ISCR Case No. 25-00909

_ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the mat

er of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00909 Appearances For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Departme

t Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/23/2026 Decision HALE, Charles C., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on February 21, 2024. On October 2, 2025, the Department of War (DoW) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines H and E. The DoW acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) (December 10, 2016). Applicant submitted his Answer to the SOR on November 13, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written file of relevant material (FORM) on January 12, 2026. On February 4, 2026, a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. He elected not to respond to the Government’s

FORM. The period for his response lapsed on March 20, 2026. The case was assigned to me on April 7, 2026. The SOR and the Answer are the pleadings in the case. Government Exhibits (GE) 2 through 5 are admitted into evidence without objection. In the FORM, the government withdrew SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c, as Applicant’s alleged drug use would have fallen outside of the seven-year reporting period queried in the SCA. (FORM at 2; GE 2.) Findings of Fact Applicant is 36 years old. He graduated high school in 2008 and attended two universities between 2009 and 2012, without receiving a degree. He has never been married and has no children. He is applying for his first security clearance. Since December 2024, he has worked for his sponsor, a defense contractor, as a field engineer. The SOR alleges multiple concerns under Guidelines H, E, and J with respect to Applicant’s illegal purchase and use of hydrocodone and oxycodone, both Schedule II controlled substances, without a valid prescription between 2010 and 2018; his falsifications with respect to his illegal drug use; and the criminal concerns connected with his illegal drug use. He developed a dependency and addiction to pain medication after a 2008 knee surgery. He admitted seven of the allegations and denied five allegations, on the basis that there was no drug use after July 2016. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following additional findings of fact. (GE 2, GE 3.) SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b: You purchased and used hydrocodone and oxycodone, both Schedule II controlled substances, without a valid prescription from 2010 to 2018. Applicant denied these allegations and, in his Answer, stated: After being arrested for the DUI offense on [date in 2016], professional counseling was engaged at [a therapy clinic]. Therapy included monthly drug testing along with weekly group therapy. The initial hearing for my DUI offense was on [date in 2016]. I reported to this hearing prepared to pass a drug test, and use this as the definite date, after which there has been no drug use. The Government’s summary of SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b accurately reflects the evidence in the record: [Applicant’s statement he] ceased his drug use comes from his PSI which he adopted and clearly states that his “dependency and addiction” lasted “from 2010 to 12/2018.” GE 3 page 5. Further, it states “He has not used any illegal drugs nor abused prescription medication since 12/2018.” GE 3 page 6. Yet in that same paragraph he states he did not list the drug use because he thought it was outside the seven-year reference in the e-QIP. His failure to list the drug use due to the seven-year requirement would match his assertion that his use ended in 2016. He goes on in the 2

interrogatories to state on multiple occasions in his own hand that the date he ceased using drugs was July 2016. GE 3 page 9. With that, the government is willing to accept that Applicant ceased using hydrocodone and oxycodone, without a valid prescription as of July 2016. In fact, the interrogatories provide a more definitive timeline for his use, as it appears he used Hydrocodone for a decade from June 2006 through July 2016, and Oxycodone for a shorter period from June 2014 through July 2016. (FORM at 2.) Applicant’s use of hydrocodone and oxycodone is mitigated by time. SOR ¶ 1.c: On or

about [September 2011], you were arrested by the [county sheriff] and charged with the following felony: Possession of a Controlled Substance (methadone and morphine). You were enrolled in a Pre-trial Diversion Program but failed to comply with the terms and were later arrested on or about [June 2013] for Failure to Appear. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation, which is supported by records of his criminal history. He discussed the incident with the investigator during his security clearance interview. (Answer; GE 3, GE 4-5.) Applicant’s conduct is mitigated by time. SOR ¶ 1.d: On or about [October 2013], you were arrested by the [state police] for the following offenses: (1) Possession of a Controlled Substance (Xanax) and (2) Obstruction of Justice (false identity). Subsequent to your completion of a Pre-trial Intervention Program, the District Attorney entered a nolle prosse with the court on or about [October 2014]. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation, which is supported by records of his criminal history. He discussed the incident with the

nvestigator during his security clearance interview. (Answer; GE 3, GE 4-5.) Applicant’s conduct is mitigated by time. SOR ¶ 1.e: On or about January 8, 2016, you were arrested by the [highway patrol] for the following misdemeanor offenses: (1) Driving Under the Influence; (2) Implied Consent (refusing a blood test); (3) Reckless Driving; (4) Drug Paraphernalia; (5) Financial Responsibility (failure to have insurance); (6) Driving on the Wrong Side; and (7) Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance (Buprenorphine and Xanax). In accordance with your pleas, on or about July 18, 2016 you were sentenced to 11 months and 29 days of confinement (all but 57 days suspended), supervised probation, $1,500 fine, court costs. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation, which is supported by records of his criminal history and was disclosed on his SCA. (Answer; GE 2, GE 4-5.) Applicant’s conduct is mitigated by time. SOR ¶ 2.a: You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you on [February 2024], in response to the following questions: “Section 22 – Police Record (EVER) Have you EVER been charged with an of

fense involving alcohol or drugs?” You answered “Yes” regarding the information as set forth in subparagraph 1.e. above, but 3

deliberately failed to disclose that information as set forth in subparagraphs 1.c. and 1.d. above. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation. Applicant admitted subparagraphs 1.c. and 1.d. above, which were supported by records of his criminal history and were not disclosed on his SCA. He discussed the incidents with the investigator during his security clearance interview after being confronted. (Answer; GE 2-5.) SOR ¶ 2.b: You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you on [February 2024], in response to the following questions: “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity Illegal Use of Drugs or Controlled Substances In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? Use of a drug or controlled substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming any drug or controlled substance?”. You answered “No” and thereby deliberately failed to disclose that information as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. above. Applicant denied the allegation on the basis that there was no drug use after February 19, 2016, which the Government subsequently withdrew. SOR ¶ 2.c: You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you

n February 21, 2024, in response to the following questions: “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity Illegal Use of Drugs or Controlled Misuse of Prescription Drugs In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else?”. You answered “No” and thereby deliberately failed to disclose that information as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. above. Applicant denied the allegation on the basis that there was no drug use after February 19, 2016, which the Government subsequently withdrew. SOR ¶ 2.d: You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you on February 21, 2024, in response to the following que

stions: “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity Have you EVER been ordered, advised, or asked to seek counseling or treatment as a result of your illegal use of drugs or controlled substances?”- You answered “No” and thereby deliberately failed to disclose the court-ordered diversion programs set forth in subparagraphs 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e. above. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation. Applicant admitted subparagraphs 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e above, which were supported by records of his criminal history. He disclosed the subparagraph 1.e incident in another section of his SCA, which I consider mitigating to the alleged subparagraph 1.e p ortion of the SOR allegation. However, he failed to disclose on his SCA the incidents alleged in subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d. He discussed these two incidents with the investigator during his security clearance interview after being confronted. (Answer; GE 2-5.) 4

SOR ¶ 2.e: You falsified material facts during an August 2, 2024 interview with an authorized i nvestigator for the U.S. Department of Defense about your illegal drug use. During the interview, you did not initially disclose any illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse, nor previous counseling or treatment related to such use or abuse until confronted by the investigator about the information as set forth in paragraph 1 above. Applicant admitted the al

legation and stated after the interview with the investigator he understands he should have listed a pretrial intervention as court-ordered counseling. ( Answer; GE 3.) SOR ¶ 3.a: Information as set forth under paragraph 1, above. Applicant’s answers to SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.e were accepted as his response to the allegation and the facts are discussed above. SOR ¶ 3.b: On or about March 10, 2018, you were arrested by the [Sheriff] for the following misdemeanor offense: Probation Violation (failure to provide proof of lawful employment, failure to provide proof of DUI school attendance, and failure to report to the probation office as required). Applicant denied the allegation on the basis that no arrest occurred after his July 2016 hearing, until he was pulled over for speeding and t aken to jail in May 2018. He stated he was not aware until the speeding arrest that he was in violation of his probation. He discussed incident with the investigator during his security clearance interview. (GE 3-5.) SOR ¶ 3.c: On or about May 24, 2018, you were arrested by the [Sheriff] for the following misdemeanor offenses: (1) Driving on a Suspended License and (2) Failure to Appear. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation, which is supported by his criminal history records. (Answer; GE 4-5.) Applicant explained to the investigator he had made changes to his life. The investigator summarized their exchange as follows: The drug dependency contributed to legal problems and family relationship problems but did not affect work. From 2010 to 12/2018, Subject socialized and worked with people involved in criminal activity, particularly drug dealers. The likelihood of returning to illegal drug use and prescription drug abuse is none. Subject is a different person. He is more mature, learned a lesson after serving 57 days custody for the DUI, attends church and has faith, and has the support of his family. Subject is no longer dependent on pain medication or drugs. He has not used any illegal drugs nor abused prescription medication since 12/2018. (GE 3 at 6.) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 5

President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 6

of Drugs or Controlled Misuse of Prescription Drugs In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else?”. You answered “No” and thereby deliberately failed to disclose that information as set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. above. Applicant denied the allegation on the basis that there was no drug use after February 19, 2016, which the Government subsequently withdrew. SOR ¶ 2.d: You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you on February 21, 2024, in response to the following que

stions: “Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity Have you EVER been ordered, advised, or asked to seek counseling or treatment as a result of your illegal use of drugs or controlled substances?”- You answered “No” and thereby deliberately failed to disclose the court-ordered diversion programs set forth in subparagraphs 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e. above. Applicant admitted the allegation without explanation. Applicant admitted subparagraphs 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e above, which were supported by records of his criminal history. He disclosed the subparagraph 1.e incident in another section of his SCA, which I consider mitigating to the alleged subparagraph 1.e p ortion of the SOR allegation. However, he failed to disclose on his SCA the incidents alleged in subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d. He discussed these two incidents with the investigator during his security clearance interview after being confronted. (Answer; GE 2-5.) 4

SOR ¶ 2.e: You falsified material facts during an August 2, 2024 interview with an authorized i nvestigator for the U.S. Department of Defense about your illegal drug use. During the interview, you did not initially disclose any illegal drug

cant explained to the investigator he had made changes to his life. The investigator summarized their exchange as follows: The drug dependency contributed to legal problems and family relationship problems but did not affect work. From 2010 to 12/2018, Subject socialized and worked with people involved in criminal activity, particularly drug dealers. The likelihood of returning to illegal drug use and prescription drug abuse is none. Subject is a different person. He is more mature, learned a lesson after serving 57 days custody for the DUI, attends church and has faith, and has the support of his family. Subject is no longer dependent on pain medication or drugs. He has not used any illegal drugs nor abused prescription medication since 12/2018. (GE 3 at 6.) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 5

President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcen

s normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant

to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 6

Analysis Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 24: 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. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. Applicant’s admissions and the record establish