ISCR Case 14-00013.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00013.h1

deniedJun 30, 2014· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana in 2012 and 2013, with usage occurring once or twice a week from September 2012 to May 2013. Although the applicant possessed a medical marijuana card, he acknowledged that federal law still prohibits marijuana use. Furthermore, he failed to disclose this drug use on his August 14, 2013, Government questionnaire, despite having used marijuana from a friend in 2012 before obtaining his medical card.

Financial concerns included the applicant's failure to file federal income tax returns for 2010, 2011, and 2012, believing he was not required to do so as a full-time student with no income. Additionally, a state tax lien from 2007, due to an administrative oversight, was filed against him; however, this debt has since been paid, and the lien released.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's admitted marijuana use in 2012 and 2013, which raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. His false statements on the security clearance application regarding drug use were also a significant factor. Despite some favorable employment evidence and claims of future abstinence, the recent nature of the drug use was not sufficiently mitigated.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana in 2012 and 2013, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant made false statements on his security clearance application regarding his drug use, failing to disclose relevant facts.
The applicant's drug use occurred recently and was not sufficiently mitigated by his claims of future abstinence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Was Infrequent or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's drug use was recent and not sufficiently mitigated.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the FutureThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of permanent behavioral changes.

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 issuedFeb 20, 2014
Answer filedMar 3, 2014
Hearing heldMay 22, 2014
Decision dateJun 30, 2014

Cite For

Issues of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
False Statements in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Considerations Not Impacting Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline F.

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 a Government questionnaire on August 14, 2013. Section 23 of that questionnaire asked Applicant, “In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances.” Applicant answered, “No.” Applicant maintains that he did not have to answer this question, “Yes,” because he had a medical marijuana card, which made his use legal in his state. However, Applicant acknowledged that Federal law continues to make marijuana use illegal. In addition, as stated above, Applicant admits using marijuana given to him by a friend in 2012. This usage, before the time Applicant had a medical marijuana card, even if only one time, was required to be reported.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant filled out a Government questionnaire on August 14, 2013. Section 23 of that questionnaire asked Applicant, “In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances.” Applicant answered, “No.” Applicant maintains that he did not have to answer this question, “Yes,” because he had a medical marijuana card, which made his use legal in his state. However, Applicant acknowledged that Federal law continues to make marijuana use illegal. In addition, as stated above, Applicant admits using marijuana given to him by a friend in 2012. This usage, before the time Applicant had a medical marijuana card, even if only one time, was required to be reported.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant did not file his Federal income tax returns for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. During those years Applicant was a full-time student and did not have any income at all. He believed that because he did not have any income he was not required to file returns for those years.	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant had a state tax lien filed against him for the 2007 tax year. This was due to an administrative oversight on Applicant’s part. He has since paid his back taxes and the lien has been released.	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant did not file his Federal income tax returns for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. During those years Applicant was a full-time student and did not have any income at all. He believed that because he did not have any income he was not required to file returns for those years.

For Applicant

Tax Filing Failure

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant had a state tax lien filed against him for the 2007 tax year. This was due to an administrative oversight on Applicant’s part. He has since paid his back taxes and the lien has been released.

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits using and purchasing marijuana in 2012 and 2013, but denies that his use and purchase were illegal.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	Applicant used marijuana once or twice a week from September 2012 to approximately May 2013.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	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

Applicant admits using and purchasing marijuana in 2012 and 2013, but denies that his use and purchase were illegal.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

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

—

1.b

Applicant used marijuana once or twice a week from September 2012 to approximately May 2013.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

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

—

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