ISCR Case 20-02407

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02407

deniedJan 25, 2023· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old male with a master's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from his extensive marijuana use between 2001 and 2018, which included periods when he had access to classified information.

The applicant was found to have made multiple false official statements regarding his drug use in security clearance applications. Specifically, he omitted or misrepresented the duration and recency of his marijuana use, including stating he last used marijuana in 2007 when it was as recent as October 2012, and stating June 2018 when it was as recent as December 2018.

The judge determined that the applicant's conduct raised disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct and drug involvement. While some mitigating conditions were considered, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a commitment to abstain from drug use, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used marijuana from 2001 to 2018, including while having access to classified information.
He made false official statements about his drug use in multiple security clearance applications.
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of rehabilitation or a commitment to abstain from drug use.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's drug use occurred while he had access to classified information and continued until December 2018.
AG ¶ 26(b)(1)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementThe applicant's social circle included individuals who use marijuana.
AG ¶ 26(b)(3)rejectedSigned Statement of Intent to AbstainThe applicant's past statements of intent to abstain were not credible.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 25, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 22, 2022rescheduled from September 7, 2022
Decision dateJan 25, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
False Statements in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation and Intent to Abstain From Drug Use

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he omitted the fact that he had used marijuana between 2001 and 2011.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he disclosed that he had used marijuana between 2004 and 2007, when in fact, he had used marijuana between 2001 and 2012.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he stated he had last used marijuana in 2007, when in fact, he had used marijuana as recently as October 2012. (low confidence)	Unknown	Falsification Security Form	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he stated he had last used marijuana in June 2018, when in fact, he had used marijuana as recently as December 2018.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he omitted the fact that he had used marijuana between 2001 and 2011.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he disclosed that he had used marijuana between 2004 and 2007, when in fact, he had used marijuana between 2001 and 2012.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he stated he had last used marijuana in 2007, when in fact, he had used marijuana as recently as October 2012. (low confidence)

Unknown

Falsification Security Form

Other

Denied

—

2.d

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he stated he had last used marijuana in June 2018, when in fact, he had used marijuana as recently as December 2018.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana between June 2001 and December 2018.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Between January 2012 and December 2018, his marijuana use occurred while he had access to classified information.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana between June 2001 and December 2018.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

—

1.b

Between January 2012 and December 2018, his marijuana use occurred while he had access to classified information.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION