CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07644.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07644.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07644.h1

deniedJun 16, 2017· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old administrative assistant for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant's history included illegal drug use and dishonesty on federal forms.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to deliberately falsifying a federal questionnaire for a public trust position in 2011, and was also alleged to have failed to report illegal drug use on another federal form in 2015. From 2007 to 2011, she purchased and used marijuana, and abused oxycodone and Percocet, leading to opiate addiction. She voluntarily entered a detoxification and substance abuse treatment program.

Despite evidence of positive employment and colleague support, the applicant's extensive substance abuse history, failure to maintain sobriety, and inconsistent statements about her treatment were deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns. The applicant's dishonesty on federal forms also raised significant questions about her reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns regarding her history of illegal drug use.
The applicant's dishonesty on two federal forms for sensitive positions raised significant questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's inconsistent statements about her substance abuse treatment and lack of ongoing counseling further weakened her case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive Position

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementThe applicant acknowledged her drug involvement but did not provide sufficient evidence of a pattern of abstinence.
AG ¶ 26(d)rejectedCompletion of a Prescribed Drug Treatment ProgramThe applicant completed a treatment program but failed to maintain ongoing sobriety and counseling.

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2017Date mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Decision dateJun 16, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive History of Substance Abuse Under Guideline H
Dishonesty on Federal Forms Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Despite Positive Employment History

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct, specifically regarding the deliberate failure to report illegal drug use on federal forms. The applicant's history of dishonesty and failure to disclose relevant information raised significant security concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant deliberately failed to report her illegal use of controlled substances on federal forms for sensitive positions in 2011 and 2015.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b–2.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
2.d	The 2011 questionnaire for a public trust position was apparently the first such form Applicant completed after being granted a security clearance in 2006. She admits deliberately falsifying this federal form.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on multiple allegations of drug involvement and substance misuse, including a history of illegal drug use and dishonesty regarding her substance use on federal forms. The applicant's claims of rehabilitation and positive employment history were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her past behavior, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	From 2007 to 2011, Applicant purchased and used marijuana and abused oxycodone and percocet, becoming addicted to opiates.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—
1.d	Applicant voluntarily entered into a detoxification and substance abuse treatment program (rehab).	For Applicant	Treatment FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(d) satisfactory completion of treatment with a favorable prognosis	Documented Substance Treatment Completed

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) REDACTED ) ISCR Case No. 15-07644 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.

06/16/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MENDEZ, Francisco, Administrative Judge:

Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised by her history of illegal use of controlled substances and dishonesty on two separate applications for access to sensitive information. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On June 14, 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and Guideline E (personal conduct).1 Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing to establish her eligibility for continued access to classified information.2 On February 28, 2017, a date mutually agreed to by the parties, a hearing was held. Applicant testified at the hearing and the offered exhibits were admitted into the administrative record without objection. (Government Exhibits 1 – 4; Applicant’s Exhibits A – M.) The transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on March 8, 2017.3

Procedural Issue

On December 10, 2016, the Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD-4), establishing a “single, common adjudicative criteria for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.”4 The National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (hereinafter “adjudicative guidelines” or “AG”), which are found in Appendix A to SEAD-4, are to be used in all security clearance decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017.5 In light of this explicit direction, I have applied the current version of the adjudicative guidelines.6 ISCR Case No. 02-00305 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2003) (security clearance decisions must be based on current DoD policy and standards).

FINDINGS OF FACT

General Background7

Applicant, 31, is an administrative assistant working for a defense contractor. She was hired by her current employer in December 2014. The job is contingent on Applicant obtaining and maintaining a security clearance. She was first granted a clearance in about 2006, and is looking to upgrade her access level to top secret.

In 2003, Applicant graduated from high school with a 3.0 grade point average. She worked part-time while attending high school, helping her mother pay for living expenses after her parents separated. After graduating from high school, Applicant started working full time as a federal contractor and attended college at night. She married her high school sweetheart in September 2007, but the marriage lasted just three months before her life spiraled out of control. For the next five years, Applicant was involved in successive co- dependent, abusive relationships with men who got her hooked on drugs. History of Substance Abuse8

From 2007 to 2011, Applicant purchased and used marijuana and abused oxycodone and percocet, becoming addicted to opiates. She worked as a cleared federal contractor during this period, including working for a large defense contractor that had a policy prohibiting its employees from illegally using controlled substances.

By the summer of 2011, Applicant began injecting heroin to deal with the pain from a liver disease. She was spending upwards of $100 a day on heroin. She was charged with possession of a synthetic drug that summer. She states that she was caught by police holding her ex-boyfriend’s drugs. She further states that the charge was placed on a docket for first-time offenders and presumably was later dismissed.

In October 2011, Applicant voluntarily entered into a detoxification and substance abuse treatment program (rehab). She did so days after her ex-boyfriend, with whom she had an on-again, off-again relationship, killed himself, and her sister caught her injecting heroin. Applicant was working for a federal contractor at the time she entered into rehab, and her then supervisor was generally aware she had issues that she needed to deal with. She was allowed to go on short-term disability until the contract ended in January 2012, at which point she was let go by her former employer.9

Applicant was in rehab from October 2011 to October 2012. She received a Naltrexone implant every two to three months. She also received substance abuse counseling. The goal of the counseling and overall rehab program was for Applicant to remain completely sober and abstain from all drug use. Applicant stopped using heroin and opiates, but she continued using marijuana. She states her counselor was aware of her marijuana use and tried to help her stop.

Applicant provided a letter from the rehab program, noting she completed rehab and received her last Naltrexone implant in October 2012. She also provided a letter from her primary care physician’s office. The letter states that, as of August 2012, Applicant had been sober for 10 months. (It is unclear from the record whether the physician’s office was aware of Applicant’s marijuana use.) Applicant was advised by the rehab program to continue with counseling and a structured support group, such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA), to maintain her sobriety. She attended NA, on and off, for about six months but then stopped. She has not received any substance abuse counseling since 2012.10 In October 2012, Applicant went out to happy hour with friends, consumed too much alcohol, got behind the wheel of her car, and was later stopped by police who observed her driving erratically. She was arrested and charged with driving while impaired (DWI). She pled guilty to the DWI charge and received a deferred adjudication. She was placed on probation for 12 to 18 months and was ordered to attend a 12-week substance abuse counseling program, which she attended and completed.

Applicant stopped using alcohol and marijuana following her DWI arrest. She provided a drug screen that she paid for and took in January 2017, which was negative for the presence of drugs of abuse, including marijuana, methamphetamine, and opiates. No other drug screens were submitted for inclusion in the record.11

Applicant has garnered a good work record at her current place of employment, earning successive promotions and pay raises. She started at an annual salary of about $20,000 and is now earning over $40,000. She has received a number of awards and commendations for her work. Applicant’s performance evaluations reflect that she routinely goes above and beyond and is able to adapt to an ever-changing environment.

A number of persons from her company from the President on down, who are fully aware of Applicant’s past substance abuse issues, provided letters in support, stating in the strongest terms possible their belief in Applicant and her dedication to remain sober. Each of these persons provided their favorable opinion as to Applicant’s current reliability, judgment, and trustworthiness. Her stepfather, who is a company executive, testified and wrote about the dramatic changes he has seen in Applicant over the past five years. The facility security officer (FSO) testified in support of Applicant and noted that Applicant has not been involved in any security incidents. The FSO also stated that their company conducts drug screens for employees detailed to certain government contracts, but Applicant is not one of the covered employees. Applicant testified about the numerous changes she has made in her life supportive of her efforts to remain sober. She submitted a statement, promising to abstain from any illegal drug involvement in the future and agreeing to automatic revocation of her clearance for any violation.

Dishonesty on Federal Forms for Sensitive Positions12

In January 2011, Applicant filled out and completed a questionnaire for a public trust position. She did not report her illegal drug involvement. In her Answer, Applicant admits she deliberately falsified her responses to the drug-involvement questions asked on the questionnaire. She provided the following explanation:

I admit, I falsified material facts on [the questionnaire] . . . I have no explanation other than during that time period in my life I was heavy influenced by drugs. I did whatever I had to do to survive and to keep myself afloat and employed. I realize now four and half years later, that it was wrong and dishonest and I have put my whole future on the line with bad choices in my past.

In March 2015, Applicant filled out and completed a security clearance application. In response to questions about illegal drug involvement, Applicant reported most of her past substance abuse issues. She stated in the application that she stopped using illegal drugs in October 2011, when she entered rehab. She did not report her marijuana use on the application or that it ended a year after she entered rehab.

Applicant denies deliberately falsifying or providing misleading information on the security clearance application about her past illegal drug use. She states that she did not report her marijuana use because she was not addicted to marijuana in contrast to the other controlled substances she had illegally used and which she did report. She also described her marijuana use as “occasional.”13

Applicant stated the following in her application in explaining her intent not to use illegal drugs or misuse other substances in the future:

I believe everyone makes mistakes. I do not believe it is who I am and I have learned from each and every mistake I have made during my time of use and have strived everyday to remain clean and sober since October 10, 2011 [the date she entered rehab].14

Applicant repeatedly stated on the application, which she certified as accurate and true, that she was continuing to go to counseling and meetings to maintain her sobriety.15 She presented no evidence of such counseling or attendance at NA (or other support group) beyond the court-ordered substance abuse counseling following her 2012 DUI.

Law & Policies

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). Individuals are eligible for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest” to authorize such access. E.O. 10865 § 2; SEAD-4, ¶ E.4.

When evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance, an administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations, the guidelines list potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions. The guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies the guidelines in a commonsense manner, considering all available and reliable information, in arriving at a fair and impartial decision. AG ¶ 2.

Department Counsel must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. Applicants are responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven . . . and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Directive ¶ E3.1.15.

Administrative Judges make certain that applicants: (a) receive fair notice of the issues, (b) have a reasonable opportunity to address those issues, and (c) are not subjected to unfair surprise. Directive, ¶ E3.1.10; ISCR Case No. 12-01266 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2014). In deciding a case, a judge must resolve any doubt raised by the evidence in favor of the national security. AG ¶ 2(b). See also SEAD-4, ¶ E.4. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that officials making “security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.

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. 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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

ANALYSIS

Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse

The SOR alleges that Applicant’s five-year history of illegal drug involvement, including her August 2011 drug possession arrest, and abuse of prescription pain medication raise the Guideline H security concern.16 The concern is explained at AG ¶ 24, which states in pertinent part:

The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.

In assessing the Guideline H concern, I have considered all the applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions, including the following pertinent ones:

AG ¶ 25(a): any substance misuse;

AG ¶ 25(c): illegal possession of a controlled substance . . .;

AG ¶ 25(f): any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position;

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): the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence . . .; and

AG ¶ 26(d): satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program . . . without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.

Applicant’s illegal drug involvement from 2007 to 2012 establish the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(c), and 25(f). Once disqualifying conditions are established, the burden shifts to an applicant to present evidence demonstrating extenuation or mitigation sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision.17 Illegal involvement with a controlled substance(s) after being granted a security clearance raises heightened concerns about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and requires a judge to closely scrutinize any claim of reform and rehabilitation.18

Here, Applicant, through her counsel, presented a strong case in mitigation. Of note, beyond the five years that have passed since Applicant last used any illegal drugs, are her positive employment record and the testimony and letters of her references. However, weighing against this favorable evidence is a long and extensive history of substance abuse and failure to follow the treatment advice of her rehab counselor. Notably, Applicant stop going to counseling and group therapy after completing her court- ordered substance abuse counseling in approximately 2012. Applicant’s dishonesty about her illegal drug use while going through rehab (i.e., physician’s office letter stating she had maintained sobriety for 10 months) and deliberate falsification of two separate federal forms for sensitive positions further undercut the favorable evidence of reform.

Also weighing against mitigation are Applicant’s inconsistent statements about the counseling and the other measures she had purportedly taken to maintain her sobriety. See infra n. 10 and 15. Accordingly, I find that Applicant failed to meet her burden of proof and persuasion. Her illegal use of controlled substances while working as a cleared federal contractor remain a concern.

Guideline E, Personal Conduct

The SOR alleges that Applicant deliberately failed to report her illegal use of controlled substances on federal forms for sensitive positions in 2011 and 2015. (SOR 2.a and 2.d.) The 2011 questionnaire for a public trust position was apparently the first such form Applicant completed after being granted a security clearance in 2006. She admits deliberately falsifying this federal form. Four years later, she was given the chance to provide the missing information. She did not report the full extent of her past illegal drug use on the 2015 security clearance application.

The falsification allegations raise the personal conduct security concern,19 which is explained at AG ¶ 15:

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 or sensitive information.

In assessing the Guideline E concern, I considered all the applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions, including the following pertinent ones:

AG ¶ 16(b): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and AG ¶ 17(c): 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 cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

The security clearance process relies on the honesty and candor of all applicants. It begins with the answers provided in the clearance application and continues throughout the security clearance process. However, the omission of material information standing alone is not enough to establish that an applicant committed a deliberate falsification.

Instead, in assessing intent, an administrative judge must examine all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the omission, including a person’s age, level of education, work experience, and familiarity (or lack thereof) with the security clearance process. An omission is not deliberate if the person genuinely forgot the information, sincerely was unaware of the information, inadvertently overlooked or misunderstood the question, or earnestly thought the information did not need to be reported.20 If after considering all the evidence, a judge finds that an alleged falsification was sufficiently proven than a grave concern about a person’s suitability arises.21

Applicant denies she deliberately falsified her 2015 clearance application. Her post-hoc rationalization or justification for omitting the information about her marijuana use and when it ended was not plausible or credible. In reaching this finding, I considered the other misleading statements Applicant made in her security clearance application, including the false claim she made about continuing to go to counseling. See infra n. 10 and 15 (Department Counsel’s succinct and highly effective cross-examination).

The serious security concerns raised by Applicant’s falsification of two separate applications for sensitive positions, which she completed four years apart, establish AG ¶ 16(a). The favorable record evidence, including the candor Applicant exhibited during the clearance interview, is insufficient to mitigate the heightened security concerns raised by her decision to lie during the clearance process.

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 relevant circumstances. AG ¶ 2. An administrative judge should consider the whole-person factors listed at AG ¶¶ 2(d) and 2(f). I hereby incorporate my above analysis and highlight some additional whole-person factors. Applicant’s efforts to overcome her drug addiction and reclaim her life are commendable and will hopefully continue. However, her failure to be fully candid about her substance abuse history on two separate federal forms for a sensitive position raise unmitigated questions about her reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to follow rules and regulations. Her involvement with controlled substances while employed as a federal contractor and the dubious statements she has made during the clearance process about her recovery efforts after completing rehab also continue to raise unmitigated concerns. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with doubts as to Applicant’s present eligibility for a security clearance.22

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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c, 1.e, 1.g: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.dand 1.f: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.d: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 2.band 2.c: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interest of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for continued access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is denied.

____________________ Francisco Mendez Administrative Judge

Appendix C are warranted. See SEAD-4, ¶ E.3 and Appendix A, ¶ 2(h); contrast with ISCR Case No. 10-

FOOTNOTES

1 The CAF took this action under Executive Order (E.O.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). CAF adjudicators reviewed this case using the previous version of the adjudicative guidelines, which were applicable to all security clearance cases falling under the rubric of the Directive between September 1, 2006 and June 7, 2017.

2 Post-hearing, pursuant to Directive, E3.1.17, I made a minor pen-and-ink change to the SOR by reordering SOR ¶ 1.e and 1.f, so that the lettering is consistent with Applicant’s responses in her Answer. 3 Prehearing correspondence, the notice of hearing, and the case management order were marked and are attached to the record as App. Exh. I – III.

4 SEAD-4, ¶ B, Purpose.

5 SEAD-4, ¶ C, Applicability.

6 Nonetheless, I have considered the previous version of the adjudicative guidelines and my ultimate decision in this case would have been the same.

7 The information in this section is primarily taken from: Tr. 26-38; Exhibit 3, Exhibits H, M. 8 Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is primarily taken from: Tr. 21-29, 32-54; Exhibits 1, 3; Exhibits A – D, G – M.

9 No incident report was apparently filed. See Exhibit 4.

10 Tr. 47-49; Exhibit B. Compare Exhibit 1 at 35-40 (Applicant repeatedly claimed in her 2015 security clearance application that she was attending counseling and continuing to receive Naltrexone shots to maintain her sobriety), with Tr. 48 (“Q: And since 2012, have you received any kind of treatment using Naltrex (sic) or any other prescription? A: No. I've been on my own ever since. . . . Q: Since 2012, have you been receiving any counselling or therapy from anybody? A: No, ma'am.”) 11 But see Exhibit 1 at 38 (“I was using prescription drugs from 1/2008 to 10/2011 now SOBER since 10/10/2011 and maintain with drug counseling and mandatory drug test each month that I do on my own!”)

12 Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is primarily taken from: Tr. 40-50; Answer; Exhibits 1 – 3. 13 Tr. 40-41; Answer.

14 Exhibit 1 at 36.

15 Exhibit 1 at 33-40. But see Tr. 48, 50 (Q: Since 2012, have you been receiving any counselling or therapy from anybody? A: No, ma'am. . . . Q: How long were you attending - - was it Narcotics Anonymous or was it another? A: It was NA, yes. Q: And how long did you attend those meetings? A: I attended on and off for about six months. Q: And then you decided to stop? A: I wasn’t comfortable being around those people.) 16 The SOR also alleges Applicant’s rehab treatment and her purchase of drugs for personal use. These allegations, SOR 1.dand 1.f, are decided in Applicant’s favor, because they do not raise a security concern or duplicate concerns about conduct that is already sufficiently captured by other SOR allegations. 17 ISCR Case No. 15-01208 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2016) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.15). See also ISCR Case No. 07-00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007) (when AGs were last revised, Board held that its prior decisions remained valid when they were “not dependent on the language of any specific guideline,” or “where the applicable language of the guideline is unchanged or the changes are not of sufficient magnitude to vitiate or overrule the substance of the precedent.”)

18 ISCR Case No. 16-02005 at 3 (App. Bd. June 2, 2017) (“an applicant’s use of illegal drugs after having completed a security clearance application raises substantial questions about his or her judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”). 19 The two other SOR allegations under Guideline E are either duplicative of the concerns raised under Guideline H or relatively minor when compared to the serious security concerns raised by Applicant’s falsifications. Accordingly, SOR 2.band 2.care resolved in Applicant’s favor. 20 See generally ISCR Case No. 02-12586 (App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2005).

21 ISCR Case No. 09-01652 at 7 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2011) (falsification is “an offense that strikes at the heart of the security clearance process.”) See also SEAD-4, Appendix A, ¶ 2(i) (falsifications and misrepresentations during the investigative or adjudicative stages of the clearance process raise heightened concerns about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness). 22 I considered the listed exceptions in SEAD-4, Appendix C. Applicant’s employer appears ready, willing and able to institute reasonable conditions on Applicant’s access, such as routine and random drug screening. However, in light of the deliberate and serious nature of the conduct at issue, notably, Applicant’s falsification of two separate federal forms for access to sensitive information, none of the exceptions in

03646 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2011) (under previous version of the guidelines, judges had “no authority to grant an interim, conditional or probationary clearance.”)