Summary
A 48-year-old engineer technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant contested the revocation, acknowledging past drug use and completion of a substance-abuse program. However, a recent incident of marijuana use in January 2017, while he already held a security clearance, was a primary concern.
The Statement of Reasons highlighted the applicant's history of marijuana involvement and questioned his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(b), and AG ¶ 25(f), while AG ¶ 26(b) was applied as a mitigating condition.
Ultimately, the security clearance was denied. The judge cited the applicant's admission of recent marijuana use while holding a clearance, his failure to self-report this drug use, and a history of drug involvement, including two arrests and a conviction. These factors led to a finding of insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and a serious lapse in judgment.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to recent marijuana use while holding a security clearance, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant's failure to self-report his drug use undermined his credibility and suitability for a security clearance.
- The applicant's history of drug involvement, including two arrests and a conviction, contributed to the decision against him.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Abuse
- AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
- AG ¶ 25(f)raisedAny Illegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information or Holding a Sensitive Position
- AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedThe 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 AbstinenceThe applicant's recent marijuana use and lack of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation outweighed his acknowledgment and intent to abstain.
Key Rule Quoted
“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 28, 2017
- Answer filedAug 16, 2017
- Hearing heldApr 19, 2018
- Decision dateMay 10, 2019
Cite For
- Evaluation of Recent Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance Under Guideline H
- Consideration of an Applicant's History of Drug Involvement in Security Clearance Decisions
- Impact of Self-reporting on Credibility in Security Clearance Cases