CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-07049.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 14-07049.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/29/2016
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Mary E. Henry
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct did not raise security concerns. The applicant's omission regarding past marijuana use was not deemed intentional, and he demonstrated credible intent to avoid illegal drug use in the future. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline E.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 14-07049.h1

grantedFeb 29, 2016· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old systems engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations stemmed from a single instance of marijuana use in 2009 and an omission on his 2014 e-QIP application. Specifically, the applicant smoked marijuana at a friend's bachelor party in 2009 while holding a security clearance, and this use was not initially disclosed on his e-QIP.

The judge found that the applicant's one-time marijuana use, which occurred over six years prior to the decision, was infrequent. Disqualifying conditions H.25(a), H.25(c), H.25(g), E.16(a), and J.31(c) were raised. However, mitigating conditions H.26(a), H.26(b), E.17(a), J.32(a), and J.32(d) were applied.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's credible intent to abstain from illegal drugs in the future and significant improvements in his life circumstances, including stable employment and family responsibilities. The judge concluded that these factors mitigated the security concerns, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's marijuana use was infrequent and occurred over six years ago.
He demonstrated a credible intent not to use illegal drugs in the future.
The applicant's life circumstances have significantly improved, including stable employment and family responsibilities.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.25(a)raisedDrug Abuse
H.25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession
H.25(g)raisedIllegal Drug Use After Clearance
E.16(a)raisedFalsification of Information
J.31(c)raisedAdmission of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

H.26(a)appliedBehavior Occurred Long Ago
H.26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs
E.17(a)appliedNo Intent to Falsify
J.32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
J.32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 5, 2015
Answer filedOct 16, 2015Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 29, 2016

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Infrequent Use and Time Elapsed
Consideration of Personal Conduct in Light of Overall Life Changes
Successful Rehabilitation Evidenced by Stable Employment and Family Responsibilities

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's personal conduct did not raise security concerns. The applicant's omission regarding past marijuana use was not deemed intentional, and he demonstrated credible intent to avoid illegal drug use in the future. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges one incident of falsification by Applicant when he completed his e-QIP in 2014.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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 used marijuana once in 2009 while holding a security clearance. Despite this violation, the applicant's use was infrequent and occurred a significant time ago. The applicant demonstrated a credible intent not to use illegal drugs in the future, leading to the conclusion that the security concerns were mitigated. The decision to grant eligibility for a security clearance was made based on the totality of the circumstances.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	In 2009, Applicant smoked a marijuana cigarette, an illegal drug under federal law, at a friend’s bachelor party. He did not purchase the marijuana he used. In order to smoke marijuana, one must also possess it. At the time he possessed and used marijuana, he held a security clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	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	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's acknowledged use of marijuana in 2009 raised security concerns under Guideline J. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that the incident was isolated, occurred a significant time ago, and that he has since maintained a clean record and expressed a credible intent not to use illegal drugs in the future. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant acknowledged use and possession of marijuana, an illegal drug, one time in 2009. Although he was not arrested for or charged with use of an illegal drug, the Government has established a security concern under AG ¶ 20(c) because Applicant used an illegal drug.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Documented No Subsequent Offenses

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

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.