CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-16372.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-16372.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-16372.h1

grantedMay 5, 2003· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

This case involved a 25-year-old defense contractor whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from May 1996 to February 2001, with the last use occurring in February 2001, after the security clearance application process had begun.

Disqualifying conditions E2.A8.1.2.1 and E2.A8.1.2.2 were raised. However, the applicant demonstrated approximately 20 months of abstinence from marijuana use since February 2001 and credibly stated his intention not to use marijuana in the future.

Based on these mitigating factors, specifically E2.A8.1.3.1 and E2.A8.1.3.3, the judge granted the security clearance. The decision highlighted the applicant's sustained period of abstinence and his credible commitment to future non-use as key reasons for the favorable outcome.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated approximately 20 months of abstinence from marijuana use.
The applicant credibly stated his intention not to use marijuana in the future.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse.
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedIllegal Drug Possession.

Mitigating

E2.A8.1.3.1appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent.
E2.A8.1.3.3appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 7, 2002
Answer filedAug 25, 2002Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateMay 5, 2003

Cite For

Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs Under Guideline H
Significance of Abstinence Duration in Security Clearance Cases
Credibility of Applicant's Statements Regarding Future Drug Use

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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from May 1996 to February 2001, with his last use occurring after the security clearance application process had begun. However, he has abstained from marijuana use since February 2001 and credibly stated his intention not to use it in the future, which was sufficient for the judge to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from May 1996 to February 2001.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
1.b	His last use of marijuana in February 2001 occurred after the security clearance application process had begun.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
1.c	Applicant has abstained from the use of marijuana since February 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
1.d	He has credibly stated his intention not to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: May 5, 2003 In Re: ---------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 01-16372 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant's approximately 20 months of abstinence, together with his credibly stated intention not to use marijuana in the future, is sufficient to overcome the Government's case under Guideline H. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 7, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on August 25, 2002, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about October 11, 2002. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on November 7, 2002. The case was assigned to me on December 10, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 25 year old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from May 1996 to February 2001. His last use of marijuana in February 2001 occurred after the security clearance application process had begun. (1) Applicant never purchased or sold marijuana. Marijuana is the only illegal drug that he has used. In a signed, sworn statement that he gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in May 2001, applicant stated that he "had no real plan to use marijuana in the future." In his response to the FORM, applicant stated that his use of marijuana in February 2001 occurred during an "unexpected social situation," and he has "since stopped associating with the people and places that lead (sic) to incident." He further stated that he has not used marijuana since that February 2001 incident, and that he "would not use it again."

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: Drug Involvement Disqualifying Factors 1. E2.A8.1.2.1: Any drug abuse. 2. E2.A8.1.2.2: Illegal drug possession. Mitigating Factors 1. E2.A8.1.3.1: The drug involvement was not recent. 2. E2.A8.1.3.3: A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from May 1996 to February 2001. This illegal conduct reflects adversely on his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and suggests that he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Applicant has abstained from the use of marijuana since February 2001. His approximately 20 months of abstinence, together with his credibly stated intention not to use marijuana in the future, is sufficient to overcome the Government's case under Guideline H. Accordingly, it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge 1. Applicant had executed the Security Clearance Application in December 2000.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se