Loading case…

ISCR 15-07585.h1: Guideline H security clearance hearing, granted (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-07585.h1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07585.h1

grantedMay 1, 2017· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a defense contractor who held a security clearance since 2003 and self-reported three instances of marijuana use between November 2014 and March 2015, following her return from deployment in Afghanistan. These actions occurred while she maintained her security clearance and formed the basis of the allegations under Guideline H (Drug Involvement).

The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and subsequently sought counseling to address her mental health. She expressed remorse for her marijuana use and took proactive steps to manage her condition. As part of the adjudication process, she signed a statement acknowledging that any future drug violations would result in the automatic revocation of her clearance.

Considering these mitigating factors, specifically her demonstrated remorse, proactive mental health treatment, and commitment to future compliance, the judge determined that her past drug use did not undermine her current reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant demonstrated remorse and took proactive steps to address her mental health issues.
She signed a statement of intent acknowledging the automatic revocation of her clearance for future violations.
The judge found that the applicant's past drug use did not create doubt about her current reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent and Was Associated with a Diagnosed Mental Health Condition.
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Taken Significant Steps to Mitigate the Security Concerns, Including Seeking Counseling and Expressing Remorse.

Key rule quoted

“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedMay 31, 2016
Answer filedJun 23, 2016
Hearing heldApr 18, 2017
Decision dateMay 1, 2017

Cite for

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Mental Health Issues
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Past Drug Use in Clearance Evaluations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Tenure: ~14 years: “Applicant has worked for a defense contractor since about 2003 and has held a security clearance since then.”
Held a clearance before: Yes: “She held a security clearance at the time.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The applicant self-reported using marijuana on three occasions while holding a security clearance. The judge found that the applicant's past drug use was mitigated by her ongoing mental health counseling and her remorseful attitude, concluding that her reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt. The case was decided in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07585 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

Appearances

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: William Savarino, Esq.

05/01/2017 ______________

Decision

______________

RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge:

On May 31, 2016, 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; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant responded to the SOR on June 23, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 24, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 18, 2017. On April 24, 2017, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant self-reported using marijuana on three separate occasions from November 2014 to March 2015, after returning from deployment. She held a security clearance at the time. Applicant has worked for a defense contractor since about 2003 and has held a security clearance since then. In 2013, she worked with the military in Afghanistan for a year. She lived and worked in a war zone. Her compound was often targeted by bombs, some that exploded in her vicinity. She carried a weapon, and there was constant concern about the loyalty of local nationals. On the day she returned to the United States, she was notified that a convoy that she regularly participated in while in Afghanistan was attacked and 16 people were killed, including her former military supervisor.

In 2016, Applicant sought mental health counseling due to her uncharacteristic behavior and was diagnosed with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. She has continued counseling.

Applicant was aware that her husband used marijuana in college and occasionally used it later, but never in their home or in her presence. When she returned from deployment, his drug use was more prevalent. Despite her request that he discontinue his drug use, he continued, and she recently filed for divorce. Applicant is remorseful. She signed a statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any future violation.

Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns raised under Guideline H are mitigated under the following conditions: AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b).

The concerns over Applicant’s past drug use do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge