Summary
This case involved a 42-year-old defense contractor employee whose security clearance was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Concerns arose from her past marijuana use and an unintentional false statement on a government questionnaire regarding that use. Specifically, the applicant used marijuana approximately ten to twenty times between 2006 and 2009 while already holding a security clearance, and later submitted inaccurate information about this history.
Disqualifying conditions were raised under both guidelines, including H.1.a, H.1.g, E.2.a, and E.2.e. However, the judge applied several mitigating conditions, such as H.2.a, H.2.b, E.2.a, E.2.c, and E.2.d.
The judge ultimately granted the security clearance, finding that the applicant had not used marijuana since 2009 and demonstrated a credible intent to abstain from future drug use. This was supported by a signed statement of intent to abstain and an acknowledgment of consequences for future violations. Additionally, her conduct since 2009 was deemed exemplary, with positive testimonials from co-workers.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant has not used marijuana since 2009 and has shown a credible intent not to use drugs in the future.
- She provided a signed statement of intent to abstain from illegal drug use, acknowledging the consequences of any future violations.
- The applicant's conduct since 2009 has been exemplary, supported by positive testimonials from co-workers.
Conditions Referenced
- H.1.araisedAny Drug Use
- H.1.graisedAny Illegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
- E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- E.2.eraisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation
- H.2.aappliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- H.2.bappliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future
- E.2.aappliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission
- E.2.cappliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
- E.2.dappliedAcknowledged the Behavior and Taken Other Positive Steps
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 18, 2015
- Answer filedJan 24, 2016
- Hearing heldJun 29, 2016record left open until July 15, 2016
- Decision dateMar 13, 2017
Cite For
- Mitigation of Past Drug Use Under Guideline H
- Credibility of Intent to Abstain From Drug Use
- Consideration of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E