thanks for the responses!
The best thing you can do is what you’ve already said you are going to do - disclose.
Your sf-86 from 2017, the one you state you hit NO instead of YES in section 23 may be a problem for you. 23.3 and 23.5 should have been checked YES (according to your narrative). You don’t need an investigator or lawyer to tell you this…You state you’re an officer in the Army; thus, telling me you are educated and capable of accurately answering simple questions…
If I were you, I would avoid the TS/SCI if possible, just my opinion. Illegally using a controlled substance while holding a security clearance and as an officer in the military shows your disregard for the law and Army regulations. Such an action can easily be used to revoke and/or deny a TS.
-thanks- for the responses!
You state that you used those controlled substances illegally because of low testosterone. Ok, instead, why didn’t you go to the doctor for treatment of your condition? Think about that and attempt to formulate a response that mitigates concerns under Guideline H.
You also state that you didn’t know how to answer sections 23.3 & 23.5 accurately on your most recent SF-86 (which will likely be compared to any other SF form you complete in the future). Very well, be prepared to convince an adjudicator that as a Captain in the Army with two undergraduate degrees you require an investigator and or counsel to interpret very simple and direct questions to you so that you can accurately answer them. See if that helps you mitigate concerns under Guideline E.
Reference https://www.opm.gov/investigations/suitability-executive-agent/policy/decision-making-guide.pdf This site should help you understand OPM adjudication guidelines and decision making process.
On a side note, I don’t think what you did is the crime of the century;however, I’m not the one deciding your fate. The best thing you can do is disclose and if you are given an SOR then hire an attorney. There is no doubt that your odds are significantly better at getting your clearance back when you are represented by cousel as opposed to going at it pro se.
I assume that you’re applying to the CIA, by your description of the requirements involved. Just be aware that they are a law unto themselves when it comes to personnel matters, and that their practices will differ substantially from other agencies that require clearances.
thanks for the responses!
I’d like to give a philosophical answer that might help people in interviews and life.
The question asked relates to narcotic drugs (a/k/a “illegal” drugs) which affects the mind (perception, judgment, etc.). On the questionnaire it gives examples (marijuana, etc.). No example given is of a legal medicine or drug or a legal medicinal drug obtained by non-legal means. They also ask if you’ve intentionally misused Rx drugs, which involves addiction and reckless behavior. Your situation doesn’t seem to fit either. But since you’ve obtained it other than by fully legal and kosher means, you’ve equated it to narcotics (illegal drugs= legal medicines obtain through not legal methods). And since you’ve outed yourself and developed an attitude of scrupulosity and focused on this you’re best now to volunteer the gory details to the form/investigator.
Scrupulosity isn’t honesty (virtue), it is a neurotic, even paranoid, focus on transgressions (vices). When I worked as a BI I had quite a few Subjects given to scrupulosity. Now, while the investigator/government side will view scrupulosity as a good thing, for the individual, or maybe even an objective third party viewing the case, it is self-sabotaging. I’ve had Subjects who confessed that they had a dorm mate in college whom the Subject believed was downloading songs illegally from Napster for personal use and the Subject believed he, Subject, might be complicit in the violation of federal copyright laws because he, Subject, would listen to this music played by the dorm mate. And this stuff was recorded in the report of investigation as is. I’ve had many PRSIs where the Subject crucified him/herself based on perceptions and hypotheticals, not facts.
There are three parts to morality or ethics (but not necessarily law, which merely attempts to approximate justice/good). The three parts are: the act objectively, the circumstances/situation, and the motive/intention (subjective). All three must be good for an act to be good. If one of the three is wrong then the act is wrong. The only cases where an objective act (and therefore the action) could never be good involves moral absolutes (e.g., slavery, rape, et al., are universally wrong irrespective of situation and motive). Lying is clearly not an absolute because it would be objectively good to lie to Nazis at your house in Amsterdam where you’re hiding Anne Frank (both intention and situation makes it good). Etc. Etc.