1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-00550 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.  
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant mitigated 
drug involvement and personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on May 21, 2013, to obtain a security clearance required for his duties with a 
defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the affirmative 
findings required to issue a security clearance. On September 21, 2015, DOD issued 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns for drug 
involvement (Guideline H) and personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken 
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry 
(February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense 
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the Department of 
Defense on September 1, 2006.  
2 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on December 11, 2015. He admitted the two 
allegations of drug use under Guideline H, and denied the five allegations of personal 
conduct under Guideline E.1 Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on April 27, 
2016, and I was assigned the case on September 7, 2016. The Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on September 30, 2016, 
scheduling a hearing for October 19, 2016. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The 
Government offered five exhibits, which I marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 5. Applicant and one witness testified. 
Applicant offered ten exhibits that were marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A through J. I kept the record open for Applicant to 
submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted one additional document which 
was marked and admitted into the record without objection as AX K. (GX 6, e-mail, 
dated November 7, 2016) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 
28, 2016. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant’s admissions are included in my findings of fact. After a thorough 
review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following additional findings 
of fact. Applicant is a 33-year-old high school graduate. He attended college for a year 
and a half and received an associate’s degree. He served on active duty in the Navy 
from May 2005 until August 2010, when he received an honorable discharged as a petty 
officer second class (E-5). He was deployed during his active duty tour to Afghanistan 
(July 2009 to May 2010), Okinawa (January 2009 to July 2009), and Djibouti (August 
2007 to February 2008). Applicant received eligibility for access to classified information 
in 2005, and to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) in 2007. He received 
numerous awards and decoration for his service. He has been married for three years 
and has one son. (Tr. 27-34, 41-43; GX 1, E-QIP, dated May 21, 2013; AX A, DD 214: 
AX J. Photograph)  
 
The SOR alleges, and Applicant admits, that he purchased and used cocaine 
from September 2012 until January 2013. (SOR 1.a) He admitted that when he used 
cocaine, he was eligible for access to classified information including SCI. (SOR 1.b) 
The SOR alleges this same conduct as a personal conduct security concern. (SOR 2.a) 
The SOR further alleges as a personal conduct security concern that Applicant falsified 
information on his EQIP when he answered “no” in response to questions in Section 23 
concerning use of a controlled substance in the last seven years (SOR 2.b), and while 
having access to classified information. (SOR 2.c). The SOR further alleges that 
Applicant deliberately omitted material facts concerning his use of cocaine during a 
subject interview with an authorized security investigator on August 12, 2013 (SOR 2.d), 
and on October 8, 2013 (SOR 2.e). Applicant initially denied the personal conduct 
allegation when he responded to the SOR. However, at the hearing, Applicant amended 
his responses and admitted all of the Guideline E allegations. (Tr. 9-15)  
 
                                                          
1 As noted below, Applicant changed his response to the Guideline E allegations at the hearing from 
denial to admission. See below. 
3 
 
Applicant was in his mid-twenties when he served for ten months in Afghanistan. 
His duties mainly involved in the fielding of communications equipment to Afghanistan 
combat and police units. Most of his work with the Afghan forces required Applicant to 
travel outside of secure combat base camps. His team was required to leave the base 
camps at least three times a week and stay at forward operating bases. While he was 
“beyond the wire,” he was close to a number of significant explosions that killed or 
wounded people. He was not required to fire his weapon, treat wounded soldiers or 
civilian casualties, or otherwise engage in combat operations. However, he did fear for 
his life from these incidents. (Tr. 28-32) 
 
Applicant returned from Afghanistan in August 2010 and was discharged. About 
six months after his discharge, Applicant started feeling depressed and anxious. He had 
nightmares and felt lost. He admitted to using cocaine from September 2012 until 
January 2013 to help him cope with his issues. He purchased the drugs from an 
individual in his former neighborhood. He believes he may have spent about $130,000 
purchasing cocaine or on spending binges caused by the effects of the PTSD. He is 
now a young father and he and his family moved and no longer lives close to his former 
neighborhood. He no longer associates with the people that sold him illegal drugs.  
 
Applicant knew something was wrong with him but suffered through his 
psychological issues for about two years before seeking help from family, friends, and 
medical professionals. He saw a psychiatrist starting in early April 2013 and was 
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychiatrist prescribed 
medication that Applicant is still taking. Applicant has continually tested negative for 
illegal drugs. The doctor stated that Applicant’s use of illegal drugs is in remission and 
his prognosis for remaining free from illegal drug use is good. (Tr. 34-36; AX B, Doctor’s 
notes, dated April 3 to April 24, 2013; AX C, Laboratory Results 2015; AX I, Laboratory 
Results 2016)  
 
Applicant also received mental health assistance from the Department of 
Veteran’s Affairs (VA) from May 2013 until present. (GX 3, Transcript of Security 
Interview, dated August 12, 2013) Applicant completed a Statement of Intent not to use 
illegal drugs, and if he did use illegal drugs his security clearance could be automatically 
revoked. (AX D, Statement, dated December 8, 2015) 
 
Applicant did not acknowledge his use of cocaine in the last seven years in 
response to drug use questions on his security clearance application and while having 
eligibility for access to classified information. (GX 1, e-QIP, dated May 21, 2013) 
Applicant did not disclose his use of illegal drugs during his August 2013 clearance 
interview. When re-interviewed in October 2013, Applicant initially denied using illegal 
drugs. He then voluntarily admitted his past use of drugs. (GX 3, Response to 
Interrogatories, Transcript, at 2I9) 
 
Applicant stated that he was not in a clear state of mind when he completed his 
e-QIP in May 2013. He had seen his doctor but had not started taking the medication 
prescribed for PTSD. He was still depressed, anxious, and stressed. Applicant used 
4 
 
cocaine as self-medication to overcome his depression and anxiety. In January 2013, 
Applicant felt he reached rock bottom so he reached out to his father for help. He 
admitted to his father that he was using cocaine to overcome depression and anxiety. 
His father helped him get treatment with the VA as well as with a private doctor.  
 
Applicant told a security investigator during an interview in August 2013 that he 
received mental health treatment starting in May 2013. However, he did not reveal that 
he used cocaine from September 2012 until January 2013. In the second interview with 
the security investigator in October 2013, the investigator asked Applicant if he used 
illegal drugs in the last seven years. He initially said “no” but immediately amended his 
answer to admit to cocaine use from September 2012 until January 2013. Applicant 
admitted not listing his cocaine use on his security clearance application and initially to 
the security investigators because he regretted using cocaine to medicate. He wanted 
to forget his use of cocaine and put it behind him. He did not have a malicious intent in 
not mentioning the drug use, just a desire to put the period of drug use behind him. (Tr. 
36-42, 49-52, 74-79; GX 3, Transcript, at 3-4) 
 
One of Applicant’s co-workers, a government information technology specialist, 
testified that he has known Applicant since Applicant started working with their company 
as a contractor almost three years ago. He helped Applicant understand his assigned 
duties. Applicant’s work performance was excellent. The witness knows Applicant’s 
background, use of cocaine, failure to admit his cocaine use on his security clearance 
application, and his diagnosis of PTSD. Knowing all of this and knowing  
Applicant as he does, he does not have any reservations about recommending that 
Applicant be granted eligibility for access to classified information. (Tr. 20-27) 
 
Applicant introduced letters of recommendation. A congressman who knew 
Applicant as a friend of his son wrote that Applicant demonstrated dependability and 
trustworthiness. The commander of a major DOD agency commended Applicant for his 
work in support of the agency. One of Applicant’s doctors, who has known Applicant for 
over four years, wrote that Applicant is a professional and trustworthy person for whom 
she has the highest regard. He is a respectful, patriotic citizen who supports his family 
and community. Applicant’s employer from October 2010 to February 2015 wrote that 
Applicant was a model employee who performed all tasks with a professional attitude 
and dedicated work ethic. He was a valuable member of the team and organization. 
Applicant’s Navy supervisor in Afghanistan wrote that Applicant performed his duties 
exceptionally well. He showed integrity, bravery, and dedication to the unit’s mission. He 
was professional, dependable, trustworthy, and reliable. He always maintained a 
positive selfless attitude. Applicant’s father wrote that Applicant was always 
compassionate, capable, smart, and trustworthy. Applicant’s supervisor since March 
2015 wrote that Applicant has performed all of his duties in an exemplary manner. 
Applicant manages the organization’s communication security (COMSEC) programs. 
He is a model employee and a true information technology professional. All of the letter 
writers recommend that Applicant be granted eligibility for access to classified 
information. (AX F and H, Letters) Applicant also provided a certificate of appreciation 
for his COMSEC work from the DOD agency he supports. (AX G) 
5 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the Administrative Guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
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 burden of persuasion to 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 or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The 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 
6 
 
raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and 
regulations. Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner 
that deviates from approved medical direction. Drugs are defined as mood and behavior 
altering substances, including drugs material and other chemical compounds identified 
and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Cocaine is included in the 
Schedule 1 list. (AG ¶ 24) Applicant used cocaine at various times from September 
2012 until January 2013. He admitted using cocaine after being granted a security 
clearance. Applicant’s use of cocaine while having eligibility for access to classified 
information raises the following Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions under AG ¶ 
25: 
 
(a) any drug use; and 
 
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance. 
 
 I considered the following Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 
26: 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or 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;  
 
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse 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 
 
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, 
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirement, 
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified 
medical professional. 
 
While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or 
sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct 
affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful 
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of 
time has passed without evidence of drug involvement, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation. 
 
 These mitigating conditions apply. Applicant admits to using cocaine as a self-
medication method to overcome the symptoms of depression and anxiety from having 
PTSD from servicing in Afghanistan. He was at a low point in his life at the time he used 
the cocaine. He used cocaine for approximately four months until he received a 
7 
 
diagnosis and treatment for PTSD. He has not used cocaine or any other illegal drugs 
since January 2013. Applicant realizes that he is an adult with eligibility for access to 
classified information so he cannot use illegal substances. He clearly stated his intent 
not to use illegal drugs in the future. His last use of cocaine was over four years ago, his 
use was infrequent, and his use of the illegal drug happened under circumstances that 
are now unlikely to recur. He is still consults with his doctor for his PTSD. Applicant’s 
environment is now one of maturity and a professional life that prohibits illegal drug use. 
He no longer lives in the area where he obtained the illegal drugs. While Applicant did 
not enroll in and complete a substance abuse program, he did receive a favorable 
evaluation and prognosis from a duly qualified medical professional. There has been an 
appropriate period of abstinence, and a change in lifestyle and circumstance. Applicant 
mitigated security concerns for drug involvement.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 Personal conduct is a security concern because conduct involving questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and 
ability to protect classified and sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
provide truthful and candid answers during the process to determine eligibility for 
access to classified information or any other failure to cooperate with this process (AG ¶ 
15). Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the 
person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly 
safeguard classified or sensitive information. Authorization for a security clearance 
depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information. If a person 
conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process cannot function 
properly to ensure that granting access to classified or sensitive information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  
 While there is a security concern for a deliberate omission, concealment, or 
falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the 
Government when applying for a security clearance, not every omission, concealment, 
or inaccurate statement is a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate and material. 
It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive. 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant did not provide full, complete, and accurate 
information concerning his drug use in responses to questions on his security clearance 
application and from security investigators. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that 
Applicant did not provided full, complete, and accurate information to the security 
investigators concerning his use of cocaine to treat his PTSD. Applicant’s failures raise 
the following security concerns under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 
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 
8 
 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance 
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities: and  
(b) deliberately providing false and misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative. 
 
 Applicant admitted that he intentionally did not provide full, complete, and 
accurate information on his security clearance application or to security investigators. 
When he completed his security clearance application and talked to the investigator, he 
was suffering from PTSD based on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He had seen by a 
medical professional and been prescribed medication. However, he was still suffering 
from PTSD and was not thinking clearly. In his second interview with the security 
investigator, Applicant changed his response on his own, and admitted his use of 
cocaine. This was a prompt, good-faith effort by Applicant to correct the omission. I find 
Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security concern. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s 
conduct and all the 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 surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s active duty 
service in the Navy and that he is a good worker commended by the government 
agency he supports for dedication, trustworthiness, and reliability. I considered that he 
was granted access to classified information and SCI for over ten years without any 
allegations of security violations.  
 
 Applicant admitted using cocaine to self-medicate from the effects of PTSD from 
service in Afghanistan. His last use of cocaine was over four years ago after he 
received medical assistance from a medical professional. He received a good prognosis 
9 
 
concerning his drug use from the medical professional. While Applicant provided 
incomplete information concerning his illegal drug use on his security application and to 
security investigators, his actions were a result of his suffering from PTSD. These facts 
leave me without questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for 
access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has 
mitigated drug involvement and personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is granted. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline H:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a - b:  For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a - e:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge