CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03195.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03195.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03195.h1

deniedMay 4, 2016· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 74-year-old CEO was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a long history of marijuana use and an unwillingness to commit to future abstinence. The applicant's marijuana use began in 1969 and overlapped with a period when he held a security clearance.

Although the applicant had not used marijuana since 2012, his failure to unequivocally state that he would abstain from future use was a primary concern. This equivocal statement about future drug use prevented the application of any mitigating conditions.

The denial was based on the applicant's lengthy history of marijuana use, which raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness. His lack of commitment to discontinue future use undermined his credibility regarding abstinence, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a lengthy history of marijuana use that raises reliability and trustworthiness concerns.
Applicant's equivocal statement about future marijuana use undermines his credibility regarding abstinence.
None of the mitigating conditions apply due to the applicant's past drug use and lack of commitment to discontinue.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Drug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedAny Illegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
AG ¶ 25(h)raisedExpressed Intent to Continue Illegal Drug Use, or Failure to Clearly and Convincingly Commit to Discontinue Drug Use

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 12, 2015
Answer filedApr 2, 2015
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the record instead of a hearing.
Decision dateMay 4, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Commitment to Abstain From Illegal Drug Use
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant's lengthy history of marijuana use raised significant security concerns. Despite not using marijuana for five years, the applicant's failure to commit to abstaining from future use led to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of marijuana use, beginning in 1969. His marijuana use overlapped with the period when he held a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Denied	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	Although he has not used marijuana in five years, he has failed to commit to discontinue use.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.c	Given his equivocal statement about future marijuana drug use, none of the mitigating conditions applies.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Denied	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—

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. 14-03195 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/04/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement security concerns related to his lengthy history of marijuana use. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On March 12, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective as of December 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on April 2, 2015, denying subparagraphs 1.a and 1.c, and admitting subparagraph 1.b. He requested a decision on the record instead of a hearing. On September 8, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM) setting forth the Government’s case. Applicant received the FORM on September 17, 2015, and was instructed that he had 30 days to file a reply. Applicant did not reply within the time allotted, and the case was assigned to me on December 31, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 74-year-old married man. He graduated from college in 1964. Since 1969, he has served as the chairman and chief executive officer of a medical information technology company. (Item 4 at 11 - 12) Since 1996, his work has included federal contracts. He has possessed a security clearance since 1997. (Item 5 at 27)

Applicant smoked marijuana intermittently from 1969 to 2012. (Item 4 at 34-35; Item 6 at 8) Since the late 1990s, his use has been less frequent. (Item 3 at 1) Although he has not smoked marijuana since 2012, he may use it in the future “if the situation arises.” (Item 4 at 35)

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a security clearance.

ANALYSIS

Guideline H, Drug Involvement

Under this guideline, “use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” (AG ¶ 24) Applicant has a history of marijuana use, beginning in 1969. His marijuana use overlapped with the period when he held a security clearance. Although he has not used marijuana in five years, he has failed to commit to discontinue use. AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(g), “any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance,” and 25(h), “expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use,” apply. Given his equivocal statement about future marijuana drug use, none of the mitigating conditions applies.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Applicant has not smoked marijuana in four years. However, in light of the length of time that he smoked it, his age when he stopped, and his failure to convincingly commit to continued abstinence, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him continued access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge