CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-33559.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-33559.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-33559.h1

deniedJun 9, 2004· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of cocaine use and subsequent relapse. The Statement of Reasons detailed her cocaine use from 1986 to 1991, followed by a diagnosis of "Cocaine dependence, continuous" in September 1991.

After a period of abstinence, the Applicant relapsed in September or October 1998, using cocaine daily until June 1999. A key factor in the denial was her failure to complete any drug treatment program following this relapse, and the absence of a favorable prognosis.

The decision highlighted that the Applicant's five years of abstinence were considered too recent to mitigate the concerns stemming from her past drug abuse and the 1991 diagnosis. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The Applicant was diagnosed with "Cocaine dependence, continuous" in 1991, which was a significant factor in the denial.
The Applicant had a relapse in 1998 and did not complete any drug treatment program after that relapse.
The Applicant's five years of abstinence were deemed too recent to mitigate the concerns raised by her past drug abuse.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.3.araisedDrug Abuse
H.3.braisedIllegal Drug Possession, Including Purchase
H.3.cappliedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Drug Abuse or Drug Dependence

Key Rule Quoted

“The improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 2, 2003
Answer filedOct 30, 2003
Hearing held—Determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.
Decision dateJun 9, 2004

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Dependence Under Guideline H
Impact of Past Drug Abuse on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Conditions for Recent Drug Abuse Relapse

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 a history of cocaine use, including a diagnosis of cocaine dependence in 1991. Despite a period of abstinence, she relapsed in 1998 and used cocaine daily until June 1999. The judge determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant used cocaine, with varying frequency, from 1986 to 1991.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Denied	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	In September of 1991, she was diagnosed as suffering from 'Cocaine dependence, continuous.'	Against Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Denied	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	In September or October of 1998, she 'started snorting cocaine on a daily basis.' This continued until June of 1999.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Regular	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.d	Since her relapse, the Applicant has not completed any drug treatment program, nor has she received a favorable prognosis.	Against Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Denied	(e) failure to complete a prescribed drug treatment program	—	—

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: June 9, 2004

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-33559

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

RICHARD A. CEFOLA

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant used cocaine, with varying frequency, from 1986 to 1991. In September of 1991, she was diagnosed as suffering from "Cocaine dependence, continuous." Her prognosis was "Fair with treatment." In September or October of 1998, however, she "started snorting cocaine on a daily basis." This continued until June of 1999. Since her relapse, the Applicant has not completed any drug treatment program, nor has she received a favorable prognosis. itigation is not shown. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 2, 2003, 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 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.

Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on or about October 30, 2003.

Applicant elected to have this case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's File of Relevant aterial (FORM) on January 28, 2004. Applicant was instructed to submit objections or information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of the FORM. Applicant received her copy on February 23, 2004, and submitted nothing in reply. The case was originally assigned to another judge in April of 2004, but reassigned to the undersigned for resolution on June 7, 2004. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's drug abuse militates against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant, for the most part, denies the underlying factual basis for the four allegations.]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, and the File of Relevant Material. The Applicant is 42 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor that seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Guideline H - Drug Involvement

1.a.~1.b. The Applicant used marijuana "at least eight to ten times from about 1979 through 1983" (Item 6 at page 1). Her more recent drug involvement is with cocaine. She describes her first period of cocaine abuse in the following terms:

I first used cocaine in 1986 when I was at a party with friends. I snorted a line a(sic) cocaine. I used it occasionally on holidays or when parties were held throughout the year. I cannot recall my specific use of cocaine, but estimate that I used it at least twelve times yearly from 1986 through 1990. In 1991, I became depressed and started using cocaine more often. I used it two or three times per week on average until I admitted myself into . . . [treatment] (Item 6 at page 1).

The Applicant received treatment from September 5 through September 14 of 1991 (Item 7 at page 1). Her doctor diagnoses the Applicant as suffering, in part, from "Cocaine dependence, continuous" (Item 7 at page 3). Her prognosis was noted as "Fair with treatment" (id). In 1998, however, the Applicant had a relapse (Item 5). She avers the following:

I was drug free until about Sep/Oct 98 when I was in a bad relationship with a man and we were breaking up. I felt a great deal of stress and pressure. I started snorting cocaine on a daily basis in order to escape reality. . . . I hung out with other cocaine users and would chip in money to buy cocaine. At first I spent about $200.00 per week. . . . Gradually the amount I spend on cocaine declined to about $20.00 per week and eventually I got it for free from friends. . . . I stopped using cocaine in Jun 99 (Item 5 at pages 1–2).

Mitigation

The Applicant avers that she does not intend any future drug abuse (Item 5 at page 2).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:

a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances.

b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.

c. Age and maturity of the applicant.

d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved.

e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.

f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.

The Administrative Judge, however, 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.

The Government must make out its case under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and her ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.

Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.

The improper or illegal involvement with drugs, raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places. If an applicant has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law in her private affairs, there then exists the possibility that an applicant may demonstrate the same attitude towards security rules and regulations.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from "Cocaine dependence, continuous" in 1991. Her prognosis was listed as "Fair with treatment." The third Disqualifying Condition is therefore clearly applicable as there is a "[d]iagnosis by a credentialed medical professional . . . of drug abuse or drug dependence." This diagnosis followed about five years of cocaine abuse. The first and second Disqualifying Conditions are also applicable as there is firstly "drug abuse," and secondly "[i]llegal drug possession, including . . . purchase." Furthermore, I can find no applicable Mitigating Conditions that apply. From September or October of 1998 to June of 1999, a period of about eight months, the Applicant returned to her cocaine abuse, at times on a daily basis. The fact that the Applicant returned to her cocaine dependency after seven years of being drug free, makes her current five years of abstinence too recent to apply the first itigating Condition. The fourth Mitigating Condition is also not applicable as it requires the "[s]atisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program . . . without recurrence of abuse." Clearly, that is not the case here. The Applicant Drug Involvement is therefore of present security significance; and as such, Guideline H is found against the Applicant.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has not rebutted the Government's case regarding her drug involvement. The Applicant has thus not met the mitigating conditions of Guideline H, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, she has not met her ultimate burden of persuasion under Guideline H.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

a. Against the Applicant.

b. Against the Applicant.

c. Against the Applicant.

d. Against the Applicant.

Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-33559.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-33559.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:06:19 PM] 02-33559.h1