervisor describes her as
an employee upon whom she can rely. Applicant does all work requested of her to the
best of her abilities. Her supervisor trusts her and her peers respect her.  Her19
supervisor enjoys working with her. When questioned about Applicant’ extensive past
drug history, her supervisor stated that she did not feel that Applicant’s past made a
difference, as Applicant has always been a professional and has not demonstrated
questionable behavior. Her group manager considers Applicant trustworthy and a model
employee. Based on his knowledge of the responsibilities for holding a security
clearance, he recommends Applicant for a security clearance.20
Applicant submitted seven letters of recommendation from co-workers at her
current job. Each described her as a hard worker and a person upon which they can
rely. She performs her job exceedingly well and continues to improve her job skills. She
is seen as an asset to the organization. None of these individuals is aware of her past
criminal and drug conduct.21
AE H; Tr. 86-106.22
AE M; Tr. 71-82.23
AE B; AE I - AE L.24
7
Applicant’s younger sister wrote a letter of recommendation and testified on
Applicant’s behalf. They talk with each other several times a week and are best friends.
Over the last seven years, Applicant’s sister observed tremendous changes in Applicant
and stated that the changes are the result of her time in prison. Since Applicant has
returned home from prison, she has not questioned her behavior. Applicant has strong
beliefs in her current life and will not jeopardize it. Applicant does not associate or
communicate with anyone of questionable behavior. As mentioned earlier, Applicant’s
sister indicated that Applicant has no relationship with their brother because he has
extremely questionable behavior related to his drug use. Applicant’s sister discussed
the intense process required for Applicant to obtain custody of her granddaughter
because she worked through the same process when she adopted their brother’s
children. In the last seven years, she has not questioned Applicant’s behavior and firmly
believes that Applicant will not return to her past life. Applicant has not expressed any
concern to her that she might return to her drug use. Applicant successfully completed
her drug treatment program after leaving prison and is not tolerant of her daughter’s use
of marijuana or their brother’s drug use.22
A long-time family friend and the stepmother of R.R. wrote a letter of
recommendation and testified on behalf of Applicant. She has known Applicant since
Applicant was a teenager and is fully aware of Applicant’s past drug use and criminal
conduct. She considers Applicant a daughter. Applicant is not the same person she
knew as a teenager. She has “turned her life around.” While in prison, Applicant learned
to make good choices for herself. Applicant has matured into a strong, capable and
reliable person. She has no concerns that Applicant will return to using drugs, after
discussions with Applicant on this subject. Applicant has separated herself from drug
users and her past.23
Applicant’s long-time high school friend wrote a letter of recommendation,
confirming that Applicant has severed her ties with the people from her past and that
Applicant does not tolerate illegal activity of any type in her current life.  A couple, who
have known Applicant for 20 years, also attest to the changes she made in her life in
recent years, as do her mother and father. Finally, a law enforcement officer, who has
known her and her family for 25 years, praises her for how she has changed her life
after making bad decisions in the past. He describes her as a hard worker, who is
committed to her family and her job.24
Applicant admitted that she entered drug rehabilitation programs in 1993 and
2002. She did not use methamphetamines while in rehabilitation. In 1993, she returned
to her drug use as soon as she completed the program. After the second time, she
remained drug free for over two years. Applicant completed her most recent drug
AE U; AE W ; Tr. 147-150, 158.25
8
rehabilitation program in 2009. She stated that she was formally diagnosed with a drug
problem and that the last program indicated the she had a good prognosis for recovery.
The record does not contain any medical records showing this information. When asked
why she did not believe that she would relapse this time, Applicant stated that her
earlier rehabilitation efforts were done to please others, such as the court, and that her
current decision to remain drug free is for herself. She is not trying to please others;
rather, she wants her new life and does not intend to return to using drugs. Applicant is
not proud of her earlier life, but she is proud of where she is now.25
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.
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
9
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
(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); 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;
and
10
(e) evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical
social worker who, is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment
program.
From 1990 until 2002 and from 2003 until July 2004, Applicant used
methamphetamines, an illegal drug, on a regular basis, often daily. To use
methamphetamines, she had to possess the drug. Under the facts of this case, AG ¶¶
25(a) and 25(c) apply. Applicant testified that she had been diagnosed as a drug addict,
but the record does not contain a medical report or record showing this diagnosis by a
qualified medical professional or licensed social worker or the qualifications of the
medical professional or licensed social worker. AG  ¶¶ 25(d) and 25(e) are not raised.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered all the mitigating conditions, and especially the following:
(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.
Applicant twice entered drug rehabilitation programs and twice relapsed. After
her incarceration in 2004, Applicant began making better decisions for herself on many
levels, including a decision not to use methamphetamines. Upon her release from
prison, she successfully completed a third drug rehabilitation program. For seven years,
she has not used methamphetamines or any other illegal and destructive drug. She
continues to adhere to her decision to avoid drug use. She no longer associates with
drug-users and stays away from drug environments. She refuses to associate with her
brother because of his continuing drug-related behavior. She removed her daughter
from her apartment when she found marijuana in her daughter’s possession and sought
custodial care of her granddaughter because of her daughter’s issues, including drug
use. Her sister and long-time friends verified the substantial changes in Applicant’s
attitude and behavior towards drugs. They also substantiate her refusal to associate
with her brother and her decision to remove her daughter from her apartment.
In ISCR Case No. 07-13890 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 2009), the Appeal Board discussed AG ¶ 32 (f) “conviction26
in a Federal or State court, including a court-martial of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year and incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than a year.” The requirements
set forth in Guideline J AG [para.] 32(f) reflect legislation, the Smith Amendment (10 U.S.C. 986), which is no
longer in effect. It was repealed on January 28, 2008 by the Bond Amendment (Sec. 3002 to (50 U.S.C. 435b).
The Bond Amendment continues the requirement for disqualification for persons who were sentenced to and
served imprisonment for more than a year unless the individual receives a waiver for merit. However, this
disqualification now only applies to prohibit favorable clearance adjudications that would provide access to
Special Access Programs (SAP), Restricted Data (RD), or other information commonly referred to as Sensitive
Compartmented Information (SCI) for covered individuals. The statutory modification ended the former Smith
Amendment's applicability as to adjudications of "collateral" security clearances. The SOR in Applicant's case
was issued on June 23, 2008, subsequent to the enactment [*8]  of the Bond Amendment. It was also issued
after the Under Secretary of Defense's Interim Guidance for the implementation of the Bond Amendment.
Accordingly, the Smith Amendment-related provision set forth at Guideline J AG [para.] 32(f) does not apply
in Applicant's case. 
11
Applicant signed a letter of intent and agreed to the immediate loss of her job
should she use illegal drugs or be involved in criminal activity. With her long history of
drug use, this act alone would not be sufficient to mitigate the Government’s security
concerns. However, in this case, her signed intent coupled with her seven-year
abstinence, disassociation with drug-users, significant change in behavior and attitude,
and the decision of the State to award her custodial care of her granddaughter supports
mitigation of the Government’s security concerns. Applicant has committed herself to
her new, drug-free life. AG ¶ 26(b)(1)-(4) applies. Although Applicant has successfully
completed her most recent drug program, a complete medical record and report,
including professional qualifications, are not part of this record. Thus, AG ¶ 26(d) is not
applicable.  
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct, “Criminal
activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its
very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws,
rules and regulations.”
AG ¶ 31 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.  26
Applicant was arrested nine times between 1992 and 2004 and charged with
drug-related offenses. Following her two arrests in 2004, she spent four years in prison.
She successfully completed the requirements of her parole in 2009. AG ¶¶ 31(a) and
31(c) apply under the facts of this case.
12
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered all the mitigating conditions, and especially the following:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
Applicant has an extensive criminal past, all related to her use of
methamphetamines. Her last arrest occurred in July 2004, more than seven years ago.
During her four years in prison, Applicant stayed out of criminal trouble and has
remained free of criminal behavior since her release from prison in September 2008.
Since her arrest and incarceration, Applicant has completed her high school education
and some college courses. She learned skills which provided her with employment. Her
current employer and co-workers describe her as a trusted employee and hard worker
upon whom they can rely. Shortly after arriving in prison, Applicant quickly decided to
learn to make good decisions and not bad decisions. After leaving prison, she continues
to make good decisions about all aspects of her life. She has decided that her drug and
criminal activities are her past and not her future. Applicant has changed her behavior
and her attitude about drugs, and its related criminal conduct. She is not proud of her
past drug use and criminal conduct, but she is proud of her new life. She has mitigated
the Government’s security concerns under AG ¶ 32(d).
Even if the SOR allegations are not mitigated under Guidelines H and J, they are
mitigated under the Whole-Person Concept, infra.
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
13
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
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
dropped out of high school. Within a year, she began experimenting with
methamphetamines. In a short time, her use of methamphetamines changed from
experimental to regular to daily usage. From 1992 until 2001, Applicant associated with
drug users. Her boyfriend not only used drugs, but regularly conducted various criminal
enterprises, which resulted in jail time for him. Although she entered a drug counseling
program in 1992, she did not seriously commit to no future drug use. In fact, as soon as
she could, she returned to her drug use. In 2001, she enrolled in a second drug
counseling and rehabilitation program. For the next two years, she remained drug free
and appeared committed to remaining drug free. During her sobriety, she also worked
to establish a women’s shelter for which she received an award. She met her second
husband in drug rehabilitation and married him in 2003. He returned to drug use and so
did she because in her words, her sobriety was to please others and not for herself
improvement. In 2004, the police twice arrested her for drug possession and use, as
well as drug paraphernalia. Her last two arrests resulted in her incarceration in prison
for nearly four years.
Shortly after arriving in prison, Applicant finally understood that she alone was
responsible for her conduct and her well-being. She learned about the positive and
negative aspects of life in prison. She realized that rewards and incentives were given
for good decisions, not poor decisions. The first decision she made in prison was to
obtain her GED, as she wanted to work the best available job in prison. She completed
her GED and obtained this job. During her four years in prison, she had one minor
disciplinary action for failing to follow an order. She made daily choices to stay away
from negative behavior, from drugs, and to avail herself of the programs and activities
which would help her improve herself. These decisions showed her a new way to
consider life decisions after she left prison. Since her discharge from prison more than
three years ago, she has continued to make good decisions about her lifestyle. She
stays away from her former drug associates and drug life style. She enjoys her job and
14
her ability to live a drug-free life. She has no desire to return to her old lifestyle, a life of
which she is not proud. Her current decision to remain drug-free is for her betterment
and not to please others.
Her direct supervisor and second level manager testified and wrote letters of
recommendation on her behalf. Both are aware of her past drug use and criminal
conduct, including her prison time. Neither consider her past as a detriment to her
holding a security clearance because they have observed her in the work environment.
They praise her work performance and abilities to work with co-workers. Her sister and
daughter’s grandmother provided credible and convincing testimony about Applicant’s
tremendous change following her time in prison. Both agreed that drugs and criminal
activity are no longer a part of her life and will not be a part of her life in the future. A
high school friend agreed with them in a letter of recommendation. Several co-workers
wrote letters of recommendation based on their observances of her at the worksite. Her
co-workers do not indicate any knowledge of her past drug history and past arrests.
Thus, the letters of recommendation from her co-workers are given limited weight.
Applicant has been awarded custodial care of her granddaughter by the State in
which she lives because her daughter is not currently capable of caring for her
daughter. Applicant will not allow her daughter in her home because her daughter is
involved with marijuana. She no longer associates with her second husband or other
drug users. She will not go near or be in the same room as her brother because of his
drug life-style. She focuses on her work and caring for her granddaughter. In weighing
all the evidence of record which shows an extensive past history of drug use and related
criminal conduct and a complete turnaround in Applicant’s behavior, attitude, and
lifestyle, I find that Applicant has rehabilitated her life, and that she has mitigated the
Government’s security concerns for the reasons mentioned above.
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 her drug involvement
and criminal conduct under Guidelines H and J.
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.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.i: For Applicant
15
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