CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-05108.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 03-05108.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/2/2005
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Roger E. Willmeth
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant's limited marijuana use was acknowledged, but it was determined that he had not engaged in prohibited conduct for over two years and had ceased associations with individuals involved in such conduct. Therefore, the personal conduct concerns were mitigated, and the security clearance was granted.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 03-05108.h1

grantedMar 2, 2005· Hon. Roger E. Willmeth· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 36-year-old senior systems engineer whose security clearance was granted despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's admitted marijuana use in January 1999 and April 2002. Additionally, the applicant had stated that he might use cannabis again if not employed with his current employer. The applicant had held a security clearance since December 12, 1994.

Disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct and drug involvement were raised. However, mitigating conditions were applied, focusing on the applicant's demonstrated commitment to abstain from drug use.

The judge ultimately granted the security clearance. This decision was based on the applicant's cessation of marijuana use for over two years prior to the hearing, a demonstrated commitment to future abstinence, and the characterization of his past marijuana use as isolated incidents. The judge found the applicant to be reliable and of good character.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant had not used marijuana for over two years prior to the hearing.
The applicant demonstrated a commitment to abstain from drug use in the future.
The applicant's limited marijuana use was characterized as isolated incidents.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A8.1.2.1raisedDrug Abuse
E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

Mitigating

E2.A8.1.3.1appliedNot Recent Drug Involvement
E2.A8.1.3.2rejectedIsolated or Aberrational EventThe applicant's repeated use in 2002 disqualified this condition.
E2.A8.1.3.3appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the Future
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Criminal Activities Ceased

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 6, 2003
Answer filedOct 22, 2003
Hearing heldApr 29, 2004
Decision dateMar 2, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Lack of Recent Use
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Through Cessation of Associations with Drug Users
Demonstrated Intent to Abstain From Drug Use as a Mitigating Factor

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 in favor of the applicant regarding personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant's limited marijuana use was acknowledged, but it was determined that he had not engaged in prohibited conduct for over two years and had ceased associations with individuals involved in such conduct. Therefore, the personal conduct concerns were mitigated, and the security clearance was granted.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 in favor of the applicant regarding drug involvement concerns under Guideline H, noting that the applicant admitted to limited marijuana use on two occasions in the past and had not used marijuana for over two years. The applicant expressed a clear intent not to use illegal drugs in the future, which contributed to the decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant smoked marijuana while attending a party in January 1999 and again in April 2002.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.b	With regard to his use of marijuana, Applicant stated, "if I am not employed with [his employer] I may use cannabis again."	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	Applicant reported that he had held a security clearance since December 12, 1994.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

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.