ISCR Case No. 25-00354

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00354 Appearances For Government: Troy L. Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/29/2026 Decision LAFAYE, Gatha, Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on June 18, 2024. On July 29, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines H, J, and E. Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on September 26, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 16, 2026. On February 9, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice scheduling the hearing for March 5, 2026, by video teleconference. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, the Government offered 14 exhibits, Government Exhibit (GE) 1 through GE 14, which were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and discussed his evidence, Applicant Exhibit (AE) A through AE K, which were already part of the administrative record. I left the record open to allow Applicant time to submit additional evidence. He timely submitted AE L and AE M, which were admitted in evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on March 19, 2026. The record closed on April 1, 2026. 1

Findings of Fact The SOR alleges security concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse (¶¶ 1.a–1.n); criminal conduct (¶¶ 2.a–2.d); and personal conduct (¶¶ 3.a–3.f), spanning 20 years, between 2004 and 2024. In his Answer, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.i, 1.k–1.n, 2.c, and 3.b–3.c; and denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.j, 2.b, and 2.d. He presumptively denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 2.a, 3.a, and 3.d–3.f by not directly responding to the questions. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact, and after thorough review of the pleading, evidence, and testimony at the hearing, I make the following additional findings of fact. Applicant is 40 years old. He attended three high schools from 2001 to 2004 but did not graduate due to absences related to illness. In 2005, he earned a General Education Development (GED) certificate. After working for a year, he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2006. In 2009, he was discharged from the Army with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service. He married in 2007, separated in 2014, and divorced in 2016. He has resided with his fiancée since August 2018 and will marry in October 2026. He does not have children. He attended two community colleges in 2019 and earned two technical certificates after completing program requirements. (GE 1, 2; Tr. 18-30) Applicant completed SCAs in 2006, 2012, and most recently in June 2024, and has held security clearances in the past. He has worked as a network field operator for a defense contractor since June 2024. He was unemployed for six months prior to being hired into his current position. From November 2023 to January 2024, he worked part- time as a seasonal employee for a public company. In July 2020, he was fired by a retail employer for sleeping on the job, which he attributed to medical issues related to insomnia. After he was fired in 2020, he was unemployed from July 2020 to November 2023, about 40 months. He used that time to address medical and mental health-related issues, particularly his drug addiction problems. (GE 1, 2; Tr. 18-35) In his June 2024 SCA, Applicant disclosed his history of illegal drug use and activities, misuse of prescription drugs, and arrests for driving-related incidents. He provided comprehensive details about the incidents during his 2024 background interviews with DOD investigators and at the hearing. He detailed his past troubles with illegal drug use and activities, misuse of prescription drugs, and disclosed the legal consequences that flowed from those activities, discussed below. (GE 1, 4–6; AE A–J) Under Guideline H, the SOR alleges Applicant participated in the following drug involvement and substance misuse activities, between 2004 and about 2024, in SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.n below: (a) 2004 to February 2024: purchased and used marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.a); (b) 2004: arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia (SOR ¶ 1.b); 2

(c) 2008: tested positive for benzodiazepines while occupying a sensitive position and was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (SOR ¶ 1.c); (d) 2009: tested positive for cocaine while occupying a sensitive position and was punished under Article 15, UCMJ (SOR ¶ 1.d); (e) 2015: charged with possession of paraphernalia (SOR ¶ 1.e); (f) 2017 to 2020: purchased/used fentanyl, not prescribed (SOR ¶ 1.f); (g) 2017 to 2020: purchased/used oxycodone, not prescribed; pled guilty and sentenced (SOR ¶ 1.g); (h) 2017: arrested/charged with possession (not marijuana); and failing to remain/return to accident scene; pled guilty and sentenced (SOR ¶ 1.h); (i) 2019 (July): arrested/charged with driving while impaired (DWI) with drugs/alcohol; and failure to find vehicle owner post-collision (SOR ¶ 1.i); (j) 2019: used heroin (SOR ¶ 1.j); (k) 2019 (August): arrested/charged with DWI with drugs/alcohol; felony possession of Fentanyl post-collision; and sentenced to probation before judgment (SOR ¶ 1.k); (l) 2019 to 2020: continued to use alcohol, marijuana, unprescribed fentanyl, oxycodone, on probation, which was prohibited (SOR ¶ 1.l); (m) 2019 to 2022: received outpatient drug treatment; diagnosed with opioid use disorder, severe, cannabis use disorder, mild; and was hospitalized for overdosing on unprescribed fentanyl twice (SOR ¶ 1.m); and (n) 2019: was asked to resign due to suspected illegal drug use at work (SOR ¶ 1.n). Applicant admitted he used marijuana in 2004 in high school after a friend offered it to him, and he estimated using marijuana less than 10 times in high school. (SOR ¶ 1.a) He admitted being arrested and charged with marijuana possession and drug paraphernalia in 2004 in his 2006 SCA, and though he did not recall specifics, he recalled his mother speaking on his behalf and informing him of the sentence afterwards. He attended a 12-week drug and alcohol training program, and all charges were dismissed (SOR ¶ 1.b). (Answer; GE 1, 2, 4; Tr. 83, 106-107, 167-168) Applicant said he did not use marijuana while in the Army, but he started using marijuana again, on social occasions, in 2009 after leaving the Army. He increased his marijuana use in 2019, self-medicating to treat anxiety and insomnia, and he registered his medical marijuana use with the state’s cannabis administration in July 2021. He stopped using marijuana in June 2023 “to be eligible for better career opportunities.” He later reported using marijuana the last time in February 2024, out of an abundance of caution. He said he consumed a dessert his fiancée brought home from a party they attended but he did not know whether the dessert actually included marijuana, discussed more fully under Guideline E below. (Answer; GE 1, 4; Tr. 107-109, 112, 115-120) Applicant tested positive for benzodiazepines in 2008 and cocaine in 2009, while occupying a sensitive position in the U.S. Army (SOR ¶ 1.c); and he received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ in both instances. He said he was prescribed Xanax by a civilian 3

doctor in 2007 for anxiety and insomnia prior to his deployment to Iraq. He tested positive for benzodiazepines following unit drug-testing in Iraq. He could not remember the prescribing physician’s name and did not recall what happened to the pill bottle. He said he initially sought help from military doctors, but the medications prescribed did not reduce his symptoms, which led him to seek help from a civilian provider. (Answer; GE 4, 6; Tr. 61-70; AE A, I, J) Regarding testing positive for cocaine, Applicant said he was transferring back to the United States from his tour in Iraq and was on a “four-day vacation pass” from the Army (SOR ¶ 1.d). He said he was partying with his ex-wife and two friends, drinking heavily, and he believed he consumed cocaine, but he could not remember what happened because he blacked out and he was unable to remember anything from that evening in 2009. His said his unit was informed everyone would be drug tested after the four-day pass, and he would not have intentionally consumed cocaine knowing he would be drug tested. He no longer communicates with his ex-wife and will never know what actually happened. (Answer; Tr. 70-73) He received Article 15, UCMJ punishment for cocaine use. He was reduced in rank from E4 to E1 and orally reprimanded (GE 4 at 6). He said he “lost everything” he had worked for over the past three years and “started drinking a lot.” (GE 4 at 29) He self-enrolled into an in-patient chemical dependency treatment program but was discharged from the Army for misconduct after completing the program. (GE 4, AE L 1) Applicant was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in August 2015, and the case was resolved through an arrangement with the state (SOR ¶ 1.e). He completed eight hours of community service, and his case was closed in December 2015. He did not remember this incident but said he stopped all involvement with illegal drugs years ago and is committed to maintaining a drug-free lifestyle. (GE 13; Tr. 127-130) Applicant admitted he purchased and used fentanyl and oxycodone from illegal sellers of the drugs “on the street,” from 2017 to November 2020 (SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g). He was prescribed oxycodone before and after his back surgery in late 2016. His back pain persisted, he needed relief to do everyday activities, and his doctors were no longer prescribing oxycodone. He initially purchased and used oxycodone but changed to fentanyl because it was cheaper and more readily available for purchase on the street. He last used opioids in November 2020. (Answer; GE 4; Tr. 132-136) He was prescribed suboxone for years, which helped him to overcome his opioid addiction. He stopped requiring suboxone in early 2021 and would never accept an opioid prescription again. (Tr. 31, 137-140, 179-80) From 2017 to late 2019, Applicant said he was arrested and charged with drug- related DWIs, possession (not marijuana), and two incidents involving vehicles while under the influence of fentanyl and oxycodone (SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.i, and 1.k, respectively). Regarding the drug possession incident, he said he had picked up medication for his disabled mother, which was in his car. After spending a day at the beach, he hit a guard rail on the way home and returned to the accident scene where he encountered police officers, who found his mother’s medication in his car. He denied drug involvement in the 4

incident. In an August 2019 collision with a parked car, he said he swerved to avoid an accident with an oncoming car, and then he stopped in an alleyway not knowing whether he hit anything. He returned to the accident scene to check and he was arrested. The record shows he pled not guilty with an agreed statement of facts with the state as part of probation before judgment. He could not remember more details about the incident to elaborate. (GE 9) Charges from the two 2019 incidents were combined for disposition under a two-year special veterans treatment court program, discussed below, as part of the probation before judgment. (Answer; GE 1 at 44-46, GE 4, 7, 9-11; Tr. 37, 140-144, 147-156; AE B–C) Applicant denied he ever used heroin (SOR ¶ 1.j) and did not remember telling his therapist he did. He admitted he used fentanyl and oxycodone in 2019 but said he never consumed heroin. He said he would not have been afraid to tell his therapist he used heroin if he had done so. He said during this dark period in his life, he did not enjoy telling people that he used fentanyl and he considered heroin (compared to fentanyl) to be the “lesser of two evils.” (Answer; GE 4 at 35; GE 5 at 5; Tr. 144-146) From 2017 to November 2020, Applicant admitted he continued to use alcohol, marijuana, and fentanyl and oxycodone, not prescribed to him, during his probation, which was not allowed (SOR ¶ 1.l). During his probation in November 2019, he said he used oxycodone once and fentanyl about five times. He said that his marijuana use was infrequent and after a year, he applied for and received a state medical marijuana card to comply with the terms of his probation as he participated in the veterans treatment court program. (Answer; GE 4 at 23; Tr. 156-158) Applicant said he b

ecame very disappointed in himself because of his drug addiction. He was still in pain, whether or not he took the drugs, and he wanted to stop using drugs and to get his life back on track for the sake of his health and future with his cohabitant fiancée. (Tr. 173-180) She completed a nursing degree a few months ago and is now a registered nurse. She does not use illegal drugs and rarely consumes alcohol. She encouraged Applicant to get the help he needed, and he di

d. (Tr. 87-91; AE M 1-2) In about September 2019, he voluntarily enrolled in an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment program (SOR ¶ 1.m) after experiencing arrests in July and August 2019. (AE B) He also found a veterans treatment court program in his state, and he petitioned the court to allow him to participate in the state’s two-year drug treatment and recovery program for veterans, and it did. (GE 1 at 46-52; Tr. 39, 91-92; AE B–E) In December 2019, Applicant joined the veterans treatment court program, initially as an outpatient. During his treatment, he was diagnosed with opioid use disorder (severe) and cannabis use disorder (mild) and was hospitalized twice for overdosing on fentanyl not prescribed to him. He struggled daily because of the pain, and he openly admitted that he struggled and failed a few times, but he kept going because he wanted to succeed. He opted to participate in the veterans treatment court’s inpatient program from November 2020 to February 2021 and officially graduated from the program in May 2022. (GE 1; Tr. 91-92,175-180; AE B–E) 5

The veterans treatment court program is a “court-supervised voluntary, treatment- based program for justice-involved veterans charged with misdemeanor offenses in the [state’s] District Court.” Additional parts of the program include: [A] high l evel of supervision, drug testing, and c ase management by a variety of team members and community providers to support the veteran throughout their court involvement. The overall length of the program varies based on the individual participant [with an] average duration of 12-18 months. (AE C) The veterans treatment court program’s stated mission is to increase public safety by integrating and incorporating treatment response for program veterans with substance use and/or mental health issues, with a goal to “return productive, law-abiding citizens to the community and thereby reduce recidivism and criminal justice costs.” (AE C) Applicant was required to participate in mental health and substance use treatment and to follow all treatment and attendance mandates. (AE C–E) Applicant said before he joined the veterans treatment court program, he did his best to manage his mental health issues after he completed a 15-month combat tour in Iraq (Tr. 170-171). In the program, he later came to understand that he used drugs and alcohol to “self-medicate” and had not addressed his underlying mental health issues. (Tr. 111-112, 162-164) As part of the program, Applicant was treated for several mental health conditions, including: “chronic severe combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder (with psychotic features), severe insomnia (due to obstructive sleep apnea), post-concussion syndrome, panic disorder, and chronic pain due to trauma.” (AE D) Doctors said Applicant had experienced “severe nightmares, flashbacks, severe depression with suicidal thoughts, severe anxiety, paranoid delusions and hallucinations, poor sleep, fatigue, and poor concentration,” and had isolated himself due to life-threatening situations he faced working in a combat zone. Applicant also completed 20 hours of community service, participated in a shock treatment program, and took routine drug urinalysis tests, which were all negative for illegal drugs. He fulfilled all requirements of the program in May 2022. (AE C, E; Tr. 170-172) He continues to meet with his doctors on a routine basis, and he prioritizes his mental health and wellbeing. (Tr. 138-140, 162-163; AE M 1-2) Applicant admitted that in 2019, a retail employer asked him to resign because the manager suspected he was using illegal drugs at work (SOR ¶ 1.n). He said the manager directly accused him of using illegal drugs, brought in a security guard, searched his body and his belongings for illegal drugs, and found nothing. He did not want to work there if he was “going to be accused of things.” He stated he was never under the influence of drugs at work. There was a coworker who self-disclosed past drug use and Applicant had lunch with him a few times and talked to him on occasion, and he felt the drug accusation came from “guilt by association” with the coworker. He said he used prescribed and illegal 6

drugs at the time, but never while working. He had “really bad sleeping issues” and could have appeared tired. (GE 1 at 16; Tr. 40-44) Under Guideline J, the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a, cross-alleges SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e, 1.h -1.i, and 1.k-1.l. Applicant admitted the cross-alleged allegations under Guideline H but presumptively denied SOR ¶ 2.a by not responding to the allegation. He admitted the incidents occurred but pointed out that they happened a long time ago. The oldest incident occurred 22 years ago, and the most recent incident occurred in August 2019, about seven years ago. He acknowledged his past mistakes and explained that all incidents were resolved years ago. (Answer; Tr. 88-91) SOR ¶¶ 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d, allege driving with a suspended license/privilege incidents occurring in 2013, 2016, and 2021, respectively. Applicant said he acknowledged the 2013 incident (SOR ¶ 2.b) by mistake during his background interview, and upon closer review, he noted the incident involved a person with the same name but a different date of birth. (Tr. 96-101) He admitted the 2016 incident (SOR ¶ 2.c) but said he never received notice that his license was suspended because he moved. He lacked the funds to pay court fees and fines because his ability to work was constrained due to his pending worker’s compensation claim. He paid the fees and fines in about June 2017 as soon as he was able. (Answer; Tr. 101-103) He denied the 2021 incident (SOR ¶ 2.d) because the dates did not correspond with information he found in his official state motor vehicle record. He did not remember the incident but said he participated in a driver’s improvement program in 2023, and the current status of his driver’s license is active, without issues. (Answer; GE 8; Tr. 104-106) Under Guideline E, the allegation in SOR ¶ 3.a cross-alleges SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.n, and 2.b–2.d. Applicant admitted the cross-alleged allegations, except SOR ¶¶ 1.j and 2.b, which he denied. He presumptively denied SOR ¶¶ 3.a and 3.d–3.e by not responding to the allegations. Regarding conduct cross-alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, he said he reported he used marijuana in February 2024 out of an abundance of caution after consuming dessert his fiancée brought home from a pot-luck dinner they attended. He did not know whether the dessert actually contained marijuana, and no one was able to confirm it did. (Answer; GE 1–3; Tr. 107-109, 112, 115-120) The following exchange occurred at the hearing: [APPLICANT] I accidentally ingested, like, a cookie that I thought had something in it, so I admitted to it. I wasn’t – I’m not even 100 percent sure if it actually had anything in the cookie. But I just admitted to it because I didn’t want to lie. [MR. NUSSBAUM] Okay. Why did you believe this cookie had THC or marijuana in it? [APPLICANT] Because I talked to people that were at the party where the cookie came from and they said that it was a possibility. 7

Applicant said he did not fully consume the dessert because the taste was “funny” or odd. (Tr. 115-120) Before this incident, the last time he knowingly consumed marijuana occurred in June 2023, about 40 months ago. He said he stopped using marijuana completely because he “wanted a better job.” He did not anticipate he would be applying for a security clearance in 2024. His medical marijuana card expired in August 2024. (Tr. 119-120) SOR ¶ 3.b alleges that Applicant received a general discharge (under honorable conditions) from the Army for misconduct (drug use) in 2009, which he admitted. SOR ¶¶ 3.c–3.f allege Applicant falsified material facts in response to questions in his SCAs completed in April 2006 and April 2012, and during an interview with an investigator in August 2012. (GE 2–3; Tr. 73-84) He stated he had difficulty remembering the details of specific events and responses to questions in SCAs completed 20 and 14 years ago. (Id.) In his 2006 SCA, Applicant disclosed his arrest in 2004 for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. He said he made an unintentional error in his response to the question about his experimental marijuana use in high school (SOR ¶ 3.c). He said he has since admitted to using marijuana to be transparent and forthcoming about his history of illegal drug use and stated his intent to refrain from using illegal drugs ever again. (Answer; GE 2, 3; Tr. 73-84; AE G, L 5) Applicant acknowledged inconsistent statements he made about his alcohol consumption in a combat zone in his April 2012 SCA (SOR ¶ 3.d) and to a federal investigator during a background interview in August 2012 (SOR ¶ 3.f). He said the inconsistencies were not intentional “due to his inability to recall events.” He said he did not have a record of any disciplinary proceeding and was unable to clarify the details of the incident before his interviews in 2024 and 2025. (Answer; GE 2, 4) He stated: l acknowledge the inconsistencies in my description of this event on the [SCA] from April 30, 2012, when compared to the interviews conducted between 2024 and 2025. I clarified my description of the incident during an interview that was conducted in person on August 28, 2012, which corresponds with [my comments] on September 5, 2024. (Answer) Applicant also acknowledged inconsistent statements he made in his April 2012 SCA about testing positive for a prescription medication (benzodiazepines) and being disciplined (SOR ¶ 3.e). He stated: I elaborated on the circumstances surrounding my use of Xanax while overseas in my response. I have made extensive efforts to rehabilitate the circumstances leading to my past pattern of misconduct. I have assumed responsibility for the negative outcomes of these incidents and have had no further criminal or civil offenses. I have no intent of repeating the actions that have caused my judgement, trustworthiness, or reliability to be in question. I value my job and the opportunities it presents for my future. (Answer) 8

Applicant was rear-ended while driving in about 2012, and after the completion of a workers compensation claim, he had surgery on his spine in 2016. (Tr. 102-103, 180- 181) He acknowledged inconsistencies in statements made in his 2012 SCA and background interviews, which he attempted to correct to the best of his ability after researching his own past (AE I, J). Applicant submitted substantial documentary evidence to support his case in mitigation, which included six letters of support and other documents. He submitted letters of support from his current supervisor, two of his colleagues, who are also friends; his high school English teacher, his father, and his fiancée. All favorably endorsed his application for a security clearance. (AE A–M) Applicant’s supervisor described him as a “bright, capable, and principled young professional with significant potential,” stating he “has proven himself to be trustworthy, respectful, and dependable,” and respectfully recommended this tribunal “give this reference full consideration in support of [Applicant’s] security clearance eligibility.” (AE K 1-4, M 1-2; AE L 10) His two colleagues shared similar sentiments. One colleague, a family friend of 25 years who served in Iraq at the same time, credited their friendship during deployment with his “ability to write this letter,” and shared his “trust in [Applicant’s] character, trustworthiness, and dedication to doing the right thing.” (AE K at 2-3) Another colleague described him as “one of the hardest working members of our team and is frequently the first to step forward when extra work or responsibility is needed,” stating he is “an asset to any team and deserving of an opportunity to continue contributing.” (AE K at 3) His employer continues to support his education and training. (AE L 10; Tr. 19-20) Applicant’s high school teacher, father, and fiancée favorably recommended his eligibility for a security clearance. His teacher described him as intellectually curious, a man of his word with exceptional character and high potential. His father commented favorably on his dependability, diligence, reliability and strong work ethic. His fiancée praised his honesty, commitment to his sobriety, personal accountability, and his long- term stability. She shared her knowledge of his character, decision-making, and his personal growth over an eight-year period, commenting as follows: One quality I particularly respect about [Applicant] is his honesty regarding his past. He does not attempt to minimize his mistakes. Instead, he speaks openly about the consequences of those choices and the importance of maintaining the progress he has worked so hard to achieve. I believe that period of [his] life d oes not accurately represent the person he is today. The rehabilitation he has undertaken, and the lifestyle changes he has maintained reflect a strong commitment to personal accountability and long- term stability. (AE M 1-2) Applicant submitted evidence about his Army service including his time in Iraq. He joined the Army in mid-2006, completed basic and advance training in electronics device repair and reported for duty in early 2007, working in an equipment shop “fixing night- vision goggles, encrypted radios, computer motherboards, mine dispensers, etc.” (Tr. 9

170-171) He learned quickly and did his job well. He was “fast and correct” on assigned projects, which caught the attention of superiors. About four weeks before being deployed, he said he was informed he would receive training in fiber optics to conduct work as a “cable dog” while deployed to Iraq with another unit, a combat assignment. College instructors were brought in to train him on fiber optics cabling; he earned a certificate after completing training and deployed to Iraq. His assignment as a “cable dog” in Iraq entailed laying fiber optic cables for Army combat communication systems, which required him to go to places and locations throughout Iraq to conduct the mission. (Tr. 170-172) Applicant said he had difficulty processing his sudden change in assignment; he felt anxious, and sought the medical assistance of military doctors, but after their treatments failed, he went to a civilian doctor and was prescribed Xanax for anxiety. (Tr. 168-174) After a 15-month deployment in Iraq, he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal and the Iraq Campaign Medal, with Campaign Star. (AE H, AE L 2-8) His father said he came back a changed man and stated: “[Applicant] served his country with pride, but by the end of his service he seemed changed and became isolated from me and began showing signs of depression and possible PTSD. He pulled away from me and would not speak to me for many years, which caused much sadness in our home as I always felt we had a close relationship.” (AE M 3) His father went on to share how Applicant reached out to him during the COVID­ 19 pandemic and wanted to see him. He learned about his son going through rehabilitation, improving his life, met his fiancée, and he felt he was “seeing his old [son] again,” and expressed his hope that “others would agree that [Applicant] is worthy of a second chance.” (AE M 3) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the 10

“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 national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern for drug involvement and substance misuse is described 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. 11

Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the case establish the following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (b) testing positive for an illegal drug; (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of substance use disorder; (e) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional; and (f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position. AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following are potentially applicable: (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; (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, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility; (c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and (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. Applicant first purchased and used marijuana in 2004, and he used it about 10 times while in high school. He reported possibly ingesting marijuana in February 2024, 12

but the evidence is insufficient to establish that he knowingly and intentionally ingested marijuana when he consumed a dessert his fiancée brought home from a pot-luck dinner. His last intentional marijuana use occurred in June 2023, about 40 months ago. He used marijuana infrequently, and he stopped using marijuana from 2006 to 2009 during his Army service. He restarted using marijuana infrequently in social settings post-Army, and then in 2019, he increased his marijuana use, “self-medicating” to manage anxiety and insomnia, which he disclosed during treatment. He registered his medical marijuana use with the state and received a medical marijuana card in 2021. Applicant’s arrests, charges, and convictions for the drug involvement incidents in SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.e occurred from 11 to 22 years ago and incidents in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.k involving DWI by drugs/alcohol occurred more than seven years ago. Following his arrests in 2019, discussed in detail below, Applicant took positive actions that changed the trajectory of his life. He enrolled in the veterans court treatment program in 2019, which addressed his underlying mental health conditions from combat zone experiences and his drug addiction problems. He experienced setbacks, but through persistent efforts, and with the support and encouragement of his fiancée, family, friends, medical and mental health doctors, and others, he overcame the physical, mental health, and drug addiction problems that threatened his existence for years. He successfully completed the program in May 2022, and no other arrests have occurred. Allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a– 1.e, 1.i, and 1.k are mitigated by time and circumstances that are unlikely to recur, under AG ¶ 26(a). Through his actions, Applicant has demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining long-term stability and he has a strong network of support to help. Applicant had been prescribed oxycodone before and after his back surgery in 2016. His back pain persisted after surgery and doctors were no longer prescribing oxycodone. He started purchasing oxycodone, and then fentanyl illegally on the street. He became severely addicted to opioids. After the criminal DWI incidents, which led to arrests in July and August 2019 (SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.k), Applicant hit bottom. With the support and encouragement of his fiancée, he sought medical and mental health treatment, and a strong drug rehabilitation program to break the addiction. As stated above, he enrolled in a long-term drug rehabilitation program for veterans in 2019, and although he experienced several setbacks (relapses during treatment), he persisted and succeeded over time. He started with outpatient treatment in the veterans treatment court program, and he chose to participate in the inpatient treatment program from November 2020 to February 2021 (SOR ¶ 1.m) after realizing he required more support. He graduated from the program in May 2022. Applicant continues to prioritize his mental health and meets with his psychiatrist on a routine basis. AG ¶ 26(d) is established and SOR ¶ 1.m is mitigated. Applicant is now free of the opioid addiction that plagued his life for a long time. He last used opioids in November 2020. He is able to manage his physical pain and mental health challenges that contributed to his opioid addiction and the reckless behavior that followed, demonstrated in SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g; and the driving incidents in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.i, and 1.k. AG ¶ 26(c) is established and SOR ¶¶ 1.f–1.i, 1.k–1.l are mitigated. 13

Applicant denied he ever used heroin, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j, and he did not recall telling his therapist he did. Other than his therapist’s second-hand comments, which were annotated in the medical record, there is no other evidence to establish that Applicant used heroin. Unlike the 2009 cocaine use incident, he did not “black-out” during therapy. He testified credibly during the hearing and consistently denied he ever used heroin and his statements are believable. The evidence is insufficient to establish Applicant actually used heroin and SOR 1.j is decided in his favor. Similarly, the evidence is insufficient to establish Applicant used illegal drugs while working. He denied he ever used illegal drugs on the job. At the manager’s request, his person and his belongings were searched for the presence of illegal drugs and none were found. His testimony and statements on this subject were credible and SOR 1.n is decided in his favor. Guideline J, Criminal Conduct The security concern for criminal conduct is described in AG ¶ 30: Criminal activity creates doubt about an Appellant’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. Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the case establish the following disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 31. (a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; (b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted; (d) violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation program; and (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces for reasons less than “Honorable.” Conditions that could mitigate criminal conduct security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 32. The following are potentially applicable: (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 14

(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. AG ¶ 32(a) is established and mitigates SOR ¶ 2.a due to the passage of time and his completion of all court requirements years ago. The oldest incident occurred 22 years ago and the most recent, in 2019, about seven years ago. The driving incidents alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d, occurred in 2013, 2016, and 2021, respectively. Applicant denied the 2013 incident (SOR ¶ 2.b), which involved another person with the same name but a different date of birth. The evidence is insufficient to establish Applicant committed the criminal conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b, and SOR ¶ 2.b is decided in his favor. Applicant denied the 2021 incident (SOR ¶ 2.d). He did not recall the incident and stated the date did not correspond with his official state driving record. He completed a driver’s improvement plan in 2023, and confirmed his driver’s license is in good standing, without any problems. He admitted the 2016 incident (SOR ¶ 2.c) and said he did not receive notice of his suspended license because he moved, and he paid the fine when he was financially able. As discussed under Guideline H and incorporated here, Applicant successfully completed rehabilitation and treatment under the veterans court treatment program. There are no pending criminal matters and none of the above incidents have recurred. He is gainfully employed and excelling at work. He is highly regarded and favorably recommended for security clearance eligibility by his employer, colleagues, family, and friends, who attested to his honesty, integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness. There are no pending issues related to his driver’s license and all criminal conduct issues have been resolved. AG ¶ 32(a) and 32(d) are established to mitigate the conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.c–2.d. Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern under this guideline is described in 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. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable: 15

(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 qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; (b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative; (c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; and (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations. AG ¶ 16(a) is applicable to the conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.d–3.e but does not apply to the conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 3.c. Applicant disclosed his 2004 arrest and conviction for marijuana and drug paraphernalia in his 2006 SCA, and in doing so, he provided some evidence of his involvement with marijuana. His failure to correctly respond to the question about marijuana use is consistent with a person making a mistake and is insufficient to support finding a deliberate omission or falsification. This was Applicant’s first time ever completing a security clearance application. SOR ¶ 3.c is found in his favor. AG ¶ 16(b) applies to the conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 3.f. AG ¶ 16(c) is broad in scope and applicable to the conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a, which cross-alleges SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.n, and 2.b–2.d. It also applies to the conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 3.b. Applicant’s alleged conduct is explicitly covered under Guidelines H and J and under AG ¶ 16(c) of this guideline. However, AG ¶ 16(d) does not apply based on the plain language of the provision. 16

AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following are potentially applicable: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (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; and (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. Comments made under Guidelines H and J are incorporated here. AG ¶ 17(c) is established to mitigate the allegation in SOR ¶ 3.b. Applicant’s 2009 general discharge (under honorable conditions) from the Army due to misconduct (drug use) happened a long time ago under circumstances unlikely to recur. AG ¶¶ 17(c) and 17(d) are established to mitigate the conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.d–3.f. Applicant acknowledged and responsibility for inconsistent statements in his April 2012 SCA and August 2012 background interview. He had difficulty remembering events and responses to questions he answered 14 years ago. He submitted AE I and AE J in an effort to correct inconsistencies. He also researched and submitted evidence concerning his own criminal conduct and civil infractions background. He has difficulty remembering events due to years of legal and illegal drug use, and physical and mental health ailments that went untreated for years. During the hearing, he was unable to recall events and basic facts in some instances. I find his attempts to remember, to be sincere and honest, and conducted in good faith even though some of the facts he represented in his 2012 SCA contradicted the evidence established in the case. The conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.d–3.f occurred more than 14 years ago under unique circumstances unlikely to recur. Applicant acknowledged his behavior, obtained counseling, received extensive outpatient and inpatient treatment through the veterans treatment court program, and completed all requirements in May 2022. He has taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. He continues to prioritize his mental health and routinely meets with his doctors and health care providers at the VA. He expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve the government in a different capacity; he loves his job; he is getting married to his fiancée next month; and he continues to pursue education and training, which is being funded by his employer. 17

AG ¶¶ 17(c) and 17(d) are established to mitigate conduct alleged in SOR ¶ 3.a. Though the cross-alleged conduct in SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.n, and 2.b–2.d has the potential to support a “whole person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, . . . or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information,” under AG ¶ 16(c), for the reasons explained under Guidelines H and J, and the whole person analysis below, it does not. As stated above, Applicant acknowledged his behavior, obtained counseling, received extensive outpatient and inpatient treatment through the veterans treatment court program, and successfully completed all requirements in May 2022. He has taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, and factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. He continues to prioritize his mental health, routinely meets with his doctors and mental health care providers. He is performing well and loves his job and has a strong support group, including his fiancée, professional colleagues, friends, father, and other family members. He continues to pursue education and training, which is being funded by his employer. Whole-Person Analysis 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. In applying the whole- person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (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. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines H, J, and E in my whole- person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). I considered the entire record, including Applicant’s service in the Army laying fiber optic cables in a combat zone, his age at the time he served and his mental health challenges upon his return to civilian life, which are documented in his medical records, and which were obvious to his father, with whom he had a close relationship. Applicant was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. 18

I also considered Applicant’s education and potential, his work history, his clearance history, and his strong character evidence, particularly the recommendation of his current supervisor, two colleagues, his father, teacher, and his fiancée, who all stood firmly behind him, with the full knowledge of his checkered history, fully supporting his eligibility for a clearance. Regarding Applicant’s rehabilitation and permanent behavioral change, considered his supervisor’s description of him as a “bright, capable, and principled young professional with significant potential,” stating he “has proven himself to be trustworthy, respectful, and dependable.” The supervisor also respectfully recommended that this tribunal “give [his] reference full consideration in support of [Applicant’s] security clearance eligibility.” His fiancée’s comments were equally compelling concerning his honesty; how he does not minimize his past mistakes but speaks openly about the consequences of his choices; and how that past period of his life does not reflect the person he is today; and her comments about his whole-hearted commitment to maintaining his long-term stability. Her comments were also consistent with my observations and assessment of his credibility. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines H, J and E and evaluating all evidence in the whole-person context, I conclude Applicant mitigated security concerns raised under drug involvement and substance misuse, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. Considering the full record, I conclude there is no basis to doubt Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a–1.n:

For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline J:

FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 2.a–2.d: For Applicant

Paragraph 3, Guideline E:

FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 3.a–3.f:

For Applicant

I 19

________________________ Conclusion It is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Gatha LaFaye Administrative Judge 20