CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03298.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 17-03298.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date8/17/2018
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Francisco Mendez
Applicant's Counsel: Mark S. Zaid
Case Summary
The judge found sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns related to the applicant's 2016 DWI conviction, ruling in favor of the applicant on the alcohol consumption allegations. However, the applicant's history of illegal drug use led to a denial of the security clearance, as the judge did not find sufficient evidence to mitigate those concerns.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03298.h1

deniedAug 17, 2018· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old federal contractor, holding a security clearance since 2009, was denied a continued security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons cited a 2016 DWI arrest, habitual alcohol consumption leading to impaired judgment, and a history of illegal drug use. Specifically, the applicant used marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy from 2002 to March 2016, including marijuana use after receiving his security clearance in 2009. The 2016 arrest involved driving while impaired with a .13 BAC and possession of marijuana.

While the applicant stated he ceased marijuana use after the March 2016 arrest and provided negative voluntary drug screens from October 2017 to June 2018, these actions were deemed insufficient. He had self-reported his drug use on clearance applications and the 2016 arrest to his supervisor.

Ultimately, the judge found sufficient evidence to mitigate the alcohol-related concerns. However, the security clearance was denied due to the applicant's history of illegal drug use, particularly while holding a clearance, and the failure to demonstrate enough time had passed since his last drug use to mitigate future risk. Additionally, probation violations indicated a lack of compliance with obligations.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of illegal drug use, including marijuana use while holding a security clearance.
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient time had passed since his last drug use to mitigate concerns about future conduct.
The applicant's probation violations indicated a lack of compliance with legal and workplace obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(d)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Clearance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedTime Passed Since Incident
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Actions Taken

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 20, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 21, 2018mutually agreed date
Decision dateAug 17, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on History of Illegal Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance
Mitigation of Alcohol-related Concerns Despite a DWI Conviction
Importance of Compliance with Probation Terms in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: deniedTREATMENT COMPLETED · FAVORABLE

The judge found sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns related to the applicant's 2016 DWI conviction, ruling in favor of the applicant on the alcohol consumption allegations. However, the applicant's history of illegal drug use led to a denial of the security clearance, as the judge did not find sufficient evidence to mitigate those concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.b	habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). 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 all allegations related to drug involvement and substance misuse under Guideline H. The applicant had a history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, and continued to use marijuana while holding a security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by this history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	From 2002 to March 2016, Applicant used marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy. He used marijuana after being hired by his current employer, a large defense contractor, in 2007. He continued to use marijuana after being granted a security clearance in 2009.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI) and possession of marijuana. He consumed several drinks before his arrest, and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured at a .13.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or DealingWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—
1.c	Applicant states that he has not used marijuana since the March 2016 arrest, and promises not to use marijuana or any other illegal drugs in the future subject to automatic revocation of his clearance.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—
1.d	Applicant submitted drug screens that he voluntarily took from October 2017 to June 2018. The drug screens were all negative for the presence of illegal substances.	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—
1.e	Applicant self-reported his use of illegal drugs on his security clearance applications. He also reported the March 2016 arrest to his former supervisor when it occurred.	Against Applicant	Drug Use During ClearanceWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—

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.