Loading case…

ISCR 02-24227.h1: Guideline H security clearance hearing, denied (2003) · CASE

ISCR Case 02-24227.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-24227.h1

deniedApr 23, 2003· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to his history of marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the Applicant used marijuana five to ten times annually from 1987 until at least February 2002, and purchased it from 1987 until 1994. These actions raised disqualifying conditions H1 and H2.

The Administrative Judge determined that the Applicant's pattern of marijuana use, which occurred five to ten times a year until February 2002, constituted drug abuse. The recency of this use was a significant factor, as it ended less than eleven months before the record closed.

Ultimately, the Applicant failed to present persuasive evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation sufficient to overcome the government's case. Consequently, the adverse inference was not overcome, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The Applicant used marijuana five to ten times a year until February 2002, demonstrating a pattern of drug abuse.
The Applicant's drug use ended less than eleven months before the record closed, indicating recency.
The Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation to overcome the Government's case.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Abuse
H2raisedIllegal Drug Possession

Key rule quoted

“Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and, to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the future.”
Executive Order 10865

Procedural posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2002
Answer filedOct 7, 2002Applicant requested decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateApr 23, 2003

Cite for

Recency of Drug Use Under Guideline H
Insufficient Mitigation of Drug Abuse
Burden of Persuasion on the Applicant for Security Clearance

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: denied

The Applicant was found to have used marijuana five to ten times a year from 1987 until at least February 2002, and he purchased marijuana from 1987 until 1994. The judge concluded that the recency and extent of the Applicant's drug use did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation, leading to a denial of the 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

DATE: April 23, 2003

In Re:

-----------------------------

SSN: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-24227

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

WILFORD H. ROSS

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant used marijuana five to ten times a year from 1987 until at least February 2002. He also purchased marijuana from 1987 until 1994. Given the recency of Applicant's drug use, insufficient mitigation is shown. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 26, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the 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 the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 7, 2002, and requested that the case be decided without a hearing. The Government submitted its File of Relevant Material (FORM) to the Applicant on October 30, 2002. The Applicant was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to submit any documents in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation. The Applicant received the FORM on November 12, 2002, and did not submit a reply. The case was received by the undersigned on January 3, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Applicant is 32, married and has a Bachelor of Science degree. He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks to obtain a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.

The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, based upon the allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The following findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR. They are based on the Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the exhibits and the live testimony.

Paragraph 1 (Guideline H - Drug abuse). The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses illegal drugs.

The Applicant first began using marijuana in the 1987, while in high school. He continued to use marijuana five to ten times a year until February 2002. He purchased marijuana from 1987 until 1994.

Concerning his future use of marijuana the Applicant states, "After executing my security questionnaire in March 2002 I acutely realized that smoking marijuana and holding a security clearance are not consistent behaviors. I have no future intentions of ever smoking marijuana again." (Government Exhibit 5 at 2.)

POLICIES

Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. Accordingly, the Department of Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive, has set forth policy factors which must be given "binding" consideration in making security clearance determinations. These factors should be followed in every case according to the pertinent guideline. However, the factors are neither automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision. Because each security clearance case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm of human experience, or apply equally in every case. Based on the Findings of Fact set forth above, the factors most applicable to the evaluation of this case are:

Guideline H (Drug involvement)

Conditions that could raise a security concern:

(1) any drug abuse; (1)

(2) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale or distribution;

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

(None of the stated conditions have application in this case.)

In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, "In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following factors [General Factors]:

a. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct

b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation

c. The frequency and recency of the conduct

d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct

e. The voluntariness of participation

f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes

g. The motivation for the conduct

h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress

i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence." The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.

In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours a day. The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of drug abuse that demonstrates poor judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.

The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and, to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the future." The Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order...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."

CONCLUSION

It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the granting or continued holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government's case. The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.

In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial evidence that the Applicant has used illegal drugs (Guideline H).

The Applicant, on the other hand, has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome the Government's case against him.

The marijuana use by the Applicant ended less than eleven months before the record closed. His drug use was long-term and extensive. While he was truthful with the Government about his long-standing drug use, the fact remains that the Applicant has virtually no track record of being abstinent from marijuana.

The Applicant's efforts at reform are noted, and he is commended for his decision to refrain from further drug use. Under the particular circumstances of this case, this evidence does not overcome the adverse information that has been presented by the Government. If the Applicant continues to be abstinent from illegal drug use, he may well be eligible for a security clearance in the future.

On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's information opposing his request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant. Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant.

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Wilford H. Ross

Administrative Judge

1. Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986, any person who is an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), may not be granted or have renewed their access to classified information.

FOOTNOTES

02-24227.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-24227.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:06:45 AM] 02-24227.h1