ISCR Case 03-08848.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-08848.h1

grantedJul 27, 2005· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old computer network administrator for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed a history of marijuana use from 1978 to 1986, including while in the Navy, and intermittent use from 1998 to 2000. The applicant also failed to fully disclose this intermittent use on his security clearance application, though he did report a 1981 civilian marijuana citation.

Further allegations included a supervisor witnessing marijuana use approximately seven or eight years prior, and his wife witnessing use about ten years prior. The applicant stated he stopped using marijuana in 1986 and does not currently use or intend to use illegal drugs. This was supported by a passed employer-mandated drug test in November 2002 and negative hair and urine drug tests in May 2005.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's admissions of past use were credible and did not indicate a current risk. The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation through negative drug tests and a clear intent to abstain from future drug use. The judge concluded that omissions on the security clearance application were due to forgetfulness rather than deliberate falsification.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's admissions to past marijuana use were deemed credible and not indicative of current risk.
The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation through negative drug tests and a stated intent not to use drugs in the future.
The judge found no deliberate falsification of the security clearance application, attributing omissions to forgetfulness rather than intent.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Falsification of Information on a SCA
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedIllegal Drug Possession
E2.A10.1.1raisedA History or Pattern of Criminal Activity

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

“"Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— Directive ¶ E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 24, 2004
Answer filedJun 18, 2004
Hearing heldMay 17, 2005
Decision dateJul 27, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Evidence of Rehabilitation
Credibility Assessment in Evaluating Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Consideration of Past Conduct in Light of Current Behavior and Intent Not to Reoffend Under Guideline J.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not disclose his marijuana use during the seven year period before 2002 (starting in 1995).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant did not disclose his marijuana use during the seven year period before 2002 (starting in 1995).

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

Claimed

Corrected Falsification Promptly

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana from 1978 until 1986 regularly, both in the Navy and afterward.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.b	Applicant abstained from 1986 to 1998, then he used it intermittently until 2000 at parties with his brother.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant disclosed a 1981 marijuana civilian citation on his security clearance application, but neglected to disclose his 1998 to 2000 intermittent use in answer to Question 27.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
2.d	Applicant's supervisor saw him use marijuana about seven or eight years ago. Applicant's wife saw him use marijuana about ten years ago.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1986 while married to his previous wife and attending college.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant does not use marijuana or illegal drugs now and does not intend to do so in the future.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	In November 2002 he took an employer-mandated drug test and passed. On May 2005 Applicant had his hair and urine tested for drugs and the test was negative.	For Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant did not remember using any illegal drugs in the past seven years.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated here as findings of fact.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant used marijuana from 1978 until 1986 regularly, both in the Navy and afterward.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended

—

2.b

Applicant abstained from 1986 to 1998, then he used it intermittently until 2000 at parties with his brother.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant disclosed a 1981 marijuana civilian citation on his security clearance application, but neglected to disclose his 1998 to 2000 intermittent use in answer to Question 27.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

2.d

Applicant's supervisor saw him use marijuana about seven or eight years ago. Applicant's wife saw him use marijuana about ten years ago.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.e

Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1986 while married to his previous wife and attending college.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.f

Applicant does not use marijuana or illegal drugs now and does not intend to do so in the future.

For Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.g

In November 2002 he took an employer-mandated drug test and passed. On May 2005 Applicant had his hair and urine tested for drugs and the test was negative.

For Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.h

Applicant did not remember using any illegal drugs in the past seven years.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

2.i

Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated here as findings of fact.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES