CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03929.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03929.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03929.h1

grantedJul 13, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Kilmartin· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant, representing themselves, who sought a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged infrequent marijuana use from approximately September 2006 to August 2015, and infrequent cocaine use from October 2010 to October 2015. These allegations raised Disqualifying Conditions H.1 and H.2.

The applicant admitted to the allegations, acknowledging infrequent marijuana and cocaine use during their college years. However, they demonstrated a strong commitment to future abstinence from illegal drugs. The applicant also provided robust character references, establishing a reputation for trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the judge applied Mitigating Conditions H.1 and H.2, finding that the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness outweighed their past drug use. The security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant self-disclosed his drug use and admitted to the allegations in the SOR.
He demonstrated a commitment to abstain from illegal drugs in the future.
The applicant provided strong character references and had a reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedIllegal Drug Involvement
H.2rejectedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance

Mitigating

H.1appliedInfrequent Use of Illegal Drugs
H.2appliedEvidence of Rehabilitation or Changed Circumstances

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s self-disclosed drug involvement do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 22, 2017
Decision dateJul 13, 2017

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Infrequent Drug Use Under Guideline H
Evidence of Rehabilitation in Drug Involvement Cases
Importance of Character References in Security Clearance Determinations

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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had engaged in illegal drug use, specifically marijuana and cocaine, with infrequent use primarily during college years. The applicant demonstrated sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and intent to abstain from future drug use, leading to a decision in favor of granting security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The first allegation concerns use of marijuana (MJ) with varying frequency from approximately September 2006 until August 2015.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	The second allegation concerns use of cocaine with varying frequency from October 2010 until October 2015.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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. 16-03929 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/13/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On February 1, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On January 30, 2017, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility,(DOD CAF), sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline H for drug involvement. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. On May 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On June 22, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence, I e-mailed Department Counsel indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

The SOR contains two allegations of illegal drug use. The first allegation concerns use of marijuana (MJ) with varying frequency from approximately September 2006 until August 2015. The second allegation concerns use of cocaine with varying frequency from October 2010 until October 2015. Applicant self-disclosed this illegal drug use in his e-QIP, and he admitted to both allegations in his response to the SOR, and during testimony. His use was infrequent and primarily occurred during his college years. Applicant never sold illegal drugs or was arrested for possessing them. He suffered no deleterious consequences from his infrequent use and he did not possess a security clearance when he used marijuana or cocaine.

Applicant moved away from another state and his college associates in early 2016 when he returned to his home state. He married in July 2016, and his wife is expecting a baby next February. He has a mortgage and he expressed his unequivocal intent in a written pledge to never use illegal drugs again. Applicant also has a reputation above reproach for trustworthiness, reliability and honesty, as evidenced by witness testimony and his stellar character references. His job performance is superb according to his supervisor’s testimony.

Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline H. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the drug involvement security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b).

The concerns over Applicant’s self-disclosed drug involvement do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Robert J. Kilmartin Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AGs), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 2017, apply here. These AGs replaced the AGs that were effective September 1, 2006, when the SOR was issued in this case. The AGs were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). A copy of the new AGs was provided directly to Applicant in this case. I have considered this case under both sets of AGs and my conclusion would be the same under either AGs.