Tr. 6-7. The SOR was undated, but an accompanying cover letter was dated January 3, 2012.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-03920
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Christopher Graham, Esquire 
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On or about January 3, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security
concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).1
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) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In a response dated March 1, 2012, Applicant admitted all allegations and
requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. The case was assigned to
me on August 1, 2012. The parties agreed to a hearing date of September 7, 2012,
2012, a notice to that effect was issued on August 17, 2012. I convened the hearing as
scheduled. 
 That document is hereinafter referenced as “Statement of Intent.”      2
 Tr. 57-60.      3
 Tr. 57-60.      4
 Ex. 1 (Security Clearance Application, dated Nov. 11, 2011) at 6 of 46.      5
 In addition, at some unspecified time during this period, Applicant tried cocaine. Tr. 40.      6
 Tr. 41.      7
2
Applicant gave testimony and referenced a statement of intent not to use drugs
in the future that was previously submitted with his answer to the SOR.  He was given2
until September 19, 2012, to forward any additional documents for consideration.
Department Counsel offered four documents, which were admitted without objection as
exhibits (Exs.) 1-4. To comport the allegations with the evidence, SOR allegation ¶1.d
was amended to read, “You illegally purchased morphine, oxycodone, heroin, and
marijuana on multiple occasions from about 1998 to April 2001.”  For similar reasons,3
SOR allegation ¶ 1.e was amended as, “You purchased, transported, and delivered
illegal drugs to others on multiple occasions from about 1998 to April 2001.”4
The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on September 17, 2012. On
September 18, 2012, Applicant forwarded three additional documents, which were
accepted into the record as Exs. A-C, and the record was closed. Based on a thorough
review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant met his burden of
mitigating security concerns related to personal conduct and drug involvement.
Clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 29-year-old electronics engineer and mechatronic specialist who
has worked for the same defense contractor since September 2008. He earned a
bachelor of science degree in electronic engineering technology in December 2008.
Applicant is single and has no children.  
Applicant was born in late 1982.  In 1996, when Applicant was about 14 years5
old, his parents initiated a contentious divorce. During this period, Applicant was used
by his parents as a middleman in their domestic battles. He began illegally using the
prescription drugs morphine and oxycodone, which he found available at home, for
recreational purposes. In 1998, at about age 16, Applicant also began using marijuana
and he tried heroin on multiple occasions until about 2000.  To obtain these drugs, he6
illegally purchased the substances on occasion, and, at times, shared them with others.
During this time, Applicant twice attended an in-house drug treatment or
counseling program, in 1996 and 1997, respectively. It was at these facilities that
Applicant learned where he could buy drugs.  In describing the programs as7
unsuccessful, Applicant also noted that it was at these juvenile programs that he
 Tr. 31.      8
 Tr. 30-31.      9
 Tr. 43.      10
 Tr. 22. Applicant’s use of alcohol is not an issue. There is no indication that it ever increased or affected      11
his past drug use. See Tr. 54.
 Tr. 46.      12
3
learned “where and how to be a drug user.”  These experiences occurred at an age8
when he was unwilling to make a positive change in his life and they led to the worst
period of his addiction, from 1997 to 2000.  During that time-frame, he made 30 to 409
trips into an urban area to procure drugs. He sometimes shared his drugs with others.
He eventually hit rock bottom by the beginning of 2001.
In April 2001, after a trip into an inner city neighborhood to purchase drugs,
Applicant was arrested and charged with “(1) manufacture/delivery/possession with
intent to manufacture or deliver, a felony; (2) manufacture/delivery/possession with
intent to manufacture or deliver, a felony; (3) possession of a controlled substance; (4)
use/possession of drug paraphernalia; (5) recklessly endangering another person.” In
August 2001, he pled guilty to charge number two and the remaining charges were
nolle prossed. Applicant was sentenced to time served (four months), placed on
probation for 23 months, and fined $200. While in jail, he suffered from severe
withdrawal symptoms.  At age 18, he tried attending Narcotics Anonymous (NA), but10
he was too immature to appreciate its methodology. 
On November 18, 2001, shortly after his 19  birthday, Applicant was foundth
asleep and intoxicated in a friend’s car by local police. He was charged with purchase
of alcoholic beverage by a minor. A week later, he pled guilty to the charge and was
fined. He suffered no serious repercussions in terms of his probation. At the time,
however, his relapse into criminal behavior concerned him.  Thinking it would help get11
his life on track, he enrolled in a local community college. 
On January 15, 2004, Applicant and others of legal drinking age were attending
a college party where alcohol was served to underage attendees. Applicant and others
were charged with selling or furnishing liquor to a minor, but the specific charge against
Applicant was withdrawn the following month. Although he was trying to avoid pain
medications, he started to develop genuine back pain issues in 2004. A peer
reintroduced him to narcotic medications in 2005 or 2006. She also suffered from back
pain and gave him the pills.  His use of pain medications slowly moved from pain12
management to addictive drug misuse. Nearing 25 years of age, Applicant’s grades
plummeted. He started to truly appreciate the adverse effect narcotics were having on
his life, studies, and career plans. The prospect of being dismissed from college after
studying intensely and working hard to pay for his school tuition made him realize what
was at stake if he continued abusing drugs. Applicant knew mere counseling would be
insufficient to help him and he contemplated new, medically-based therapy. He then
 Tr. 47.      13
 Applicant’s physician uses the term “opioid dependency,” indicating an addiction to or compulsion to use      14
opiates. See Ex. 2, Interrogatories, Dr.’s Letter, dated Sep. 2, 2011. Elsewhere, the term “opoid dependence”
is used to denote the same condition. Suboxone (buprenorphine) is an approved drug used as part of a
medically-assisted therapy to help patients overcome withdrawal symptoms associated with opiate abuse and
remain opiate free. 
 Ex. 2, Interrogatories, Dr.’s Letter, dated Sep.2, 2011).      15
 Ex. A (Physician’s letter, dated September 5, 2012).      16
 Tr. 62-63.      17
4
concluded that he needed professional drug intervention, medical attention for his back,
and a mature outlook. For the first time, he truly wanted to progress, not relapse.13
From April 2007 to May 2007, Applicant attended a medical therapy and
Suboxone drug treatment program provided by a physician. Suboxone  is medically
used to treat opiote addiction. The doctor’s treatment successfully treated Applicant’s
dependence on narcotic painkillers.  Following this course of prescription treatment,14
Applicant quit using all forms of pain medication despite persistent back pain issues, for
which he now guardedly uses non-narcotic medications for relief only when needed.
Today, Applicant has been drug-free and withdrawal-symptom-free for five-and-
a-half years, since April 2007. In the intervening years, Applicant completed his
bachelor’s degree while working his way through college, entered a profession, and
started his current position, where he is a highly regarded employee. He bought a
house, where he now lives a considerable distance from both his hometown and his
former college campus. He started a new life there. Applicant’s contact with former
peers is minimal, incidental only to the fact he remains within the same state of
residency. He does not actively seek out the company of past cohorts. Applicant
eschews drugs, those who abuse them, and places where they are abused. Applicant is
currently contemplating marriage to his girlfriend, who does not tolerate drugs. 
Although the successful medical drug treatment he underwent between April and
May 2007 ended years ago, Applicant continues to see his treating physician as his
general practitioner. That medical doctor noted in September 2011 that Applicant “has
done very well, has been free of addiction for several years, and has been fully
compliant with me medically. I see no reason to preclude giving him security clearance
for his job.”  More recently, in September 2012, his medical doctor reexamined15
Applicant and confirmed that Applicant remains free of symptoms indicating opioid
dependency and does not need further intervention.  Applicant no longer feels a need16
for drugs. He has no intention to ever use illegal drugs or illegally use prescription drugs
in the future.  17
Since quitting drugs, Applicant has undertaken efforts to improve his mind and
body. He spends his free time at home, playing musical instruments and studying
electronics. Soon to turn 30, he has started a health and exercise regimen to improve
 Tr. 52.      18
 Ex. B (Letter, dated Sep. 16, 2012).      19
 Ex. C (Letter, dated Sep. 13, 2012).      20
 See Attachment (Statement of Intent), Answer to the SOR.      21
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      22
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      23
5
his overall health and condition. Otherwise, he devotes his time to his professional life.
He has no desire to return to his former ways, preferring to maturely look forward. To
that extent, he actively tries to put his past behind him and to not let it hinder his adult
aspirations.  Applicant is valued at work, where he is considered a dependable and18
efficient employee.  A former professor who has known Applicant since 2006 noted the19
significant maturation Applicant experienced between 2006 and today.  Applicant20
attributes his success at becoming and remaining drug-free to maturation and a new
focus for his life. To underscore his commitment to remaining drug-free, he signed and
submitted a Statement of Intent reflecting the wording of AG ¶ 16(b)(4) and declaring
his intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, noting that any future drug abuse shall
constitute grounds for automatic revocation of any security clearance granted.  21
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all reliable information about
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a22
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  23
 Id.      24
 Id.      25
 AG  ¶ 24.      26
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      27
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      28
6
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 safeguard
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access24
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.25
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 substances26
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 a27
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.28
Applicant admitted abusing prescription narcotics during various periods
between 1996 and April 2007. He also admitted using marijuana and heroin on multiple
occasions between 1998 and 2000. Further, he admitted purchasing, transporting, and
sharing illegal drugs with others on various occasions between about 1998 and April
2001. Although he received drug treatment and counseling as a teen, there is no
evidence that he was then diagnosed as drug dependent or as a drug abuser. However,
7
in 2007, he was diagnosed by his personal physician, who was then managing a
Suboxone program, as opioid dependent. Such facts are sufficient to raise Drug
Involvement Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse); 25(c) (illegal drug
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia); and 25(d) (diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical professional (e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of a
drug abuse or drug dependency). With disqualifying conditions raised, the burden shifts
to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant first became involved with drugs in his early teens. Immaturity and poor
influences undermined his chances of success at the two drug counseling programs he
attended in his mid-teens. Indeed, bad influences at those programs only made him a
more savvy drug abuser. A felony conviction and a brief stint in prison at age 19 may
have been an eye opener for him in terms of the law, but it did little to help him face his
drug abuse seriously. Within a couple of years, he was again abusing narcotics.
However, by early 2007, as he approached 25 years of age, he started to appreciate
how narcotics were adversely affecting his life. They were making him unhappy and
ruining his academic career, for which he had worked hard to afford tuition and to
achieve academically. He then sought the counsel of a medical doctor who enrolled him
in a Suboxone treatment program. Through medical intervention and pharmaceutical
therapy, he became drug-free. 
Applicant has been drug-free without relapse for five-and-a-half years. He has no
desire to again abuse drugs. He eschews drugs and those who use them. He continues
seeing his treating medical doctor as his general practitioner. That physician expressed
confidence that Applicant has overcome his addiction. To complement his drug-free life,
Applicant has moved, made new friends, taken up hobbies, and he now focuses on his
profession and health. Given his physician’s prognosis, Applicant’s considerable
maturation, and his efforts to move forward with his life, Drug Involvement Mitigating
Conditions AG ¶ 26(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); AG ¶ 26(b)(1)
(disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts); AG ¶ 26(b)(2) (changing or
avoiding the environment where drugs were used); and AG ¶ 26(b)(3) (an appropriate
period of abstinence) apply.
Finally, Applicant credibly articulated his intent not to use drugs again. He
similarly gave logical reasons for moving forward with his life and not reverting to his
immature abuse of drugs. He complemented these expressions by signing a statement
of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any future drug-related violations.
Therefore, AG ¶ 26(b)(4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation) applies.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because “conduct
involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
 AG ¶ 15.      29
 Id.      30
8
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.“  In addition, “any failure to29
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  30
In this case, Applicant admitted his past drug use (1996-2007), which was
discussed above. In addition, he pled guilty to his underage purchase of alcohol in
November 2001 and, although the charge was later withdrawn, he was cited for
furnishing alcohol to a minor at a college party in 2004. Given these facts, Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that is not
explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an
adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected
information) applies.
The 2001 plea for underage drinking is over a decade old, and the 2004 charge
for furnishing liquor to a minor at a college party was withdrawn. Neither is recent.
Neither demonstrates either problematic misuse of alcohol today, or a reckless intent to
push the limits of the law. Given that Applicant was then an undergraduate student, the
incidents seem to be related solely to youthful indiscretion and immaturity. As for the
drug use between 1996 and 2007, cross-alleged under Guideline H, the same
considerations noted there apply here. The relevant facts previously cited give rise to
both Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 17(c) (the offense is so minor, or so much
time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such
circumstances that it wis unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); 17(d) (the individual has acknowledged
the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive
steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy,
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur); and
¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress). 
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. 
9
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.
Multiple facts speak in Applicant’s favor. He is highly credible and well-educated. He is
earnestly seeking to move forward and put his troubled youth behind him. Since
successfully quitting drugs over five years ago, he has completed a college degree,
found his niche in the professional world, impressed his employer as a valued worker,
bought a home, maintained a stable romantic relationship, undertaken new hobbies and
interests, and started anew in a town with no nexus to his past. 
The Government rightly notes that Applicant had maintained drug-free periods in
the past, and that he had previously undergone drug counseling and treatment. It thus
argues that Applicant’s current period of staying drug-free may be equally transient.
However, it is notable that Applicant’s current success is the result of a mature,
volitional, adult decision. As a teen demonstrating typical teenage rebellion, Applicant
was ill-prepared and ill-equipped to appreciate the true dangers of his drug abuse. At
19, after serving time for a felony, he thought he should change his life, but he was still
too immature to appreciate the adverse impact drugs and his generally immature
behavior were having on his life – beyond the fact his recklessness might have legal
repercussions. It was not until when, after working diligently to pay for and excel in
college, he realized his personal effort and goals were being compromised by his drug
abuse. Nearly 25 at the time, he finally comprehended the impact drugs were having on
his life and his hopes for the future. He then contemplated his situation, acknowledged
that mere counseling was insufficient for helping him overcome his addiction to
narcotics, and sought out medical attention. Through such medical therapy, he
overcame his addiction to narcotic painkillers in mid-2007. In short, unlike previous
periods of non-drug-use, Applicant’s most recent decision to remain drug-free was
based on and fortified by a mature and proactive commitment. In addition, he has
removed himself from his former milieu, directed his energies in healthier areas,
demonstrated considerable maturation, become a responsible homeowner and
employee, and is now contemplating marriage.  
In light of these considerations, I find that five-and-a-half years of abstinence
from drugs sufficiently demonstrates Applicant’s commitment and physical ability to
remain drug free. I make this finding also noting his lifestyle alterations, his continued
consultancy with his treating physician, his demonstrated maturity, his credible
testimony and his choice to execute a statement of intent. I have no reasonable doubts
that Applicant will again abuse drugs and conclude that both drug involvement and
personal conduct security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted.  
 
10
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-i: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: 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 national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge