ISCR Case No. 25-01563

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01563 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Jenny Bayer, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/14/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), I (Psychological Conditions), and E (Personal Conduct). Security concerns under Guidelines G, H, and I are mitigated, and the security concerns under Guideline E have been refuted. Clearance is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on December 10, 2022. On February 27, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines G, H, I, and E. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 1

Applicant answered the SOR on March 9, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on April 16, 2026. The case was assigned to me on June 2, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted by video teleconference on July 28, 2026. On June 26, 2026, DOHA notified Applicant that the hearing was rescheduled for August 20, 2026. I convened the hearing as rescheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A, B, and C, which were admitted without objection. I kept the record open until August 31, 2026, to enable him to submit additional documentary evidence. He timely submitted AX D, which was admitted over Department Counsel’s objection, and AX E through H, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript on September 1, 2026. Evidentiary Issue Department Counsel objected to AX D, the mental health evaluation of Applicant by a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) submitted post-hearing on the ground that it lacked evidence of the LCSW’s professional qualifications, contained no discussion of formalized assessments, and contained no discussion of materials that were reviewed. I overruled the objection but deferred a decision on the admissibility and weight of the evidence. See ISCR Case No. 04-012449 (App. Bd. May 14, 2007 (encouraging administrative judges to err on the side of initially admitting evidence and then deciding what weight, if any, to give the evidence). Applicant subsequently submitted AX E through G, setting out the LCSW’s qualifications, materials reviewed, and a detailed evaluation. The evidence reflects that the LCSW holds active clinical social work licenses in three states, has over 15 years of experience, 11 years of specializing in substance use disorders, and over seven years in detoxification and supervisory roles. Based on the evidence in AX E through G, I have admitted AX D over Department Counsel’s objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 32-year-old software engineer employed by a federal contractor since November 2022. He served in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from March 2012 to March 2015 and was honorably discharged. In his SCA, he indicated that he had never held a security clearance. (GX 1 at 33). However, the record reflects that he signed a non-disclosure agreement in July 2012, while he was in the ARNG. (GX 5) He served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 2018 to April 2019, including a deployment to a combat zone. He was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions, after failing a physical fitness test twice. He married in April 2022 and has two children. 2

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations in the SOR, except SOR ¶¶ 2.d, 2.i, and 4.f, which he denied. The evidence submitted at the hearing reflects that his admissions of the alleged falsifications under Guideline E were an admission that his answers to questions during his security investigation were incorrect, but the evidence submitted at the hearing reflects that he did not intend to admit intentional falsification of material facts. His admissions to the allegations under Guidelines G, H, and I are incorporated in my findings of fact. The evidence regarding the allegations in the SOR is summarized below. Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G, SOR ¶ 1.a alleges that Applicant consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication from about 2006 to at least February 2023. He admitted this allegation in his answer to the SOR. When he was interviewed by a security investigator in February 2023, he admitted that his excessive drinking while on active duty caused him to oversleep and miss formations. SOR ¶ 1.b alleges that Applicant was medically referred to a military substance use disorder clinic in November 2018 due to self-reported excessive alcohol consumption. SOR ¶ 1.c alleges that Applicant received treatment at the military clinic and was diagnosed with a moderate alcohol use disorder. Applicant admitted both allegations in his answer to the SOR. At the hearing, he testified that he used marijuana before entering on active duty, but he substituted alcohol for marijuana during his military service. (Tr. 63) In response to DOHA interrogatories in February 2026, he stated that he now drinks beer once every two months and hard liquor once or twice every two months, and that he last consumed hard liquor in December 2025. (GX 3) SOR ¶ 1.d alleges that Applicant was cited for underage drinking in about 2013. He admitted this allegation in his answer to the SOR. Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse Under Guideline H, SOR ¶ 2.a alleges that Applicant used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with varying frequency from about 2008 to at least January 2022, SOR ¶ 2.b alleges that he used THC from about February 2011 to about at least April 2019 while holding a sensitive position, and SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that he used cocaine with varying frequency from about 2011 to about at least November 2018. Applicant admitted all three allegations in his answer to the SOR. However, in response to DCSA interrogatories in June 2023, he stated that he stopped using marijuana when he was in the military. It is not clear whether he meant to say that he abstained from marijuana during his ARNG service from March 2012 to March 2015, during his later active duty, or both. At the hearing, he testified that during his active-duty service, he substituted alcohol for marijuana, knowing that marijuana use was prohibited. (Tr. 63) 3

SOR ¶ 2.d alleges that Applicant used non-prescribed amphetamines in about 2018. Applicant denied this allegation in his answer to the SOR, saying “I have no recollection of using non-prescribed amphetamines. I’ve been prescribed Adderall for ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] but that usage stopped in 2012-13.” When Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator in February 2023, he stated that he had not been involved with any controlled substances or prescription medications in the last seven years. (GX 3 at 15) However, when he responded to DCSA interrogatories in June 2023, he admitted using prescription-controlled painkillers in high school and that his last use w as about eight years before he responded t o the interrogatories. (GX 2 at 4) This allegation is established. SOR ¶ 2.i alleges that in February 2019, Applicant met the criteria for a severe opioid use disorder. He denied this allegation in his answer to the SOR. His medical record following treatment on January 31, 2019, contains the following comment: “SM met criteria for Opioid, Severe more than one year ago, with use on 3 occasions in the past year.” When he responded to DOHA interrogatories in February 2026, he disclosed that he used non-prescribed opioids a “few times a month” in 2010 and 2011, (GX 3 at 5) Notwithstanding Applicant’s denial of this allegation, it is established by the medical evidence in the record. SOR ¶ 2.e alleges that Applicant used inhalants in about 2018, SOR ¶ 2.f alleges that he used non-prescribed opioids from about 2017 to about 2018, SOR ¶ 2.g alleges that he used mushrooms in about 2017, and SOR ¶ 1.h alleges that he used LSD in about 2016. Applicant admitted these allegations in his answer to the SOR. In response to DCSA interrogatories in June 2023, Appellant disclosed that he used marijuana “on and off” in high school, stopped using it in when he was in the military, and used it once at his bachelor party in about January 2022. He disclosed that he used cocaine “a few times,” and his last use was about seven years ago. He disclosed that he used LSD once about eight years ago, mushrooms about seven years ago, and painkillers in high school. He stated that he stopped using illegal substances because they were a waste of money. (GX 2 at 4) In response to DOHA interrogatories in February 2026, he stated that he used marijuana daily when he was 14 to 16 years old and last used it in 2020. (GX 3 at 5) This statement about his last use was inconsistent with his June 2023 response to DCSA interrogatories admitting marijuana use at his bachelor party in January 2022. In his response to the DCSA interrogatories, he also disclosed that he used cocaine three to five times between 2011 and 2016, used non-prescription opioids a few times a month in 2010 and 2011, used inhalants twice in 2010, used mushrooms once in 2017, and used LSD once in 2016. (GX 2 at 4) 4

Guideline I, Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I, SOR ¶ 3.a alleges that Applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood in about November 2018, and SOR ¶ 3.b alleges that he admitted having suicidal ideations resulting in evacuation from a combat zone and receiving intensive outpatient treatment. Applicant admitted these allegations in his answer to the SOR. Medical records reflect that while deployed to a combat zone, he was escorted to an emergency facility after he had made comments about self-harm, expressing a desire to be with his deceased former fiancée. Applicant admitted that there were times when he felt depressed and had morbid ideation when thinking about an automobile accident two years earlier in July 2016, when his best friend and his fiancée were killed. A military medical professional diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, but with a low risk of suicide, and he was medically evacuated. (GX 6 at 209-11) SOR ¶¶ 3.a and 3.b are established by the evidence. An LCSW has been providing outpatient therapy for Applicant since February 2026. The LCSW believes that Applicant does not have clinical indicators of a substance use disorder or alcohol use disorder. (AX D) In her initial evaluation, she noted that he had been diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by a Veterans Affairs clinic. Applicant told her that he had panic or anxiety attacks while driving a motor vehicle, which had been occurring for seven years after the car accident in 2016, when his fiancée and a close friend were killed. These events triggered the alcohol-related and drug-related conduct alleged in the SOR. She concluded that his current symptoms “are most consistent with PTSD-related physiological reactivity to trauma cues and situationally bound panic attacks. She diagnosed him with PTSD, with panic symptoms related to trauma exposure. She concluded that he required outpatient psychotherapy, which is ongoing, and her prognosis was “good.” (AX F) Guideline E, Personal Conduct Under Guideline E, SOR ¶¶ 4.a through 4.e allege multiple falsifications in Applicant’s December 2022 SCA. SOR ¶¶ 4.f and 4.g allege falsifications during an interview with a security investigator in February 2023. SOR ¶ 4.h alleges falsification in a response to DOHA interrogatories. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the allegations of falsification except for SOR ¶ 4.f, which he denied. It was apparent from Applicant’s testimony at the hearing that he admitted multiple falsifications in answers to questions about drug involvement in his SCA because his answers were incorrect, but he did not admit that he intentionally provided false information or omitted information. He also testified that he was advised when he was completing his SCA, he could clarify any mistakes in his SCA during a follow-up interview with a security investigator. (Tr. 41) During the hearing, Applicant stated several times that he has a bad memory for dates. The LCSW supported his statement. During the hearing, Applicant was often confused and distressed about his inability to recall specific dates. He repeatedly stated 5

that he has difficulty remembering dates. At one point during the hearing, he was so distressed that I recessed the hearing to enable him to regain his composure. (Tr. 60) He admitted that he was not careful about his responses to questions in his SCA, because he had been informed that any misstatements or omissions could be resolved in the follow-up interview by a security investigator. Some omissions and misstatements were not resolved because his faulty memory persisted during the follow-up interviews. The LCSW who has been treating Applicant since February 2026 noted that he has difficulty with precise chronological recall and frequently demonstrates noticeable effort when attempting to reconstruct timelines and distinguish the sequence of historical events. She opined that his difficulties with precise recall “provide relevant context when considering discrepancies in his chronological reporting,” and that “such discrepancies, standing alone, do not establish intentional misrepresentation.” (AX D) She stated, “From a clinical perspective, difficulty with chronological sequencing and memory fragmentation are recognized functional features associated with severe post-traumatic stress systems.” She noted that throughout her outpatient treatment of Applicant, she observed “ongoing patterns of memory recall difficulty when discussing past timelines.” She opined that “these reported timeline discrepancies align with established neuro-cognitive and trauma- related memory limitations.” SOR ¶¶ 4.a and 4.b allege that Applicant falsely answered “No” to two questions in the SCA about his use of alcohol. The first question asked: “Have you ever been ordered, advised, or asked to seek counseling or treatment as a result of your use of alcohol?” The second question asked, “Have you ever voluntarily sought counseling or treatment as a result of your use of alcohol?” He did not disclose that he was referred to a medical facility for treatment of his excessive alcohol consumption in November 2018, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. In his answer to the SOR, he stated that he thought the questions applied only to “legal troubles with law enforcement.” When he was interviewed by a security investigator in February 2023, he corrected his answer to the SOR question and disclosed his counseling and treatment. (GX 3 at 12) SOR ¶¶ 4.c and 4.d both allege an incomplete answer to the same question in the SCA. SOR ¶ 4.c alleges that Applicant answered “Yes” to the question in his SCA asking about any illegal drug involvement in the last seven years but falsely stated that he used marijuana through April 2020 and did not disclose his use of other illegal substances. In his answer to the SOR, he admitted this allegation and explained, I hadn’t used any drugs in so long I didn’t think I did anything other than marijuana.” Given Applicant’s use of multiple drugs over a significant time period, his explanation was plausible and credible. When he responded to DCSA interrogatories in June 2023, he fully disclosed the types of controlled substances, the approximate dates of use, and his estimated frequency of use. This allegation is not established, because the evidence falls short of proving intentional falsification. SOR ¶ 4.d alleges that Applicant answered “Yes” to the question in is SCA asking about any illegal drug involvement in the last seven years and disclosed his marijuana 6

use, but that he deliberately failed to disclose the use of other illegal drugs alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.c through 2.g (cocaine, amphetamines, inhalants, opioids, mushrooms, and LSD). Applicant admitted this allegation in his answer to the SOR, and he fully disclosed the extent of his drug use in response to DCSA interrogatories. (GX 2) At the hearing, he admitted, I didn’t take the time to think—like it—I didn’t think of the time that far back. That’s why I was very upfront and forthcoming with the interviewer. Because I was told if there’s anything you need to clear up, clear it up with the interviewer, and I’ never tried to hide it when asked directly about any of this stuff. (Tr. 41-42) This allegation is not established, because the evidence falls short of proving intentional falsification. SOR ¶ 4.e alleges that Applicant falsely answered “No” to the question in the SCA asking if he had ever illegally used or been illegally involved with a drug or controlled substance while holding a security clearance and failing to disclose his marijuana use from about February 2011 to at least April 2019, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b. In his answer to the SOR, he admitted answering “No.” He stated that he had a clearance while in the ARNG but never used marijuana while in the ARNG. When he was interviewed by the security investigator in February 2023, he said that he did not know how status of a clearance was affected by leaving the ARNG, but that he did not believe he was in a position of public trust when he used marijuana after leaving the ARNG. (GX 3 at 14) Applicant’s explanation was reasonable and credible. The record does not reflect the status of Applicant’s security clearance after his discharge from the ARNG. This allegation of deliberate falsification is not established. SOR ¶ 4.f alleges that Applicant falsified material facts during a personal subject interview in February 2023 by stating that his last use of marijuana was “a couple of years ago in approximately 4/2020,” and deliberately concealing that he used marijuana until at least January 2022, as he later admitted in his responses to DCSA interrogatories in June 2023. Applicant’s confusion about dates was reflected during the hearing when he was asked if his most recent drug involvement was at his bachelor party in 2022, and he responded as follows: My bachelor party? I think I did smoke on the bachelor party. And if it was 2022, then yes, but I don’t—when did I get married? Shoot. Yeah, I’ll admit I did do it on my bachelor party, but I didn’t—it’s been a while before and after that. And if it—was it 2022? If it was 2022, then it, then yes, it was 2022, but I thought—I thought it was 2020. (Tr. 49) This allegation is not established. Applicant denied this allegation, and he was clearly confused about the date at the hearing. The evidence falls short of establishing intentional falsification. 7

SOR ¶ 4.g alleges that Applicant falsified material facts during his interview by a security investigator in February 2023 by stating that, other than his use of marijuana, he had not illegally used or been involved with any controlled substances or prescription medications and deliberately concealing his use of the controlled substances or prescription medications alleged in SOR ¶ 2.c through 2.h. Applicant denied this allegation in his answer to the SOR and stated, “This was before I got accurate dates and thought this was within the 7 year usage.” He fully disclosed the extent of his drug involvement in response to DCSA interrogatories. (GX 2 at 4) He gave the same answer at the hearing. (Tr. 56) His explanation is consistent with the LCSW’s observation about his difficulty with remembering dates. This allegation is not established. SOR ¶ 4.h alleges that Applicant falsified material facts in his responses to DOHA interrogatories in February 2026 by significantly downplaying the duration of his usage of the substances alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.c through 2.f. He did not admit or deny this allegation in his response to the SOR. He stated, “I tried a lot of different things, but I didn’t feel like I used them that much. Most of the usage, other than marijuana and opioids in around 2011-2012, I only tried the drugs once, other I did a handful of times.” The evidence reflects faulty memory rather than intentional falsification. Furthermore, this allegation largely duplicates the specific falsifications alleged in SOR ¶¶ 4.c, 4.d, and 4.g, and SOR ¶¶ 4.c and 4.d both allege an incomplete answer to the same question in the SCA. When the same conduct is alleged more than once in the SOR under the same guideline, the duplicative allegations should be resolved in Applicant’s favor. ISCR Case No. 03-04704 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2005). Accordingly, I have resolved SOR ¶¶ 4.c and 4.h for Applicant. SOR ¶ 4.i alleges Applicant’s discharge from the Army in April 2019 for unsatisfactory performance. When Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator in February 2023, he disclosed that he failed physical fitness tests twice in January 2019, resulting in his discharge from the Army. (GX 3 at 11-12) In April 2019, he received a general discharge under honorable conditions. (GX 4) In his answer to the SOR, he admitted this allegation. Applicant’s discharge was based on his lack of physical fitness, not on factors related to good judgment, personal conduct or trustworthiness. As such, his honorable discharge for unsatisfactory performance does not raise any security concerns under Guideline E. This allegation is refuted by the evidence submitted at the hearing. Whole Person Evidence Applicant’s program manager has worked closely with him for more than three years. She submitted a letter stating that Applicant has consistently demonstrated sound judgment, reliability, and a high degree of professionalism. She states that he conducts himself with maturity, maintains composure under pressure, and demonstrates thoughtful decision-making, even in challenging situations. She has noted that Applicant is actively involved in his community and is a “highly engaged and dedicated father.” She states that she has “full confidence in [Applicant’s] character, reliability, and trustworthiness. (AX A) 8

The chief operating officer for Applicant’s employer considers him a dependable team member. She states that he “unites our engineering teams with his sense of humor, service, and contributions to all tasks and mission support.” She notes that he is actively involved in family activities and the community. She states that she trusts Applicant with any work task, including the security of missions at their company. (AX B) The president of the company that sponsored Applicant for a security clearance is aware of his troubled past and believes that Applicant is now on a “good path in his life.” He describes Applicant as a wonderful team member, a great family man, and an excellent software engineer with meticulous attention to detail and a robust “can do” attitude. (AX C) Applicant’s wife submitted a letter in which she took responsibility for some of the stress Applicant encountered while deployed to a combat zone, while she was dealing with a difficult pregnancy and post-partum depression. She states that he is kind and selfless, a good example for their two children, and actively involved in the community. (AX I) Applicant’s employer, who is also a close friend, submitted a letter in support of Applicant’s application for a security clearance. He states that he no longer considers Applicant an “employee,” but instead regards him as a partner. He admires Applicant for his honesty, accountability, honesty, and compassion. He describes Applicant as “one of the best human beings I have ever met.” (AX H) 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 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 9

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 at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “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. 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 at 531. Analysis Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 21: “Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. 10

The following disqualifying conditions are established by Applicant’s admissions and the evidence submitted at the hearing: AG ¶ 22(b): alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; AG ¶ 22(c): habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; and AG ¶ 22(d): diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: AG ¶ 23(a): so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 23(b): the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; and AG ¶ 23(c): the individual is participating in a counseling or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment program. The first prong of AG ¶ 23(a) (“so much time has passed”) focuses on whether the conduct was recent. There are no bright line rules for determining when conduct is recent. The determination must be based on a careful evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of time has passed without any evidence of misconduct, then an administrative judge must determine whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient to warrant a finding of reform or rehabilitation. ISCR Case No. 02-24452 at 6 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2004). Applicant’s citation for underage drinking in 2013, when he was an adolescent, is mitigated by the passage of time. There is no evidence of alcohol abuse until his period of service in the ARNG, when he substituted alcohol for marijuana. The evidence shows that Applicant self-reported and sought treatment for his excessive alcohol consumption 11

in November 2018. When he responded to DOHA interrogatories in February 2026, he had reduced his alcohol consumption to drinking once every two months, and he had not consumed hard liquor since December 2025. He has received counseling from his LCSW, who observed no clinical indicators of an alcohol-based disorder. Based on the evidence, I conclude that AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c) are established. 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. On October 25, 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (the Security Executive Agent (SecEA)) issued DNI Memorandum ES 2014-00674, “Adherence to Federal Laws Prohibiting M

arijuana Use,” which states: [C]hanges to state laws and the laws of the District of Columbia pertaining to marijuana use do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines . . . . An individual’s disregard of federal law pertaining to the use, sale, or manufacture of marijuana remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. As always, adjudicative authorities are expected to evaluate claimed or developed use of, or involvement with, marijuana using the current adjudicative criteria. The adjudicative authority must determine if the use of, or involvement with, marijuana raises questions about the individual’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with law, rules, and regulations, including federal laws, when making eligibility decisions of persons proposed for, or occupying, sensitive national security positions. On December 21, 2021, a subsequent SecEA promulgated clarifying guidance concerning marijuana-related issues in security clearance adjudications. It states in pertinent part: [Federal] agencies are instructed that prior recreational marijuana use by an individual may be relevant to adjudications but not determinative. The SecEA has provided direction in [the adjudicative guidelines] to agencies 12

that requires them to use a “whole-person concept.” This requires adjudicators to carefully weigh a number of variables in an individual’s life to determine whether that individual’s behavior raises a security concern, if at all, and whether that concern has been mitigated such that the individual may now receive a favorable adjudicative determination. Relevant mitigations include, but are not limited to, frequency of use and whether the individual can demonstrate that future use is unlikely to recur, including by signing an attestation or other such appropriate mitigation. . . . The following disqualifying conditions under this guideline are established by Applicant’s admissions and the evidence submitted at the hearing: AG ¶ 25(a): any substance misuse (see above definition); AG ¶ 25(c): illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and AG ¶ 25(f): any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 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 p attern 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; and AG ¶ 26(d): satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, 13

without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional. AG ¶ 26(a) is established. Applicant stopped using cocaine, amphetamines, opioids, inhalants, LSD, and mushrooms at least seven years ago. He stopped using THC in about April 2019, except for one instance in January 2022, more than four years ago. AG ¶ 26(b) is partially established. There is no evidence reflecting Applicant’s disassociation from former drug users or a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse. The fact that his last use of THC was at his bachelor party in January 2022 indicates that his circle of friends includes THC users. The SecEA guidance recognizes that recreational use of marijuana has become commonplace. However, his environment has changed. He is now married, deeply devoted to his son, and heavily involved in his community. He has a rewarding job. He has gained the respect of the president of the company that sponsored him for a clearance and his program manager and established a reputation as a talented and meticulous software engineer. AG ¶ 26(d) is partially established. Applicant is receiving treatment from an LCSW, who observed no clinical indicators of a substance use disorder or alcohol use disorder. Her prognosis is “Good.” Guideline I, Psychological Conditions The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 27: Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. Applicant’s admissions, medical records, and the report of the LCSW, discussed above under Guideline H, establish the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 28(a): behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, 14

manipulative, impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors; and AG ¶ 28(b): an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 29(a): the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan; AG ¶ 29(b): the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional; AG ¶ 29(c): recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation; and AG ¶ 29(e): there is no indication of a current problem. AG ¶¶ 29(a) and 29(b) are established by the LCSW’s report discussed above under Guideline I. Even though Applicant requires continued psychotherapy for his PTSD and anxiety, he is voluntarily complying with his treatment plan, has the support of his family and employer, and has received a favorable prognosis from the LCSW. AG ¶ 29(c) is not established because there is no evidence that the LCSW is “employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government.” AG ¶ 29(e) is partially established. The LCSW’s report indicates that Applicant displays no diagnostic or observational indicators of active alcohol use disorder or substance abuse disorder. However, his PTSD with panic symptoms requires continued psychotherapy, which he is receiving. Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern under this guideline is set out 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 15

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. . . . The following disqualifying conditions under this guideline are potentially applicable: AG ¶16(a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; an AG ¶ 16(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 representative. When a falsification allegation is controverted, as in this case, the Government has the burden of proving it. An omission, standing alone, does not prove falsification. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission. See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). An applicant’s experience and level of education are relevant to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on a security clearance application was deliberate. ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010). None of the above disqualifying conditions are established. At the hearing, Applicant was candid, sincere, and credible, and he struggled to remember the details of his alcohol and substance abuse. His omissions and misstatements were due to his faulty memory and his difficulty with associating his conduct with specific dates and events. His LCSW has corroborated his claimed memory problems and attributes them to PTSD, a condition beyond his control, but for which he is receiving psychotherapy. Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the 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 16

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 G, H, I, and E in my whole- person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). He was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. Applicant is receiving treatment for his PTSD and has the support of his family and his employer. I conclude that he has refuted the allegations of intentional falsification during his security investigation and shown that the circumstances of his general discharge under honorable conditions do not raise security concerns. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under those guidelines and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol consumption, drug involvement, and psychological conditions. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d:

For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline H (Drug Involvement and

Substance Misuse):

FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a-2.i: For Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline I (Psychological Conditions): FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 3.a and 3.b: For Applicant Paragraph 4, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 4.a-4.h: For Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol consumption, drug involvement, 17

and psychological conditions. He has refuted the allegations of personal conduct and intentional falsifications during the security clearance process. Clearance is granted. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge 18