1 
 
 
 
                                                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
 
             
In the matter of: 
          ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-10821 
                                                            )                      
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
                       
                                                                        
  
Appearances 
 
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the record in this case, I conclude that Applicant failed 
to rebut or mitigate security concerns under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. Her eligibility for a 
security clearance is denied. 
 
                                                    Statement of Case 
 
Applicant completed several requests for consideration for security clearances. 
On August 7, 1997, she completed a security clearance application (SF-86). On April 
13, 2001, she completed another SF-86, which she recertified on July 5, 2001. On June 
21, 2002, she completed still another SF-86. On July 29, 2008, Applicant completed an 
electronic questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP), and on June 11, 2010, 
she completed an SF-86 in response to a questionnaire for national security positions. 
On April 8, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant 
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline G, Alcohol 
Consumption; Guideline H, Drug Involvement; and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. 
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
 
2 
 
 
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 (AG) effective within the 
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 Applicant answered the SOR and included five attachments on May 10, 2011. 
However, DOHA did not consider her answer to be complete because she did not 
indicate whether she wished to have a hearing or a decision on the written record 
without a hearing. On May 31, 2011, DOHA requested that Applicant file a complete 
response to the SOR. On June 8, 2011, Applicant again responded to the SOR, 
declined a hearing, and requested a decision on the written record.  
 
The Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 11, 2011. 
The FORM contained documents identified as Items 1 through 19. On July 14, 2011, 
DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit any 
additional information and/or objections within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the 
file on July 27, 2011. She did not submit any information or file any objections within the 
required time. On September 20, 2011, the case was assigned to me for a decision.   
 
Procedural Matters 
 
Under ¶ E.3.1.13 of DOD Directive 5220.6, Department Counsel offered eight 
amendments to the SOR. The amendments were included in the FORM, which 
Applicant received on July 27, 2011. The eight amendments to the SOR follow: 
 
1: In subparagraph 2.j., replace “1996” with “1997.”1
 
 
2: Strike subparagraph 3.a. in its entirety and replace with the following: 
 
“You used marijuana in about 1999 and 2001, after being granted a 
Department of Defense Security Clearance in about 1997.” 
 
 3. Add subparagraph 3.c. to state the following: 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date August 12, 1997, in response to ‘Question 19. Your 
Medical Record In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental 
health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you 
consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related 
condition?’ You answered ‘No’ and deliberately failed to disclose that you 
received mental health counseling in 1996 with psychiatrist [name 
deleted].”   
 4. Add subparagraph 3.d. to state the following: 
                                            
1 This amendment appears to correct a typographical error, since the record establishes, and Applicant 
does not dispute, that she first received a security clearance in 1997. (Item 7; Item 9.) 
 
3 
 
 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date August 12, 1997, in response to ‘Question 27. Your 
Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity – Illegal Use of Drugs Since the 
age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally 
used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack 
cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), 
amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, 
etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?’ You 
answered ‘No’ and deliberately failed to disclose that you have used 
marijuana about three times prior to this application.” 
 
 5. Add subparagraph 3.e. to state the following: 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date March 16, 20012
 
, in response to ‘Question 19. Your 
Medical Record In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental 
health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you 
consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related 
condition?’ You answered ‘No’ and deliberately failed to disclose that you 
received mental health counseling in 1996 with psychiatrist [name omitted] 
and in 1998 with counselor [name omitted].” 
 6. Add subparagraph 3.f. to state the following: 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date March 16, 2001 in response to ‘Question 27. Your 
Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity – Illegal Use of Drugs Since the 
age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally 
used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack 
cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), 
amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, 
etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD,PCP, etc), or prescription drugs?’ You 
answered ‘No’ and deliberately failed to disclose that you had used 
marijuana approximately four to five times prior to this application.” 
 
 7. Add subparagraph 3.g. to state the following: 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date March 16, 2001, in response to ‘Question 28. Your 
Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity – Use in Sensitive Positions 
                                            
2 The date cited for the execution of the document is incorrect in proposed amendment 3.e. and in the 
amendments identified as 3.f. and 3.g. Applicant signed this security clearance application on April 13, 
2001, and she recertified the document on July 5, 2001. 
 
 
4 
 
 
Have you EVER illegally used a controlled substance will employed as a 
law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; while 
possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly and 
immediately affecting the public safety?’ You answered ‘No’ and 
deliberately failed to disclose that you had used marijuana in 1999 after 
receiving a Department of Defense security clearance in about 1997.” 
 
 8. Add subparagraph 3.h. to state the following: 
 
“You falsified material facts on a Security Clearance Application, executed 
by you under date October 22, 2002, in response to ‘Question 19. Your 
Medical Record In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental 
health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you 
consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related 
condition?’ You answered ‘No’ and deliberately failed to disclose that you 
received mental health counseling in 1996 with psychiatrist [name omitted] 
and in 1998 with counselor [name omitted].” 
 
Department Counsel requested that to avoid further delay, Applicant provide 
admissions or denials to the additional allegations in the amendment to the SOR in her 
response to the FORM. Department Counsel further requested that if Applicant did not 
provide answers for any or all of the additional allegations that the administrative judge 
treat Applicant’s silence as denials of the additional allegations. As noted earlier, 
Applicant did not provide a response to the FORM. Accordingly, I interpret her silence in 
response to the eight amendments to the SOR as specified in the FORM as denials of 
those allegations.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The amended SOR contains five allegations of disqualifying conduct under 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.e.); eleven allegations of 
disqualifying conduct under Guideline H, Drug Involvement (SOR ¶¶ 2.a. through 2. k.);  
and eight allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline E, Personal Conduct (¶¶ 
3.a. through 3.h.). In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted five Guideline G 
allegations, eleven Guideline H allegations, and two Guideline E allegations. She did 
not respond to the eight amendments to the SOR as specified in the FORM.3
 
  
Applicant’s admissions are entered as findings of fact.  (Item 1; Item 3; Item 4.) 
 Applicant is 33 years old and the mother of a six-year-old daughter. She married 
for the first time in 1997. She and her first husband divorced in 1999. In 2003, Applicant 
married again. She and her second husband divorced in 2007. (Item 9.) 
                                            
3 Applicant did not respond to an amendment which changed a date in SOR ¶ 1.j. from 1996 to 1997. 
Additionally, she did not respond to amended SOR ¶¶ 3.a., 3.c., 3.d., 3.e., 3.f., 3.g., and 3.h. I interpret 
Applicant’s silence in response to those allegations as denials.  
 
5 
 
 
 Applicant enlisted in the U.S. military in December 1996, when she was 18 years 
old. She served on active duty for four years and received an honorable discharge in 
2000. She was first awarded a security clearance and a higher level of access in 1997. 
(Item 9.) 
 
 After leaving military service, Applicant earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 
Information Technology and a Master of Science degree in Computer Information 
Systems. She is currently employed as a support engineer and instructor. She has 
worked for her present employer, a government contractor, since October 2002. (Item 
10.) 
 
 In May 1996, when she was 17 years old, Applicant underwent several months of 
mental-health counseling for “deeply emotional family issues, specifying sexual abuse 
encounters.” She has continued to receive mental-health counseling periodically 
throughout her adult life. In 1998, while in military service, she sought mental-health 
counseling for her earlier family issues as well as new concerns about divorce and a 
relationship with a coworker. From 2003 through 2008, Applicant received treatment at 
a mental-health facility from a psychologist and a licensed clinical social worker. The 
mental-health professionals at the treatment facility diagnosed Applicant with 
depression, borderline personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 
anxiety issues, and substance abuse. From October 2006 to October 2008, Applicant 
also saw a psychiatrist, who diagnosed Applicant with bipolar disorder. From 2008 until 
May 2011, Applicant was treated by a licensed clinical social worker, who diagnosed 
her with bipolar disorder and PTSD.  (Item 5; Item 11; Item 12; Item 13; Item 14; Item 
17.)  
 
 Applicant began to drink alcohol in about 1992, when she was 14 years old. For 
the next 16 years, until at least September 2008, Applicant consumed alcohol at times 
to excess and to the point of intoxication. Between the ages of 19 to 21, while serving in 
the military, Applicant was drinking alcohol five nights a week. She drank alcohol twice a 
week from ages 21 through 24. While Applicant stopped drinking during her pregnancy 
and through the birth of her daughter in 2005, she resumed drinking nightly to the point 
of intoxication between 2006 and September 2008. (Item 11; Item 12; Item 13; Item 15.) 
 
 Applicant and her first husband share joint custody of their daughter. In an 
interview with an authorized investigator, Applicant stated that she never consumed 
alcohol when she had custody and care of her daughter. However, when she was not 
with her daughter, she would consume ten beers once or twice a week with her friends. 
(Item 12.)   
 
 On January 26, 2008, Applicant met friends and spent the evening drinking with 
them at two bars. In an interview with an authorized investigator in October 2008, 
Applicant estimated that she probably drank 13 beers and 4 shots of liquor that 
 
6 
 
 
evening.4
 
 At 2:00 a.m. the next morning, Applicant was arrested when driving 85 miles 
an hour in a 45 mile-an-hour zone. Her blood alcohol level was .11. Applicant was 
charged with (1) driving vehicle on highway at speed exceeding limit, (2) driving, 
attempting to drive vehicle under the influence, (3) driving, attempting to drive vehicle 
under the influence per se, and (4) driving, attempting to drive vehicle while impaired by 
alcohol. Applicant pled guilty to Counts (1) and (3). She was placed on probation before 
judgment, fined, awarded supervised probation, ordered to abstain from alcohol and 
drugs, and ordered to enroll and complete treatment. Counts (2) and (4) were nolle 
prosequi. (Item 12 at 3-4; Item 13 at 10; Item 18.) 
 Applicant enrolled in an alcohol-treatment program in March 2008. During her 
treatment she drank beer before coming to her group therapy, and she admitted 
excessive drinking on weekends. A licensed clinical psychologist concluded that 
Applicant’s symptoms warranted a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. Applicant told her 
therapist that she did not have a desire to stop drinking and did not consider alcohol to 
be a problem for her. She was unsuccessfully discharged from the alcohol treatment 
program in July 2008. (Item 15.)  
 
 In an interview with an authorized investigator in 2008, Applicant stated that her 
mental-health issues caused her to consume alcohol to excess. She explained that, 
every two months or so, her bipolar disorder gave rise to a sense of not caring. She 
stated that her sense of not caring was not the consequence of depression but of an 
awareness that “things are spiraling out of control.” Applicant stated that during these 
periods, she felt very emotional and did not want to get out of bed. She also 
characterized her moods as very low. She also reported suicidal feelings when she was 
in this state of mind in the past. (Item 12.)  
 
 Applicant entered another treatment program in August 2008 and received 
treatment until April 2009. In August 2008, a licensed social worker diagnosed 
Applicant, in part, as alcohol dependent. (Item 14.) 
 
  From September 2008 until April 2009, Applicant received additional treatment 
from a state certified substance abuse treatment facility. This provider evaluated 
Applicant and diagnosed her, in part, with alcohol dependence. In her answer to the 
SOR, and in a statement in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant asserted that 
she has not consumed alcohol since September 2008. (Item 5; Item 12; Item 16.) 
 
 In additional to her problems with alcohol consumption, Applicant also has a 
history of illegal drug use.  She admitted marijuana use in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 
September 2008. She failed to list her marijuana use on the security clearance 
application she executed in 1997. In a personal subject interview in October 2008, 
Applicant stated that she smoked marijuana twice in 1995, when she was 17, and once 
                                            
4 In a declaration dated August 10, 2010, Applicant stated she drank six beers and six shots of liquor that 
evening. (Item 13 at 10.) 
 
7 
 
 
in 1997, when she was 19.5
 
 In an August 2010 declaration made to a special 
investigator with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Applicant admitted that 
she used marijuana once in 1999 and once 2001 after being granted a security 
clearance and special access in 1997. Her failure to list her marijuana use resulted in 
the revocation of her higher level of access by another government agency in 2001. In 
2003, Applicant stated she would never use illegal drugs again because she did not 
want to lose her security clearance. In 2004, she was again awarded a security 
clearance and a higher level of access. (Item 5; Item 7; Item 11; Item 12; Item 13 at 6.) 
 Applicant purchased and used cocaine, crack, and mushrooms in July 2008. She 
tested positive for cocaine in July 2008 during a random urinalysis. As a consequence 
of her positive test for cocaine use and her use of crack, mushrooms, and marijuana 
while on probation, she was charged with violation of probation in July 2008. After 
initially denying cocaine use, Applicant pled guilty to the probation violation. Her 
probation was continued and the charge was dismissed. (Item 5; Item 12; Item 13; Item 
19.)    
 
 In September 2008, Applicant was evaluated at a licensed substance abuse and 
mental-health counseling center. She was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and 
cocaine abuse, and she received treatment for these diagnosed conditions from 
September 2008 to at least April 2009. Her treatment therapist reported that she 
participated actively in the substance abuse program. He concluded that she had 
provided evidence that she had abstained from substance abuse. (Item 16.) 
 
 During her work assignments in the military and as a government contractor, 
Applicant completed security clearance applications in August 1997, April 2001, June 
2002, July 2008, and June 2010. (Item 6; Item 7; Item 8; Item 9; Item 10.) 
 
 Question 19 on the security clearance application Applicant executed in August 
1997 requested information about an applicant’s medical record and asked: “In the last 
7 years, have you consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist, 
psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another health care provider 
about a mental health related condition?” Applicant answered “No” to Question 19 and 
failed to disclose that she had received mental-health counseling in 1996 from a 
psychiatrist. In a 2003 statement to an authorized investigator, Applicant stated she did 
not mention mental-health counseling she had received in previous security interviews 
because she was ashamed to be in counseling and afraid that her security clearance 
might be affected if these counseling experiences were revealed. (Item 6; Item 11.) 
 
 Question 27 on the security clearance application Applicant executed in August 
1997 requested information on an applicant’s illegal drug use and asked: “Since the age 
                                            
5 On April 13, 2009, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant confirmed the accuracy of the 
information in the investigator’s report.  (Item 12 at 11-12.) 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled 
substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, 
morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, 
methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription 
drugs?” Applicant answered “No” and failed to disclose that she had used marijuana 
about three times before executing her 1997 security clearance application.  (Item 6.) 
 
 Question 19 on the security clearance application Applicant executed in April 
2001 and recertified in July 2001 requested information on an applicant’s medical 
record and asked: “In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental health 
professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with 
another health care provider about a mental health condition?” Applicant answered “No” 
and failed to disclose that she had received mental-health counseling in 1996 from a 
psychiatrist and in 1998 from a mental-health counselor during her military service. 
(Item 7.) 
 
 Question 27 on the security clearance application executed by Applicant in April 
2001 and recertified in July 2001 requested information about an applicant’s illegal drug 
use and asked: “Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have 
you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack 
cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, 
depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, 
PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?” Applicant answered “No” and failed to disclose that 
she had used marijuana four to five times before executing her 2001 security clearance 
application. (Item 7.) 
 
 Question 28 on the security clearance application executed by Applicant in April 
2001 and recertified in July 2001 requested information about an applicant’s drug use 
while holding a sensitive position and asked: “Have you EVER illegally used a controlled 
substance while employed as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom 
official; while possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly affecting the 
public safety?” Applicant answered “No” and failed to disclose that she had used 
marijuana in 1999 after receiving a Department of Defense security clearance in about 
1997. (Item 7.) 
 
 Question 19 on the security clearance application executed by Applicant in June  
2002 requested information about an applicant’s medical record and asked: “”In the last 
7 years, have you consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist, 
psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another health care provider 
about a mental health related condition?” Applicant answered “No” and failed to disclose 
that she had received mental-health counseling in 1996 from a psychiatrist and in 1998 
from a mental health counselor while she was serving in the military. (Item 8.) 
 
 Applicant provided letters of character reference from her facility security officer, 
a second-level manager who reviews her work, and a coworker who was once her 
supervisor. In their letters, these three individuals praised Applicant’s professionalism, 
 
9 
 
 
work ethic, and trustworthiness. Additionally, Applicant’s mental-health therapist, a 
licensed clinical social worker, provided a letter dated May 5, 2011, describing 
Applicant’s treatment gains and progress. The therapist stated that she and a 
psychiatrist were treating Applicant for bipolar disorder. The therapist stated that 
Applicant “also works an active substance abuse recovery program . . . attends 12 steps 
regularly, has a good working alliance with her AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] sponsor [,] 
and has a home group.” The therapist did not provide a prognosis related to Applicant’s 
ability to avoid alcohol dependence in the future. (Item 5.)   
 
                                        Burden of Proof 
 
 The Government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in 
the SOR. The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate 
the Government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the 
applicant then bears the burden of persuasion. The "clearly consistent with the national 
interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant's 
suitability for access to classified information in favor of protecting national security. 
 
                                      Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information. Id. at 
527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.    
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an   
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). These guidelines 
are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, 
the administrative judge applies these guidelines 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.  
 
10 
 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the 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 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion in obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect 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). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, applies in this case to a determination of 
eligibility for access to classified information. Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive 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.” 
 
 I have considered all of the Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions. I 
conclude that Guideline G disqualifying conditions at ¶¶ 22(a), 22(c), and 22(e) apply in 
Applicant’s case. AG ¶  22(a) reads: “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) reads: “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.” AG ¶ 22(e) reads: “evaluation of 
alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff 
member of a recognized alcohol treatment center.”  
   
In 2008, Applicant was arrested and pled guilty to driving vehicle on highway at 
speed exceeding limit and driving, attempting to drive vehicle under the influence per 
se. Applicant began to drink alcohol in about 1992, when she was 14 years old. For the 
next 16 years, until at least September 2008, Applicant consumed alcohol at times to 
excess and to the point of intoxication. Between the ages of 19 to 21, while serving in 
 
11 
 
 
the military, Applicant was drinking alcohol five nights a week. She drank alcohol twice a 
week from ages 21 through 24. While Applicant stopped drinking during her pregnancy 
and through the birth of her daughter in 2005, she resumed drinking nightly to the point 
of intoxication between 2006 and September 2008. She attributed her excessive alcohol 
consumption, in part, to her mental health issues. 
 
From March 2008 to July 2008, Applicant was treated for alcohol dependence. 
When in treatment, she continued to consume alcohol. She discontinued treatment in 
July 2008. From August 2008 until April 2009 and from September 2008 until April 
2009, Applicant received treatment from a licensed clinical social worker and a 
substance abuse treatment center. In both of these forms of treatment, Applicant was 
diagnosed as alcohol dependent. These facts raise security concerns under AG ¶¶ 
22(a), 22(c), and 22(e). 
 
The Guideline G disqualifying conduct could be mitigated under AG ¶ 23(a) if 
“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 the 
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” The disqualifying 
conduct could also be mitigated under AG ¶ 23(b) if “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).”  If “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,” then AG ¶ 23(c) 
might apply.  Finally, mitigation might be possible under AG ¶ 23 (d) if “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 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization and 
has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a 
licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment 
program.”   
 
 Applicant is now 33 years old. She asserts that she has not consumed alcohol 
since September 2008. Her managers and colleagues at work report that she is a hard-
working and valued employee. Her therapist reports that she has made progress in her 
treatment and attends aftercare activities intended to encourage and support sobriety. 
The therapist did not provide a prognosis. 
 
 Applicant’s excessive use of alcohol began in 1992, when she was 14 years old, 
and continued until at least 2008. While she stopped drinking alcohol during her 
pregnancy and claimed she did not drink alcohol when caring for her young child, she 
resumed consuming alcohol to excess after the child was born and when she had no 
child-care responsibilities. She attributed her excessive alcohol consumption in part to 
anxiety arising from her mental state. She continued to consume alcohol while 
participating in an alcohol rehabilitation program. Applicant’s excessive use of alcohol 
 
12 
 
 
was frequent and happened under circumstances that could recur, thereby raising 
concerns about her reliability. I conclude, therefore, that AG ¶ 23(a) does not apply to 
the facts of Applicant’s case. 
 
 Applicant’s current treatment progress and efforts to manage her alcohol 
dependence through AA and other aftercare activities are laudable. However, it is not 
clear from the record that Applicant has established and maintained a pattern of 
abstinence. I conclude that AG ¶ 23(b) applies in part in mitigation to the facts of 
Applicant’s case.   
 
 Applicant has worked for her employer for several years. She is participating in a 
counseling program and is making satisfactory progress. In 2008, she was 
unsatisfactorily discharged from an alcohol-treatment program when she continued to 
consume alcohol while in treatment. She enrolled in another program, however, and 
followed the prescribed treatment norms. I conclude that AG ¶ 23(c) applies in part to 
the facts of Applicant’s case. 
 
 Applicant’s current treatment therapist, a licensed clinical social worker, is 
treating Applicant for bipolar disorder, a mental condition that in the past impacted 
Applicant’s consumption of alcohol. The therapist described Applicant’s progress in the 
treatment of her bipolar disorder, but she did not provide a prognosis related to 
Applicant’s alcohol dependence. I conclude that AG ¶ 23(d) does not apply in this case.  
 
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 because it may impair judgment and 
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, 
rules, and regulations. AG ¶ 24(a) defines drugs as “mood and behavior altering 
substances.” The definition of drugs includes “(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.” AG  ¶ 24(b) defines drug abuse as “the 
illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved 
medical direction.” 
 
 The evidence establishes that Applicant used marijuana, at various times, from 
1995 until March 2008. Moreover, she used marijuana in 1999 and 2001, after being 
granted special program access in 1997. Additionally, Applicant purchased and used 
cocaine, crack, and mushrooms in July 2008. She tested positive for cocaine in July 
2008 during a random urinalysis. 
  
In September 2008, Applicant was evaluated at a licensed substance abuse and 
mental-health counseling center. She was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and 
cocaine abuse, and she received treatment for these diagnosed conditions from 
September 2008 to at least April 2009. This behavior casts doubt on her reliability, 
 
13 
 
 
trustworthiness, and good judgment. It also raises security concerns about her ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. I conclude that Applicant’s illegal 
drug use, her positive test for cocaine use; her purchase and use of cocaine, crack, and 
mushrooms, her evaluation of cocaine abuse, and her use of marijuana after being 
granted a security clearance raise security concerns under AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(b), 25(c),  
25(e), and 25(g). AG ¶ 25(a) reads: “any drug abuse [as defined at AG ¶ 24(b)].” AG 
25(b) reads: “testing positive for illegal drug use.” AG ¶ 25(c) reads: “illegal drug 
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or 
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.” AG 25(e) reads: “evaluation of drug 
abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of 
a recognized drug treatment program.” AG ¶ 25(g) reads: “any illegal drug use after 
being granted a security clearance.” 
 
Three Guideline H mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of Applicant’s 
case. If Applicant’s drug use “happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on [her] 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 26(a) might be 
applicable in mitigation. If Applicant demonstrated an “intent not to abuse any drugs in 
the future by (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts, (2) changing 
or avoiding the environment where drugs were used, (3) abstaining from drug use for 
an appropriate period, or (4) signing a statement of intent with the automatic revocation 
of her security clearance for any violation,” then AG ¶ 26(b) might be applicable. If 
Applicant provided evidence of “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,” then AG 26(d) might be applicable.  
 
In 2001, Applicant’s clearance was revoked because in 1999 and 2001 she had 
used marijuana while entrusted with a clearance. In 2003, Applicant stated she would 
never use illegal drugs again because she did not want to lose her security clearance. 
In 2004, she was again awarded a security clearance and a higher level of access. In 
2008, while holding a security clearance, Applicant purchased and used cocaine, crack 
and mushrooms, and she also used marijuana. Applicant’s drug use continued over 
many years, even after she claimed she would discontinue her drug use. Her past 
illegal drug use continues to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and 
good judgment. Moreover, while her therapist provided a letter conveying his opinion of 
her participation in drug rehabilitation, he did not provide a prognosis. Applicant 
provided no information to demonstrate her intent not to abuse drugs in the future. She 
failed to provide documentation establishing that she had abstained from drug use for 
an appropriate period or that she had disassociated from those with whom she had 
used drugs in the past. She failed to demonstrate that she had changed her conduct to 
avoid environments where drugs are used. She did not provide a signed statement of 
her intent not to abuse drugs in the future, with automatic revocation of her security 
clearance for any violation. 
 
 
14 
 
 
Applicant’s illegal drug use occurred periodically over a period of 11 years.  
Insufficient time has elapsed to demonstrate whether she will abstain from illegal drug 
use in the future. I conclude that AG ¶ 26(a), AG ¶ 26(b), and AG ¶ 26(d) do not apply 
in mitigation to the facts of Applicant’s case. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern: 
 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect 
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
 
Applicant used marijuana in 1999 and 2001 after being granted a security 
clearance in 1997. Additionally, she falsified material facts about her medical treatment 
and her use of illegal drugs on the security clearance applications she executed in 
1997, 2001, and 2002. Applicant’s personal conduct raises security concerns under AG 
¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(d)(3), and AG ¶ 16(e)(1). AG ¶ 16(a) reads: “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.” 
 
AG ¶ 16(d)(3) reads: “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. This includes but is not limited to consideration of (3) a pattern of 
dishonesty or rule violations.” 
 
AG ¶ 16(e)(1) reads: “personal conduct, or concealment of information about 
one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, 
professional, or community standing. . .  .”    
 
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted that her special access was denied 
in 2001 because she used marijuana while holding a security clearance and because 
she failed to report her drug use on the security clearance application she executed in 
1997. She also admitted that she had used cocaine, crack, mushrooms, and marijuana 
after she was granted a security clearance in 2004.  
 
 
15 
 
 
Applicant did not answer the six personal conduct allegations in the amended 
SOR, and I interpret her silence as denials of those allegations. 
 
DOHA’s Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing 
falsification cases: 
 
(a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has 
the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing 
alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind 
when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record 
evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial 
evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the 
omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to 
conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under 
Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to 
present evidence to explain the omission.  
 
ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 
(App. Bd. June 9, 2004)). 
 
 Several Guideline mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of this case. 
Applicant’s disqualifying personal conduct might be mitigated under AG ¶ 17(a) if “the 
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” If “the refusal or failure to cooperate, 
omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or 
inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the 
individual specifically concerning the security process” and “[u]pon being made aware of 
the requirement to cooperate or provide information, the individual cooperated fully and 
completely,” then AG ¶ 17(b) might apply.  If “the offense is so minor, or so much time 
has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not case doubt on the individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 17(c) might apply. 
 
 Additionally, AG ¶ 17(d) might apply in mitigation if “the individual has 
acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken 
other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused 
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely 
to occur.” AG ¶ 17(e) might apply if “ the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or 
eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.” 
   
 Applicant is a mature adult who has, in the course of her employment in the 
military and as a government contractor, completed several security clearance 
applications. She knew, or should have known, of the importance of telling the truth to 
the Government when seeking a security clearance. When she completed her security 
clearance applications in 1997, 2001, and 2002, she answered “No” to Question 19, 
which asked if, in the last seven years, she had consulted with a mental-health 
 
16 
 
 
professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or with another health care 
provider about a mental health related condition. The record reveals that Applicant 
received treatment from a psychiatrist in 1996 and from a mental-health counselor in 
1998.  
 
 I have reviewed the evidence in this case carefully to determine if there is direct 
or circumstantial evidence that might reveal Applicant’s state of mind when she 
answered Question 19. In her 2003 interview with an authorized investigator, Applicant 
stated that she did not discuss her mental-health counseling in previous personal 
security interviews because she was ashamed to be in counseling and feared that her 
security clearance might be jeopardized if she revealed her counseling sessions.   
 
 When Applicant completed her security clearance application in 1997, she 
responded “No” when asked if she had previously used illegal drugs, even though she 
had used marijuana approximately three times. In her 2003 interview with an authorized 
investigator, which she certified as correct and true, she admitted using marijuana in 
1996, 1999, and 2001. In an October 2008 interview with an authorized investigator, 
which she adopted as an accurate interview, Applicant admitted smoking marijuana 
twice in 1995, when she was 17, once in 1997, when she was 19, and once in 2001, 
when she was 23. 
 
 Applicant received a security clearance in 1997. When she completed her 
security clearance application in April 2001, Applicant again responded “No” when 
asked if she had used illegal drugs and did not disclose that she had used marijuana 
four to five times prior to completing the application. She also answered “No” when 
asked if she had ever used illegal drugs while possessing a security clearance, even 
though she had used marijuana in 1999, after receiving a security clearance in 1997.  
 
 Applicant made no good-faith efforts to correct the falsifications in her security 
clearance applications before being confronted with the facts. She did not claim that the 
falsifications occurred as a result of improper or inadequate advice of authorized 
personnel. Her falsifications were neither minor nor infrequent. Instead, they appear to 
constitute a pattern and cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment.  
 
 Applicant has received counseling and treatment for her mental-health issues, 
but it is not clear from the record that these treatments have alleviated the factors that 
caused Applicant’s pattern of dishonesty and rule violations. Moreover, Applicant’s 
falsifications of her medical treatments and her illegal drug use made her vulnerable to 
exploitation, manipulation, and duress. Applicant provided no assurances that she has 
taken steps to reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities. 
 
 After thoroughly reviewing the evidence, I conclude that Applicant used 
marijuana in 1999 and 2001 after being granted a security clearance in 1997. I also 
conclude that her falsifications of her security clearance applications in 1997, 2001 and 
 
17 
 
 
2002, as alleged in the amended SOR, were deliberate. Accordingly, none of the 
Guideline E mitigating conditions apply.  
 
 Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances raised by the evidence. Applicant is valued at her work and 
respected as competent and hardworking. She has sought help for her mental-health 
issues, and this is laudable. After being diagnosed as alcohol dependent, she has 
participated in AA and other aftercare activities.  
 
 Applicant used marijuana in 1995 and 1996. She also used marijuana in 1999 
and 2001, after she was granted a security clearance in 1997. When she executed her 
security clearance applications in 1997 and 2001, Applicant was not forthcoming about 
her illegal drug use. Additionally, she did not reveal her mental health treatments on her 
1997, 2001, and 2002 security clearance applications. She told an authorized 
investigator that she did not report her mental-health treatments because she feared 
that telling the truth about them would jeopardize her security clearance. Applicant’s 
lack of candor raises serious security concerns about her reliability, trustworthiness, and 
judgment. 
 
Applicant requested a decision on the written record. She did not file objections 
or provide additional information in response to the FORM. Moreover, Applicant failed to 
meet her burden of persuasion in mitigating the Government’s security concerns under 
the alcohol consumption, drug involvement, and personal conduct adjudicative 
guidelines. Overall, the evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  
 
 
18 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs1.a. - 1.e.:      Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline H:              AGAINST APPLICANT   
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2.k.:  Against Applicant  
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.h.:  Against Applicant 
 
          Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                                               
_____________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge