Loading case…

ISCR 07-03596.a1: Guideline H security clearance hearing, granted (2008) · CASE

ISCR Case 07-03596.a1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-03596.a1

grantedMar 7, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old applicant, holding a bachelor's degree and pursuing a master's, was granted a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The decision was based on the applicant demonstrating over four years of abstinence from marijuana use and making significant lifestyle changes to avoid drug involvement.

The Administrative Judge found that the applicant expressed remorse for past actions and presented character witnesses who positively testified to his reliability. These factors aligned with mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b), which supports a favorable outcome when there is clear evidence of rehabilitation and a low probability of recurrence.

Despite some dissenting concerns raised on appeal regarding the applicant's credibility concerning past disclosures, the initial favorable decision was affirmed, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant demonstrated over four years of abstinence from marijuana use.
The applicant made significant lifestyle changes to avoid drug use.
Character witnesses testified positively about the applicant's reliability.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the Future
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAppropriate Period of Abstinence

Key rule quoted

“It was not unreasonable for the Judge to find mitigation after a period of over four years of abstinence from marijuana.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJul 10, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 31, 2007
Decision dateMar 7, 2008

Cite for

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline H
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions
Period of Abstinence as a Mitigating Factor

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

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 26: “Applicant is 26 years old.”
Held a clearance before: Yes: “including three times after he received a security clearance in January 2002.”

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had abstained from marijuana for over four years and had made significant lifestyle changes to avoid drug use. The favorable decision was affirmed, indicating that the applicant's past drug involvement was sufficiently mitigated by his abstinence and positive changes in his life.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation

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

Full decision

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

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline H DIGEST: In this instance it was not unreasonable for the Judge to find mitigation after a period of over four years of abstinence from marijuana. Favorable decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-03596.a1 DATE: 03/07/2008 DATE: March 7, 2008 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-03596

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Paul M. DeLaney, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Kathleen E. Voelker, Esq.

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 10, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis “a demonstrated intent not to abuse drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period of abstinence; (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation;” Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 26(b). for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On October 31, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On appeal, Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s application of Guideline H mitigating conditions and his whole-person analysis are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is 26 years old. He holds a bachelor’s degree and has completed 70% of the requirements for a master’s degree. Applicant smoked marijuana 16 times between May 1995 and May 2003, including three times after he received a security clearance in January 2002. Applicant has not used marijuana since May 2003. He has changed his lifestyle since that time and avoids situations and persons that would bring him into contact with drug use. Applicant now has a stable relationship with a successful career woman and is pursuing an advanced degree. He is focused on his career and his future. Applicant expressed remorse and stated his intent not to use drugs in the future. Three character witnesses testified to his character and reliability. In finding favorably for Applicant under Guideline H, the Judge applied ¶ 26(b) of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines in mitigation of the government’s security concerns. The factual findings above cover three of the mitigating conditions in ¶ 26(b). With reference to the “appropriate period of abstinence,” the Board has not articulated a “bright-line rule” for a required period of abstinence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 98-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 1, 1999). In this instance, it was not unreasonable for the Judge to find mitigation after a period of over four years of abstinence. The Judge’s conclusions regarding mitigation are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence and are neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. Likewise, the Judge’s whole-person analysis is supported by the record evidence. Examining the Judge’s decision in light of his findings and the record as a whole, the board concludes that he articulates “a satisfactory explanation for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs, Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). We hold that the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

ORDER

The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Dissenting Opinion of Jeffrey D. Billett, Board Member I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ decision to affirm the Judge’s decision in this case. Because I believe that the Judge’s favorable credibility assessment of Applicant was flawed, and because I believe that credibility assessment looms large in the Judge’s ultimate disposition of the case, I vote to remand the case. In the “Conclusions” portion of his decision, the Judge offered the following: “Applicant listed his drug use in his security clearance application. This is positive because candor with the government about a person’s negatives is the crux of a trustworthiness determination. If a person discloses the adverse information about himself, it supports the notion of trustworthiness.” A reading of the Judge’s decision as a whole indicates that his acceptance of Applicant’s testimony and statements about his regrets concerning his past marijuana use, the adjustments he made to avoid his past lifestyle, and his intent not to use drugs in the future were based, to a significant degree, upon his favorable credibility assessment of Applicant. As the preceding quoted language from the decision indicates, the Judge specifically pointed to the fact that Applicant had been forthright in his disclosure of his past marijuana use when responding to government inquiries about that use. This finding of forthrightness in turn provided the basis for the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant was entirely credible and trustworthy. The Judge’s conclusions notwithstanding, when the detailed evidence in the record is considered, it indicates that Applicant may have been less than completely forthright when revealing his marijuana use. On a 2002 security clearance application, Applicant revealed only marijuana use between 1995 and 1998. In a subsequent security clearance application completed in 2006, Applicant reveals, for the first time, multiple marijuana uses that took place in 2001. Additionally, Applicant eventually admitted to illegally using marijuana a total of 16 times from 1995 to 2003, while he disclosed only a total of 11 marijuana usages on the two security clearance applications he submitted and in his answers to interrogatories concerning his drug use. These omissions are more than minor discrepancies, especially in the context of a Judge’s decision that specifically touts Applicant’s credibility based on his truthfulness in revealing his marijuana use to the government. The objective evidence suggests the real possibility that Applicant was less than truthful with the government, yet the Judge does not mention the omissions or discrepancies in his decision. I would remand this case to the Judge and require him to reevaluate his favorable credibility assessment of Applicant in light of the evidence suggesting a lack of candor, and then require him to reconsider his overall favorable security clearance decision. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board