ISCR Case 12-09593.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-09593.h1

grantedJun 12, 2015· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old machinist employed by a federal contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations included a positive marijuana urinalysis in January 2012, past marijuana use from age 17 until the late 1980s, and arrests in 1983 and 1984 for controlled substance possession. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have falsified security clearance applications in 2003 and 2012 by failing to disclose drug use and related arrests, and was arrested for DUI in 1987.

The judge determined that the January 2012 positive urinalysis was accidental, resulting from the ingestion of marijuana-laced brownies. This finding was supported by credible testimony regarding the applicant's integrity.

Key mitigating factors included the applicant's demonstrated long history of abstinence from illegal drug use since the 1980s, and the credible character testimony affirming his integrity and sincerity regarding his drug use. Based on these considerations, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's positive urinalysis was determined to be accidental due to ingestion of marijuana-laced brownies.
The applicant demonstrated a long history of abstinence from illegal drug use since the 1980s.
Credible character testimony supported the applicant's integrity and sincerity regarding his drug use.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedPositive Drug Test
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedIllegal Drug Use After Clearance
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedSerious Crime
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAdmission of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedFalsification of Security Clearance Application

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened Long Ago
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs
AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(c)appliedEvidence of Non-commission of Offense
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedOmission Not Established as Falsification

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2014
Answer filedNov 13, 2014
Hearing heldMar 25, 2015
Decision dateJun 12, 2015

Cite For

Accidental Ingestion of Drugs as a Mitigating Factor Under Guideline H
Credibility of Character Witnesses in Security Clearance Cases
Interpretation of Questions on Security Clearance Applications as a Potential Mitigating Factor Under Guideline E

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
3.a	Applicant falsified his May 2012 SCA by answering “No” to the drug-related questions in Section 23	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
3.b	Applicant falsified his Question 28 of his November 2003 SCA by failing to disclose his use of marijuana in the 1980s after receiving a security clearance in 1982	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant falsified his May 2012 SCA by answering “No” to the drug-related questions in Section 23

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

3.b

Applicant falsified his Question 28 of his November 2003 SCA by failing to disclose his use of marijuana in the 1980s after receiving a security clearance in 1982

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

3.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	tested positive after a urinalysis test in January 2012, while employed by a federal contractor and holding a security clearance	For Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Denied	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.b	used marijuana from age 17 until about 1987 or 1988, while employed as a federal contractor and holding a security clearance	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.c	was arrested in December 1984 for possession of a controlled substance	For Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.d	was arrested in February 1983 for possession of a controlled substance	For Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

tested positive after a urinalysis test in January 2012, while employed by a federal contractor and holding a security clearance

For Applicant

Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Denied

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence

—

1.b

used marijuana from age 17 until about 1987 or 1988, while employed as a federal contractor and holding a security clearance

For Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Experimental

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence

—

1.c

was arrested in December 1984 for possession of a controlled substance

For Applicant

Drug Possession with Intent

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia

—

1.d

was arrested in February 1983 for possession of a controlled substance

For Applicant

Drug Possession with Intent

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR cross-alleges the Guideline H conduct under this guideline (SOR ¶ 2.a).	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
2.b	In addition, it alleges that Applicant was arrested for DUI in April 1987 (SOR 2.b).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR cross-alleges the Guideline H conduct under this guideline (SOR ¶ 2.a).

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

2.b

In addition, it alleges that Applicant was arrested for DUI in April 1987 (SOR 2.b).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Charged Not Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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