ISCR Case 15-08269.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08269.h1

grantedNov 29, 2017· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old software engineering augmentee with 19 years in the defense industry was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had used marijuana on two or three occasions between July and September 2012, and once in April 2013. These incidents involved another person blowing smoke into her face or mouth, and she had a security clearance at the time. She has not used marijuana since April 2013 and has no contact with the individuals involved.

The applicant also made false statements on her July 28, 2014, e-QIP. She incorrectly answered "No" to questions about controlled substance use in the previous seven years and whether she had ever illegally used drugs while possessing a security clearance.

However, the judge found that the applicant had mitigated these concerns. She demonstrated a credible intent to abstain from future drug use, supported by a sworn statement and negative drug tests. Her past marijuana use was infrequent, occurred under unusual circumstances, and was deemed unlikely to recur. Furthermore, she made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct her false statements on the security questionnaire. Based on these mitigating factors, her security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated credible intent not to use marijuana in the future, supported by a sworn statement and negative drug tests.
The applicant's marijuana use was infrequent and occurred under unusual circumstances, unlikely to recur.
The applicant made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct her false statements on the security questionnaire.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1.araisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
E.2.araisedConduct Showing Poor Judgment, Untrustworthiness, or Unreliability

Mitigating

H.2.aappliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Unusual Circumstances
H.2.bappliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the Problem
E.2.aappliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission or Falsification
E.2.cappliedMinor Offense or Significant Time Has Passed

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 23, 2016
Answer filedDec 16, 2016
Hearing heldApr 10, 2017
Decision dateNov 29, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Infrequent Use and Unusual Circumstances
Prompt Correction of False Statements Under Guideline E
Consideration of Character References in Security Clearance Decisions

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 filled out an e-QIP on July 28, 2014. Section 23 of the questionnaire asked Applicant about her drug use history. First of all, that section asked whether Applicant had used controlled substances during the previous seven years. Applicant stated, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning Applicant’s drug use history, since she had used marijuana as described above. The same section asks whether Applicant, “EVER illegally used or been otherwise involved with a drug or controlled substance while possessing a security clearance?” (Emphasis in original.) Applicant answered, “No.” This was also a false answer to a relevant question about Applicant’s drug use history, since she had a security clearance at the time she used marijuana in 2012 and 2013.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant filled out an e-QIP on July 28, 2014. Section 23 of the questionnaire asked Applicant about her drug use history. First of all, that section asked whether Applicant had used controlled substances during the previous seven years. Applicant stated, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning Applicant’s drug use history, since she had used marijuana as described above. The same section asks whether Applicant, “EVER illegally used or been otherwise involved with a drug or controlled substance while possessing a security clearance?” (Emphasis in original.) Applicant answered, “No.” This was also a false answer to a relevant question about Applicant’s drug use history, since she had a security clearance at the time she used marijuana in 2012 and 2013.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Drug Involvement

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Credited

Corrected Falsification Promptly

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana on about two or three occasions between July and September 2012, and once in April 2013. All the incidents involved another person blowing marijuana smoke into Applicant’s face or mouth. Applicant has had no contact with the people she used marijuana with since April 2013. There is no evidence that Applicant used marijuana during the period 2009 through 2011. She has not used marijuana since April 2013. Her current husband does not use drugs of any kind.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Documented Substance Treatment Completed
1.b	Applicant had a security clearance during the time that she was using marijuana, as set forth above.	For Applicant	Drug Use During ClearanceWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana on about two or three occasions between July and September 2012, and once in April 2013. All the incidents involved another person blowing marijuana smoke into Applicant’s face or mouth. Applicant has had no contact with the people she used marijuana with since April 2013. There is no evidence that Applicant used marijuana during the period 2009 through 2011. She has not used marijuana since April 2013. Her current husband does not use drugs of any kind.

For Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Experimental

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence

Credited

Acknowledgment and Remorse

Documented

Substance Treatment Completed

1.b

Applicant had a security clearance during the time that she was using marijuana, as set forth above.

For Applicant

Drug Use During ClearanceWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES