CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-00422.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 07-00422.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date8/16/2007
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael J. Breslin
Government Counsel: Eric H. Borgstrom
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 23-year-old software engineer for a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to drug involvement, specifically under Guideline H. The core allegations in the Statement of Reasons indicated that the applicant had unlawfully used marijuana and a prescription drug, Adderall, on multiple occasions between 2002 and 2006 while in college and during a summer internship, which he disclosed in his security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to the allegations, detailing his drug use history, which included smoking marijuana between 25 and 60 times and purchasing Adderall without a prescription on six occasions. He claimed to have ceased his drug use in March 2006 and stated that he no longer associated with individuals involved in illegal drugs. He expressed a willingness to sign a statement of intent for automatic revocation of his clearance for any future violations. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's extensive drug use over several years and the relatively short period of abstinence did not sufficiently demonstrate successful rehabilitation.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns stemming from his drug involvement. The judge emphasized that the applicant's pattern of substantial drug abuse, lack of evidence for completion of a rehabilitation program, and insufficient period of abstinence indicated that granting a security clearance would not be consistent with national security interests. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-00422.h1

deniedAug 16, 2007· Hon. Michael J. Breslin· hearing

Summary

A 23-year-old software engineer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to extensive unlawful drug use between 2002 and 2006. The applicant admitted to multiple instances of using marijuana and a prescription drug, specifically purchasing marijuana and Adderall for personal use. Additionally, the applicant assisted friends with marijuana sales on two occasions.

The Statement of Reasons highlighted that the applicant's drug abuse was extensive and prolonged, raising significant security concerns. While the applicant made efforts to distance himself from drug use, these actions were deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

The denial was based on the extensive and long-term nature of the drug abuse, the insufficient time elapsed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation, and the lack of evidence of completing a drug rehabilitation program. The decision underscored the critical need for trustworthiness in national security positions.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's drug abuse was extensive and continued for a long period, raising significant security concerns.
Insufficient time had passed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation from drug use.
The applicant failed to present evidence of completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Drug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession, Including Cultivation, Processing, Manufacture, Purchase, Sale, or Distribution

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior 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 JudgmentThe applicant's drug use was relatively recent and not infrequent.
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the FutureThe applicant indicated he no longer associates with drug users and is willing to execute a statement of intent.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”
— (AG, ¶ 2)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 23, 2007
Answer filedApr 7, 2007
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the matter decided without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 16, 2007

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Abuse Under Guideline H
Insufficient Rehabilitation Period for Drug Involvement
Importance of Demonstrating Intent to Avoid Future Drug Use

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant unlawfully used marijuana and misused Adderall on multiple occasions, including while holding a security clearance. The applicant's drug involvement was extensive, and he failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from this history. Consequently, the application for a security clearance was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant unlawfully used marijuana and a prescription drug on multiple occasions between about 2002 and 2006.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted purchasing marijuana and Adderall for personal use.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Severed Ties to Using Friends
1.c	Applicant helped friends with sales of marijuana on two occasions.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or DealingWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant's drug abuse was extensive and continued for a long time.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his history of drug involvement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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