CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01387 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01387denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01387

deniedJun 7, 2022· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old divorced applicant with one adult child was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to using marijuana with varying frequency from about February 2007 to July 2008, including on at least two occasions while holding access to classified information.

Further, the applicant admitted to additional marijuana use from about May 2019 to April 2020, on at least five occasions while granted access to classified information. The administrative judge found that the applicant's use of marijuana while holding access to classified information was problematic.

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted marijuana use on at least seven occasions while having access to classified information. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of abstinence or rehabilitation from drug use, which raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana on at least seven occasions while granted access to classified information.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a pattern of abstinence or rehabilitation from drug use.
The applicant's drug use raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)appliedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 14, 2021
Answer filedSep 27, 2021
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateJun 7, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Importance of Demonstrating a Pattern of Abstinence From Drug Use for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant did not falsify her January 2007 SCA, but her use of marijuana while granted access to classified information raised significant personal conduct concerns. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant did not falsify her January 2007 SCA, as her marijuana usage commenced after she executed this SCA.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant's use of marijuana while granted access to classified information is problematic.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of drug involvement, specifically regarding marijuana use. The applicant admitted to using marijuana on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance, which raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that she used marijuana with varying frequency from about February of 2007 until about July of 2008. She also admits to this usage on at least two occasions while granted access to classified information.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that she again used marijuana with varying frequency from about May of 2019 until about April of 2020. She also admits to this usage on at least five occasions while granted access to classified information.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 21-01387 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Eric C. Price, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se June 7, 2022

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case Applicant submitted security clearance applications (SCAs) on January 29,2007, and again on March 31, 2017. (Items 3 and 4.) On September 14, 2021, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines H and E. (Item 1.) The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on September 27, 2021 (Answer), and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on January 22, 2022. On January 24, 2022, a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 7. She was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. She received the FORM on February 15, 2022, and did not respond. Items 1 through 7 are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned to me on April 12, 2022.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant, age 52 years old, is divorced, and has one adult child. (Item 4 at pages 5, 16, and 19.) Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse & Guideline E - Personal Conduct 1.a., 1.b., and 2.b. Applicant admits that she used marijuana with varying frequency from about February of 2007 until about July of 2008. She also admits to this usage on at least two occasions while granted access to classified information. Applicant admits that she again used marijuana with varying frequency from about May of 2019 until about April of 2020. She also admits to this usage on at least five occasions while granted access to classified information. 2.a. Applicant did not falsify her January 2007 SCA, as her marijuana usage commenced after she executed this SCA. 1.c., 1.d., and 2.b.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or

mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth at AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any "controlled substance" as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. The guideline at AG ¶ 25 contains seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. Three conditions are established: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and (f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position.

Appellant used marijuana on numerous occasions from 2007–2008, and again from 2019–2020. She had been granted access to classified information during the period that she used marijuana at least seven times. Therefore, AG ¶ 25 (a), (c), and (f) are established. The guideline at AG ¶ 26 contains four conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Two conditions may be applicable: (a) the behavior 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 judgment; and (b) the 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 abstinence, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. None of these apply. Although her last usage of marijuana was about two years ago, Applicant used the illegal substance on at least seven occasions while granted access to classified information. Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is found against Applicant. Guideline E - Personal Conduct The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview,

completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and (b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination. Based on Applicant’s alleged deliberate falsification of her SCA and her drug use, the following disqualifying condition could apply: AG ¶ 16 (a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and (c): credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment . . . indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified information. While I find that Applicant did not falsify her SCA, Applicant’s use of marijuana while granted access to classified information is problematic. Therefore, AG ¶ 16(c) is established. The personal conduct security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by the following potentially applicable factor: AG ¶ 17 (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. After considering the mitigating condition outlined above, I find that it does not apply. Applicant used marijuana on at least seven occasions while granted access to classified information. She has not provided sufficient information in this record to demonstrate that she has met her burden of proof for her Personal Conduct. Personal Conduct is found against Applicant.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person.

An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines H and E in my whole-person analysis, and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines H and E, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by her Drug Involvement and related Personal Conduct. Accordingly, Applicant has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.d: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge