ISCR Case 15-08688.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08688.h1

deniedJul 11, 2017· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 69-year-old consultant with a master's degree was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a long history of marijuana use and repeated falsification of government questionnaires and statements to an investigator regarding that use.

Specifically, the applicant used marijuana off and on for about 40 years, from 1976 to 2013, including periods while holding a security clearance. He falsely answered "No" to questions about marijuana use within the previous seven years on a Security Clearance Application in 2005 and an e-QIP in 2013. He also falsely denied ever using drugs while possessing a security clearance on the 2013 e-QIP.

Furthermore, during a 2015 interview with an Office of Personnel Management investigator, the applicant initially denied marijuana use within the last seven years or while holding a clearance. He later admitted to the investigator that he had not answered truthfully on his case papers or during the interview because he considered his drug use private and did not want to admit to illegal activities. The judge found that the applicant actively lied during this interview. The repeated dishonesty and drug use while holding a security clearance led to the denial, as it raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency for approximately 40 years, including while holding a security clearance.
The applicant falsified two government questionnaires regarding his drug use and lied to a government investigator during an interview.
The applicant's long history of drug use and dishonesty raised substantial doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1.araisedAny Substance Misuse
H.1.fraisedAny Illegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.2.braisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

H.2.arejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's long-term marijuana use and recent history of dishonesty do not support this mitigation.
H.2.brejectedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the FutureThe applicant's past behavior undermines the credibility of his intent to abstain from drug use.
E.2.crejectedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Future MisconductThe applicant's history of dishonesty and drug use does not demonstrate a commitment to change.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2016
Answer filedJul 12, 2016
Hearing heldOct 24, 2016Record left open until November 10, 2016.
Decision dateJul 11, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Long-term Drug Use and Dishonesty
Impact of Falsifying Government Questionnaires on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant filled out an e-QIP on November 12, 2013. Section 23 of the questionnaire asks Applicant about his drug use history. First of all, that section asked whether Applicant had used marijuana during the previous seven years. Applicant stated, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning Applicant’s drug use history. Applicant admitted his intentional falsification of this questionnaire during his testimony at the hearing. Once again, Applicant stated that his decision to put down a false answer was “an error in judgment.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Another part of Section 23 of Government Exhibit 1 asked Applicant, “Have you EVER illegally used or otherwise been involved with a drug or controlled substance while possessing a security clearance other than previously listed?” Applicant answered, “No.” This was also a false answer to a relevant question about his prior drug use, since I have found that he used marijuana during the period from 2005 through 2007.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant first filled out a Security Clearance Application on August 1, 2005. Question 27 of that application asked Applicant whether he had used marijuana within the last seven years. Applicant answered the question, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question about Applicant’s drug use. Applicant denied this allegation in his Answer, however he admitted it during his testimony at the hearing. Applicant further stated that his decision to put down a false answer was “an error in judgment.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant was subsequently questioned by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management on May 4, 2015. The investigator prepared a written Report of Investigation (ROI). Applicant certified in writing on May 16, 2016, that the ROI accurately reflected the information Applicant provided to the interviewer, and Applicant agreed with and adopted the investigator's summary as accurately reflecting the interview. As part of the interview Applicant was asked whether he had used marijuana within the last seven years, or whether he had used marijuana while holding a security clearance. He answered no to both questions. The investigator goes on to report: The Subject [Applicant] was then confronted with illegal drug use, marijuana, from 1972 to 2013 (discrepant) that was developed during the investigation. The Subject stated he didn’t answer yes on his 2014 case papers nor during the interview of his illegal drug use because it is personal use and shouldn’t affect his professional life. The subject felt this information is private and none of anyone’s business. The Subject then stated that he didn’t list it on his case papers because marijuana use is illegal and he didn’t want to admit to illegal activities on his case papers nor during the interview. The Subject then decided to admit his illegal drug use because he has to be open and honest. During the hearing Applicant first admitted that he actively lied to the investigator, as described above. A short time later in the hearing, Applicant testified that he had not lied to the investigator, but instead was telling the investigator about why he had previously lied on the questionnaire. Applicant’s testimony on this point was disjointed and rather confusing, but basically revolved around interviews Applicant had with investigators for another Government agency. Applicant stated that during those interviews he had told the other agency about his drug use. Other than Applicant’s testimony, no evidence was submitted as to the substance of the interviews with another agency. Based on all of the available information, I find that Applicant did actively lie during the interview on May 4, 2015. Support for this conclusion includes Applicant’s admission of the allegation in his Answer, his affirmation of the contents of Government Exhibit 3, and his initial testimony affirming his active lying to the investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant filled out an e-QIP on November 12, 2013. Section 23 of the questionnaire asks Applicant about his drug use history. First of all, that section asked whether Applicant had used marijuana during the previous seven years. Applicant stated, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning Applicant’s drug use history. Applicant admitted his intentional falsification of this questionnaire during his testimony at the hearing. Once again, Applicant stated that his decision to put down a false answer was “an error in judgment.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.b

Another part of Section 23 of Government Exhibit 1 asked Applicant, “Have you EVER illegally used or otherwise been involved with a drug or controlled substance while possessing a security clearance other than previously listed?” Applicant answered, “No.” This was also a false answer to a relevant question about his prior drug use, since I have found that he used marijuana during the period from 2005 through 2007.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant first filled out a Security Clearance Application on August 1, 2005. Question 27 of that application asked Applicant whether he had used marijuana within the last seven years. Applicant answered the question, “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question about Applicant’s drug use. Applicant denied this allegation in his Answer, however he admitted it during his testimony at the hearing. Applicant further stated that his decision to put down a false answer was “an error in judgment.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.d

Applicant was subsequently questioned by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management on May 4, 2015. The investigator prepared a written Report of Investigation (ROI). Applicant certified in writing on May 16, 2016, that the ROI accurately reflected the information Applicant provided to the interviewer, and Applicant agreed with and adopted the investigator's summary as accurately reflecting the interview. As part of the interview Applicant was asked whether he had used marijuana within the last seven years, or whether he had used marijuana while holding a security clearance. He answered no to both questions. The investigator goes on to report: The Subject [Applicant] was then confronted with illegal drug use, marijuana, from 1972 to 2013 (discrepant) that was developed during the investigation. The Subject stated he didn’t answer yes on his 2014 case papers nor during the interview of his illegal drug use because it is personal use and shouldn’t affect his professional life. The subject felt this information is private and none of anyone’s business. The Subject then stated that he didn’t list it on his case papers because marijuana use is illegal and he didn’t want to admit to illegal activities on his case papers nor during the interview. The Subject then decided to admit his illegal drug use because he has to be open and honest. During the hearing Applicant first admitted that he actively lied to the investigator, as described above. A short time later in the hearing, Applicant testified that he had not lied to the investigator, but instead was telling the investigator about why he had previously lied on the questionnaire. Applicant’s testimony on this point was disjointed and rather confusing, but basically revolved around interviews Applicant had with investigators for another Government agency. Applicant stated that during those interviews he had told the other agency about his drug use. Other than Applicant’s testimony, no evidence was submitted as to the substance of the interviews with another agency. Based on all of the available information, I find that Applicant did actively lie during the interview on May 4, 2015. Support for this conclusion includes Applicant’s admission of the allegation in his Answer, his affirmation of the contents of Government Exhibit 3, and his initial testimony affirming his active lying to the investigator.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana off and on for about 40 years. The periods of use were 1976 to 1980, 1988 to 1995, 2001 to 2007, and 2009 to 2013. During those periods he would use marijuana on approximately a monthly basis. Accordingly, considering all of his periods of use, Applicant smoked marijuana somewhere between 250 and 300 times.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Denied	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana during this period, particularly Applicant’s answers to DoD interrogatories, as well as what he told an interviewer for the DoD. In his Answer, Applicant denied using marijuana during this period while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Denied	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana off and on for about 40 years. The periods of use were 1976 to 1980, 1988 to 1995, 2001 to 2007, and 2009 to 2013. During those periods he would use marijuana on approximately a monthly basis. Accordingly, considering all of his periods of use, Applicant smoked marijuana somewhere between 250 and 300 times.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Denied

(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position

—

1.b

Applicant used marijuana during this period, particularly Applicant’s answers to DoD interrogatories, as well as what he told an interviewer for the DoD. In his Answer, Applicant denied using marijuana during this period while holding a security clearance.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Denied

(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES