Summary
A 47-year-old married graphic designer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed primarily from a long history of marijuana use and a past instance of falsifying a security clearance application.
Specifically, the applicant admitted to deliberately falsifying her 1987 security clearance application (DD Form 49) by denying regular marijuana use that began in 1976. While a "No" answer on her 2001 application (SF 86) was deemed an honest mistake due to misunderstanding the question, her extensive drug involvement was a significant concern. She continued using marijuana even after receiving a clearance and expressed an intent to resume use if not cleared.
Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's consistent, long-term marijuana use, spanning from 1976 to 2001, demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by the law and raised serious security concerns regarding her judgment and reliability. Despite some mitigating factors related to her later disclosures, her history of drug involvement outweighed these, leading to the denial of her security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant had a long-term history of marijuana use from 1976 to June 2001, including use while possessing a security clearance.
- The judge found that the applicant's drug use indicated an unwillingness to abide by the law and raised security concerns.
- The applicant's statement that she might use marijuana again if she did not have a clearance further undermined her credibility.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 1raisedAny Drug Abuse.
- DC 2raisedIllegal Drug Possession, Including Cultivation, Processing, Manufacture, Purchase, Sale, or Distribution.
- DC 5raisedRecent Drug Involvement Especially Following the Granting of a Security Clearance, or an Expressed Intent Not to Discontinue Use, Will Almost Invariably Result in an Unfavorable Decision.
- MC 2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily.The applicant's 1987 falsification was mitigated by her later disclosures in the 2001 application.
Key Rule Quoted
“"It should be obvious that no one has a 'right' to a security clearance," and "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 18, 2003
- Answer filedSep 8, 2003Applicant requested a hearing.
- Hearing heldDec 17, 2003Applicant appeared pro se.
- Decision dateMar 29, 2004
Cite For
- Security Concerns Related to Long-term Drug Use Under Guideline H
- Mitigation of Falsification Under Guideline E When Subsequent Disclosures Are Made
- The Standard for Security Clearance Denials Favoring National Security Over Individual Rights.