Loading case…

ISCR 14-00509.h1: Guideline E security clearance hearing, denied, remanded on appeal (2014) · CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date9/30/2014
StatusdeniedRemanded on appeal
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Remanded on appeal
The DOHA Appeal Board set this decision aside and sent the case back for further consideration, so the outcome shown here is not final. The Appeal Board decided on 1/13/2015.
Read the appeal decision →
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 14-00509.h2) →See the appeal decision (Case 14-00509.a1) →
From the decisionFacts this decision states. Hover a value to see the exact sentence.
Age at decision24
Participants
Judge: Shari Dam
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
Other decisions whose allegations most closely resemble this one’s. Similarity of the allegations only.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 14-00509.h1deniedRemanded on appeal

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00509.h1

deniedRemanded on appealSep 30, 2014· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 24-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to the illegal use and purchase of marijuana from September 2008 to April 2013, with purchases occurring between November 2010 and December 2011. These actions, which included drug use while employed by a defense contractor, raised disqualifying conditions related to illegal drug involvement.

Although the applicant claimed abstinence for over a year and expressed an intent to avoid future drug use, the judge found these assertions insufficient to mitigate the security concerns. The decision highlighted a lack of persuasive evidence demonstrating a lasting change in behavior.

Ultimately, the applicant's past illegal drug use and purchases, coupled with the insufficient mitigation presented, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant admitted to illegal drug use and purchase of marijuana over a five-year period, including while employed by a defense contractor.
Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate a lasting change in behavior or to mitigate the security concerns regarding drug involvement.
The applicant's assertions of abstinence and intent to avoid future drug use were not persuasive enough to outweigh the evidence of past drug use.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

H.1.araisedDrug Abuse
H.1.craisedIllegal Drug Possession

Mitigating

H.2.brejectedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the FutureThe applicant's claims of abstinence and intent to avoid future drug use were not sufficiently persuasive.
H.2.b.4appliedSigned Statement of Intent with Automatic RevocationThe applicant's written agreement to revoke his clearance for future drug abuse merited limited mitigation.

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 17, 2014
Answer filedApr 24, 2014Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateSep 30, 2014

Cite for

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Illegal Drug Use 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.

From the decision

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

Age at decision: 24: “Applicant is 24 years old.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found in favor of the applicant on the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The allegations were related to the applicant's illegal drug use, which was primarily addressed under Guideline H. The judge concluded that the personal conduct concerns did not warrant disqualification.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of drug involvement, specifically regarding the illegal use of marijuana. The applicant admitted to using marijuana numerous times over a five-year period, including while employed by a defense contractor, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denial of his security clearance.

¶	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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case: 14-00509 ) ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/30/2014 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge:

On October 8, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On March 17, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline H, (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E, (Personal Conduct). 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 Adjudicative Guidelines effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

On April 24, 2014, Applicant answered (Answer) the SOR in writing and elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On June 24, 2014, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing five Items, and mailed Applicant a complete copy on June 30, 2014. Applicant received the FORM on July 10, 2014, and had 30 days from its receipt to file objections and submit additional information. Applicant submitted additional information within the time period. Department Counsel had no objection to the information. I marked that submission as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A and admitted it into the record. On August 25, 2014, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) assigned the case to me.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the two allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the SOR, related to Drug Involvement. His admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. He did not admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the SOR. (Item 3.)

Applicant is 24 years old. He graduated from high school in June 2008. He graduated from college in August 2012. He began a position with a defense contractor in June 2012. In October 2013 he submitted a security clearance application (e-QIP). (Item 4.)

In his e-QIP, Applicant disclosed that he used marijuana from September 2008 to April 2013. In September 2008, while in college, he began using marijuana. He continued to use marijuana after he began working for a defense contractor until April 2013. He purchased marijuana from November 2010 until December 2011. (Item 4.) In his April 28, 2014 Answer, he asserted that while in college he used marijuana infrequently and for recreational purposes. He claimed he had not used marijuana for the past year, which he stated is an “appropriate period of abstinence.” (Item 3.) He moved and no longer associates with the individuals with whom he used the illegal substance. (Item 3; AE A.) In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated he has continued to abstain from use of marijuana. He is passionate about his position, in which he works with military service members and their families. He would agree to an automatic revocation of his security clearance should he abuse illegal drugs in the future. (AE A.)

During an interview with a Government investigator in November 2013, Applicant stated he has never been arrested for using marijuana nor had a positive drug screening. He has not received counseling for drug abuse. (Item 3.) He further stated to the Government investigator that there is nothing in his background or regarding his character that could result in exploitation, blackmail, or coercion, to include his illegal use and purchase of marijuana.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 AG ¶ 2(a), describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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.”

Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”

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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

ANALYSIS

Guideline H, Drug Involvement

The security concern pertaining to Drug Involvement is set out in AG ¶ 24:

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.

AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The potentially disqualifying conditions established by the evidence in this case are:

(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); and

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

Applicant admitted that he illegally used marijuana from September 2008 until April 2013. He purchased it between November 2010 and December 2011. The evidence raises both disqualifying conditions.

After the Government raised a potential disqualifying condition, the burden shifted to Applicant to rebut or prove mitigation of the resulting security concern under this guideline. AG ¶ 26 includes four examples of conditions that could mitigate the security concern arising from illegal drug use:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as:

(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;

(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used;

(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,

(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.

(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and (d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.

AG ¶ 25(a) does not apply because Applicant used an illegal substance, marijuana, numerous times from September 2008 to April 2013. He stated he stopped using marijuana six months before he completed an e-QIP. He was using it for ten months (June 2012-April 2013) while employed by a defense contractor. It is unclear if the submission of an e-QIP was his motivation to stop using marijuana or whether he decided to make a lifetime commitment to complying with the law and stop using it. His behavior casts doubt on his trustworthiness and good judgment. In his Answer and response to the FORM, he asserted he has not used marijuana for over a year. He said he no longer associates with individuals who use marijuana. He did not provide information regarding whether he still frequents the places where he used marijuana. Insufficient evidence was submitted to warrant the application of AG ¶¶ 25(b)(1), (2), and (3). Applicant’s written agreement to have his security clearance revoked for future illegal drug abuse, merits limited mitigation under AG ¶ 25(b)(4). The record does not contain evidence to support the application of AG ¶ 25(c). Applicant has not participated in substance abuse treatment or received a favorable prognosis by a qualified medical professional, which evidence is necessary for the application of AG ¶ 25(d).

Guideline E, Personal Conduct

AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

Paragraph 2 of the SOR alleges that Applicant’s illegal purchase and use of marijuana raises security concerns under this guideline. While all misconduct involves elements of questionable judgment, Applicant’s history of illegal drug involvement is appropriately raised under Guideline H. Paragraph 2 of the SOR did not recite any additional facts that would serve as a basis for alleging security concerns under Guideline E. Hence, allegations raised under this guideline are found in Applicant’s favor.

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.

According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense 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 facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a 23-year-old employee of a defense contractor, who illegally used marijuana on multiple occasions between 2008 and 2013. That period included six months while he was working for a defense contractor. His assertions that he will not use marijuana in the future, and has not used it for over a year, are not sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the evidence indicating that he used marijuana for five years; purchased it for a year; continued to use it after being employed by a defense contractor; and did not cease using it until six months before he applied for a security clearance.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with serious questions as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance at this time. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his drug involvement. The allegations raised under personal conduct are found in his favor.

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

Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

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

_________________ SHARI DAM Administrative Judge