CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00579.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 14-00579.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/3/2014
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Rita C. O'Brien
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant mitigated personal conduct concerns related to her past marijuana use and failure to disclose this on her security clearance application. The applicant's conduct was deemed infrequent and occurred many years ago, and she has since demonstrated a commitment to avoiding illegal drug use and maintaining her trustworthiness.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00579.h1

grantedNov 3, 2014· Hon. Rita C. O'Brien· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old senior systems engineer, with a history of holding security clearances, was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The allegations stemmed from an incident in July 2006, where her boyfriend blew marijuana smoke into her mouth twice while she held a security clearance.

When completing her security clearance application in 2007, the applicant did not disclose this incident, believing it did not constitute "use" of an illegal drug. Consequently, she answered "No" to questions regarding marijuana use within the previous seven years or while holding a security clearance, and did not inform her employer.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant had mitigated the security concerns. This decision was based on her demonstrated eight years of abstinence from illegal drug use, a notarized statement of intent to avoid future drug use, and strong professional performance supported by character references. These factors affirmed her reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated eight years of abstinence from illegal drug use.
She provided a notarized statement of intent to avoid future drug use, acknowledging the consequences of any violations.
The applicant's strong professional performance and character references supported her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedIllegal Drug Use After Clearance
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Time Passed
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve the question of whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 18, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 4, 2014
Decision dateNov 3, 2014

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Long Abstinence and Intent Not to Use Drugs in the Future
Consideration of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E in Light of Isolated Incidents and Time Elapsed
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Determinations.

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated personal conduct concerns related to her past marijuana use and failure to disclose this on her security clearance application. The applicant's conduct was deemed infrequent and occurred many years ago, and she has since demonstrated a commitment to avoiding illegal drug use and maintaining her trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In July 2006, Applicant's boyfriend blew marijuana smoke into her mouth two times. When Applicant completed her security clearance application in 2007, she thought this conduct was not a “use” of an illegal drug. Based on this conclusion, she answered “No” when asked if she had used marijuana within the previous seven years, or while holding a security clearance. She did not inform her employer of the conduct.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement. The applicant had a single incident of marijuana use in 2006, which occurred while holding a security clearance. However, the applicant has not used marijuana since then and has demonstrated a commitment to abstaining from illegal drug use in the future. The decision was granted based on the applicant's stable life circumstances and strong professional performance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	In 2006, Applicant allowed her boyfriend to blow smoke from a marijuana cigarette into her mouth two times while she held a security clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (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	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Documented Signed Intent with Revocation Clause
1.b	Applicant did not disclose her marijuana use when completing her security clearance application in 2007, believing it did not qualify as drug use.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (e) failure to complete a prescribed drug treatment program	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended (d) satisfactory completion of treatment with a favorable prognosis	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.