Summary
The applicant, a 36-year-old senior systems analyst, was denied security clearance due to a significant history of drug involvement and personal conduct issues, including recent marijuana use after being granted an interim clearance. Despite undergoing treatment for drug dependence and demonstrating efforts towards rehabilitation, the judge found insufficient evidence of sustained recovery and raised concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The same conduct is cross-alleged under the personal conduct concern (2.a). Applicant used marijuana from 2015 to November 2017, after she was granted access to classified information (1.a). Received treatment from Dr. R. from May 2012 to November 2013 for Drug Dependence (1.b). Received treatment at a substance abuse institute from April 2007 to May 2011 for Drug Dependence (1.c). Received treatment at a county health substance abuse center from August 2000 to April 2001 (1.d). Use of cocaine with varying frequency from January 2007 to April 2010 (1.e). Use of prescription medications without a prescription: OxyContin, Oxycodone, Heroin, and Methadone between December 2003 and October 2008 (1.f). Used marijuana with varying frequency between 1996 and November 2017 (1.g). Misuse of prescription opiates from December 2003 to December 2008 (1.h). Purchase of crack cocaine for personal use from January 2005 to January 2010 (1.i). Illegally purchased opiates for personal use between May 2003 and December 2009 (1.j). A July 2001 arrest for Possession of Marijuana and Drug Paraphernalia (1.k).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(c), AG ¶ 25(d), AG ¶ 25(f), AG ¶ 25(g), AG ¶ 16(c), AG ¶ 16(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(b), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 17(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to a long history of polysubstance abuse, including marijuana and cocaine use; The applicant used marijuana on two occasions in 2017 after being granted an interim security clearance, raising concerns about her judgment and reliability; The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation, as the applicant's recent drug use indicated a potential risk for recurrence.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to a long history of polysubstance abuse, including marijuana and cocaine use.
- The applicant used marijuana on two occasions in 2017 after being granted an interim security clearance, raising concerns about her judgment and reliability.
- The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation, as the applicant's recent drug use indicated a potential risk for recurrence.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
- AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
- AG ¶ 25(d)raisedDiagnosis of Substance Use Disorder
- AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
- AG ¶ 25(g)raisedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement
- AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken to Overcome ItThe applicant acknowledged her drug use and has been actively participating in recovery programs.
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Obtaining CounselingThe applicant has taken steps to address her substance misuse through treatment and support groups.
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to ExploitationThe applicant has openly disclosed her drug use and is willing to undergo random drug testing.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 12, 2018
- Answer filedMay 19, 2018
- Hearing heldJan 29, 2019
- Decision dateMar 29, 2019
Cite For
- Evaluation of Recent Drug Use Under Guideline H
- Consideration of Rehabilitation Efforts in Security Clearance Cases
- Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility