Summary
The applicant, a 63-year-old electrical engineer assistant, sought restoration of her security clearance under Guideline H due to a history of illegal drug use, specifically marijuana, from 1973 to 2016. Despite her claims of abstaining from marijuana use since April 2016 and her efforts to disassociate from drug-using associates, the judge found insufficient evidence of sustained abstinence and ongoing risk of recurrence, leading to a denial of her security clearance.
Under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: used marijuana with varying frequency from approximately August 1973 to April 2016 (1.a). continued to use marijuana after being granted a security clearance in January 2001 (1.b).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC ¶ 25(a), DC ¶ 25(c), DC ¶ 25(f). The judge applied mitigating conditions MC ¶ 26(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's history of illegal drug use raised significant security concerns regarding her reliability and trustworthiness; The applicant's marijuana use continued after being granted a security clearance, violating federal law and DOD policies; Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate a sustained pattern of abstinence or effective rehabilitation efforts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's history of illegal drug use raised significant security concerns regarding her reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant's marijuana use continued after being granted a security clearance, violating federal law and DOD policies.
- Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate a sustained pattern of abstinence or effective rehabilitation efforts.
Conditions referenced
- DC ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Drug Abuse
- DC ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
- DC ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
- MC ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant's claims of abstinence were too recent and lacked corroborating evidence.
Key rule quoted
“A decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedNov 4, 2016
- Answer filedNov 26, 2016
- Hearing held—Decided based on written record.
- Decision dateOct 1, 2017
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
- Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Efforts in Drug Involvement Cases
- Importance of Sustained Abstinence From Illegal Substances for Security Clearance Eligibility