CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08038.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08038.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08038.h1

deniedJul 1, 2008· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 24-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to an extensive history of illegal drug use from 2001 to October 2008. The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana during this period, as well as selling marijuana in the past. Additionally, he used cocaine in approximately 2003 and 2004, hallucinogenic mushrooms in approximately 2004 and 2005, and LSD in approximately 2003 and 2004.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant acknowledged a significant history of illegal drug use, including possession and distribution. Crucially, he stated an intent to continue using marijuana in the future, which raised concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide any mitigating evidence to address these security concerns. Given the admitted history of drug involvement and the stated intent to continue illegal drug use, the security clearance application was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a significant history of illegal drug use, including possession and distribution.
The applicant expressed an intention to continue using marijuana, which raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant did not provide any mitigating evidence to address the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedDrug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Drug Possession
AG ¶ 25(h)appliedIntent to Continue Illegal Drug Use

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2009
Answer filedApr 13, 2009Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 6, 2009
Decision dateAug 19, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Mitigating Evidence in Drug Involvement Cases
Impact of Expressed Intent to Continue Illegal Drug Use on 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 applicant admitted to a significant history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and hallucinogenic mushrooms, from 2001 to October 2008. The judge found that the applicant's intent to continue using marijuana and his past drug-related conduct raised serious security concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Used marijuana from 2001 to October 2008.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	Purchased marijuana from approximately 2001 to October 2008.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	Sold marijuana in the past.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.d	Used cocaine in approximately 2003 and 2004.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.e	Used hallucinogenic mushrooms in approximately 2004 and 2005.	Against Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.f	Used LSD in approximately 2003 and 2004.	Against Applicant	LSD	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.g	Stated intent to continue using marijuana in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.h	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

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. 08-08038 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

August 19, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline H, Drug Involvement. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied.

On March 30, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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 revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 13, 2009, and elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) on May 21, 2009. Applicant received the FORM on May 26, 2009. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not object to the FORM and did not submit additional material. The case was assigned to me on August 6, 2009.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all of the allegations in SOR. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and statements submitted, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 24 years old years old and works for a defense contractor. He submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on January 2, 2008. He is a high school graduate and is not married.

Applicant admits he used marijuana from 2001 to October 2008. In April 2008, Applicant provided a statement to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator and confirmed its accuracy on October 9, 2008. In the statement he confirmed his intention to continue to use marijuana in the future because he enjoys the way it makes him feel.1

Applicant admits he purchased marijuana from approximately 2001 to October 2008. He admits he sold marijuana in the past. He admits he used cocaine in approximately 2003 and 2004. He admits he used hallucinogenic mushrooms in approximately 2004 and 2005. He admits he used LSD in approximately 2003 and 2004. He does not intend in the future to use illegal drugs, other than marijuana.2

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR he stated the following: “Based on reading Guideline H, it is clear to me that I am not eligible for [a] security clearance at this time.”3 N o other information was provided.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, whic hare useful in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common-sense decision. 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likew ise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

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 as to obtaining a favorable security decision.

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolati on as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Sectio n 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

y Anal sis

Guideline H, Drug Involvement

AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:

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. (a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include: (1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and (2) inhalants and other similar substances; (b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.

Under Title 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b) a security clearance may not be granted for a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict.

I have considered all of the drug involvement disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25 and have especially considered the following:

(a) any drug abuse;

(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution, or possession of drug paraphernalia; and

(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.

Applicant has a significant history of possession and use of illegal drugs from 2001 to October 2008. He has sold illegal drugs in the past. He intends to continue to use marijuana. I find the above disqualifying conditions apply.

I have considered all of the drug involvement mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 and conclude none apply. Applicant did not offer any relevant evidence in mitigation.

ANALYSIS

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 relevant 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.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant admits he possessed and used illegal drugs from 2001 to October 2008. He sold illegal drugs in the past. He intends to continue to use marijuana in the future. Applicant failed to offer any relevant mitigating evidence regarding his past drug history. In addition, I find Applicant is disqualified from being granted a security clearance under Title 50 U.S.C. § 435c(b) because he intends to continue to use marijuana. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with serious questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for Drug Involvement.

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

Subparagraph 1.a-1.h: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

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

_____________________________ Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 6. 2 Item 4 and 6. 3 Item 4.