1 This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992,
as amended (Directive), and adjudicative guidelines which became effective within the Department of Defense
for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                              
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-05860
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                              
______________
Decision
______________
LAZZARO, Henry, Administrative Judge
Applicant mitigated the security concerns that arise from his history of drug abuse
and criminal conduct. However, he failed to mitigate the concern that arises from the false
answers he deliberately provided in security clearance applications he submitted in June
2004 and January 2010. Clearance is denied.
On April 4, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant stating it was unable to find it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.1
The SOR alleges security concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement), J (criminal
conduct), and E (personal conduct). Applicant submitted an undated response to the SOR.
It was unclear from Applicant’s response which allegations he admitted and which he
denied. At the hearing it was clarified that he admitted all allegations except SOR
subparagraphs 1.c and 2.e. Applicant requested a hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
2
The case was assigned to me on July 18, 2012. A notice of hearing was issued on
August 2, 2012, scheduling the hearing for August 21, 2012. The hearing was conducted
as scheduled. The government submitted eight documentary exhibits that were marked as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8 and admitted into the record without objection. Applicant
testified and submitted four documentary exhibits that were marked as Applicant Exhibits
(AE) 1-4 and admitted into the record without objection. The record was held open to
provide Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documents in support of his case.
One document was received, marked as AE 5, and admitted into the record without
objection. Department Counsel’s forwarding memorandum was marked as Appellate
Exhibit (App. Ex.) I, and is included in the file. The transcript was received on September
5, 2012.     
Procedural Issues
At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend SOR subparagraphs 2.a and
2.b. (Tr. p. 60-62) Those amendments were made on the face of the SOR without
objection.
Findings of Fact
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In
addition, after a thorough review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, I make the
following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 35-year-old man who has been employed as a simulator technician
by a defense contractor since November 2009. He worked for a different defense
contractor as an avionics armament technician from June 2004 until August 2008. He was
unemployed from August 2008 until November 2009. 
Applicant either graduated from high school or obtained a General Educational
Development (GED) certificate in 1995. He enlisted in the Army in 1997, but received an
entry level separation after several weeks of training due to physical limitations. He
attended an aviation college from January 2001 until December 2003, when he received
an associate’s degree in avionics technology. Applicant is single and has no dependents.
Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in July 2009. His blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.08. He pled guilty to the offense and was fined $600
and ordered to attend a Level 1 alcohol and drug class. Additionally, his driving privileges
were revoked for 90 days. Applicant successfully completed the terms of his sentence.
Applicant was again charged with DUI In April 2000. He pled guilty to this offense
in September 2004, and was sentenced to 12 months confinement and fined $1,200 plus
costs. The sentence was suspended for two years with unspecified conditions.
Applicant was arrested in September 2004, and charged with Unlawful Delivery of
a Controlled Substance. According to Applicant, the offense actually occurred in 2002 when
his girlfriend sold marijuana to some people without his knowledge. Upon being arrested,
Applicant was given the opportunity to cooperate with the police in other narcotics
3
investigations in return for a reduced sentence. He provided the cooperation, and was
allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled
Substance. He was sentenced to a pretrial diversion program, fined $2,000, and ordered
to attend a Level 2 drug and alcohol class. Since being sentenced, Applicant has attended
unrelated inpatient and outpatient drug programs and participated in a multi-year
methadone program. Those events appear to be the reason he did not complete the pretrial
diversion program until July 24, 2012. Applicant anticipates the charges will be dismissed
when he returns to court in September 2012.
Applicant began using marijuana in or about 1993, while he was still in high school.
He estimates he used it a few times a month until he quit in June 2006. He testified he used
cocaine a total of about eight or nine times between 2000 and 2008. He has purchased
both marijuana and cocaine. He was prescribed Lortab, which he abused by ingesting it
more frequently than was prescribed. He injected Dilaudid regularly over about a three
month period. He has also abused Hydrocodone, Demerol, and ecstasy.
Applicant tested positive for cocaine in a urinalysis conducted while he was
employed by a defense contractor on board an Army base in 2004. He was placed on
unpaid leave and required to attend an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) through an
employee assistance program. The discharge summary from the program disclosed that
he reported his alcohol use to consist of drinking 12 beers at a time about three days a
week. He also reported he had used cocaine on and off since he was 17 years old.
Applicant’s final DSM-IV discharge diagnoses, made by a physician, included: Alcohol
Abuse, full early remission, and Cocaine Abuse, in full early remission. His prognosis was
deemed to be good.
Applicant returned to the same treatment facility in January 2006, seeking treatment
for opioid dependency. He claimed to be spending about $500 a week on illegal drugs. He
reported his history of drug abuse to consist of Diladid daily for the preceding eight months,
Lortab three or four times per week, Demerol once every two weeks, marijuana three times
per week, and cocaine a total of four or five times. Applicant reported his dependency as
severe. 
From 2006 until 2010, Applicant participated in a prescribed methadone regimen.
He eventually concluded methodone was just a substitute drug, stopped using it, and he
was discharged from the program on November 29, 2010. Applicant has not used an
unprescribed controlled substance since he last used cocaine in 2008. He attends
Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings on a fairly regular basis. Applicant submitted letters
from co-workers who expressed their opinions that he possesses exceptionally good
character and is an honest and hardworking person. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on June 8, 2004, in which he
falsely answered “No” to questions asking about his arrest history for drug and alcohol
offenses, and his history of illegal drug use. He submitted another security clearance
application on January 5, 2010, in which he answered “Yes” to a question inquiring about
his arrest history for drug and alcohol offenses, but only disclosed a single DUI arrest,
which he reported as having occurred in July 1998. In that same security clearance
application, he falsely answered “No” to a question inquiring about his history of illegal drug
2 ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2.
3 ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.14. 
4 Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).
5 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (December 19, 2002) at 3 (citations omitted).
6 ISCR Case No. 98-0761 (December 27, 1999) at 2.
7 ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.
8 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.
4
use in the preceding seven years. Applicant testified he provided the false answers
because he was embarrassed about his abuse of drugs, did not understand how important
it was to be completely candid, and to protect his employment prospects. (Tr. 55) 
Applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on January 25, 2010. At that time, he claimed he began smoking
marijuana when he was about 18 or 19 years old, and quit using it when he was 23 years
old. He told the investigator he began using cocaine when he was about 23 or 24 years old,
and discontinued using it when he tested positive for the substance in the 2004 urinalysis.
Policies
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Chief among them are the disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions for each applicable guideline. Each clearance decision
must be a fair and impartial decision based upon the relevant and material facts and
circumstances, the whole-person concept, and the factors listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6
of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or
against clearance is not outcome determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be
followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. Guidelines H
(drug involvement), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct) with their disqualifying
and mitigating conditions, are most relevant in this case. 
  
The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an
applicant.2 The Government has the burden of proving controverted facts.3 The burden of
proof in a security clearance case is something less than a preponderance of evidence,4
although the Government is required to present substantial evidence to meet its burden of
proof.5 “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the
evidence.”6 Once the Government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to
present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.7 Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable
clearance decision.8
9 Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.
10 Id. at 531.
11 Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive.
5
No one has a right to a security clearance9 and “the clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”10  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to
classified information must be resolved in favor of protecting national security.11     
Analysis
Guideline J, 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 30)
Applicant was twice convicted of DUI. He was charged with Unlawful Distribution of
a Controlled Substance, but, due to cooperation he provided police, was only convicted of
Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance. DC 31(a): a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses; and DC 31(c): allegation or admission of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted
apply.
Accepting Applicant’s assertion that the controlled substance offense actually
occurred in 2002, it has been about ten years since he is alleged to have committed an
offense. It has been over four years since he illegally possessed a controlled substance.
He recently completed the pretrial diversion program to which he was referred, and the
lengthy delay in completing that program apparently was due to the multiple treatment
programs in which Applicant participated. He continues to regularly attend NA meetings,
has established a very good reputation at work, has remained gainfully employed in a
responsible position for several years, and has demonstrated that he is committed to living
a law-abiding and drug-free lifestyle.   
The following mitigating conditions apply: MC 32(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; and MC 32(d): there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including
but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive
community involvement.
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
6
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws,
rules, and regulations. (Adjudicative Guideline [AG] 24)
Applicant abused prescribed and non-prescribed controlled substances between
1993 and 2008. He has purchased marijuana and cocaine. He tested positive for cocaine
in a work-administered urinalysis. He participated in inpatient and outpatient drug
programs, including a multi-year methodone program. He was diagnosed as a cocaine
abuser by a physician. Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 25(a): any drug abuse: DC 25(b):
testing positive for illegal drug use; DC 25(c): illegal drug possession, including cultivation,
processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug
paraphernalia; and DC 25(d): diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence all apply.
It has been over four years since Applicant last abused a controlled substance and
about six years since he completed inpatient drug treatment. He participated in a multi-year
methodone program, which he left after realizing he was just substituting one controlled
substance for another. Applicant regularly attends NA meetings. He has established a
reputation for possessing good character, and being an honest and hardworking individual.
He successfully completed a pretrial diversion program in July 2012. Applicant has
demonstrated that he is committed to remaining drug free and is utilizing the services
available to him to maintain a drug-free lifestyle.  
Accordingly, the following Mitigating Conditions (MC) apply: MC 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; MC 26(b): a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs
in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2)
changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period
of abstinence; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for
any violation; and MC 26(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.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
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. (AG 15)
Applicant deliberately provided false answers in the security clearance applications
he submitted in June 2004 and January 2010. Although not alleged in the SOR, he also
provided false information when he was interviewed by an OPM investigator about when
he stopped using both marijuana and cocaine. DC 16(a): deliberate omission, concealment,
or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
7
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities applies.
Applicant admits he deliberately provided false information in the security clearance
applications he submitted. His reasons for providing false information were to avoid
embarrassment, to protect his employment, and because he claims he did not understand
it was important to provide complete information. He did not provide the Government with
a complete history of his drug abuse until he admitted at the hearing that he used cocaine
in 2008. No mitigating condition applies. 
Considering all relevant and material facts and circumstances present in this case,
the whole-person concept, the factors listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶6.3.6 of the Directive, and
the applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I find Applicant mitigated the drug
involvement and criminal conduct allegations due to the passage of time and his continuing
actions to maintain a law-abiding and drug-free lifestyle. However, he failed to mitigate the
personal conduct concern because his deliberate falsifications were recent, compounded
by the false information he provided to the OPM investigator, and his history of drug abuse
was not fully disclosed until the hearing of this case. He has not overcome the case against
him nor satisfied his ultimate burden of persuasion. It is not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Guidelines H and J are decided
for Applicant. Guideline E is decided against Applicant. 
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 J: For APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a–c: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: For APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-f: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: Against APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a–d: Against Applicant
Conclusion               
8
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
Clearance is denied.
_________________
Henry Lazzaro
Administrative Judge