CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-10510.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-10510.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-10510.h1

deniedJul 31, 2006· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old scientist working for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant's drug use spanned from 1998 to 2005, including marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and unprescribed prescription drugs. A significant issue was the applicant's failure to accurately disclose the full extent and period of this drug use on his SF 86 application.

Specifically, the applicant stated on his SF 86 that he had not used drugs since 2003 and only for a short time in college, minimizing a seven-year history of drug involvement. Furthermore, he continued to use marijuana after submitting his SF 86 in July 2004, despite indicating cessation. This continued use, even after applying for a clearance, demonstrated questionable judgment.

The administrative judge found that the applicant's ongoing drug use and his inconsistent statements on the SF 86 undermined his credibility and reliability. These factors led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to drug use over a seven-year period, including marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy.
The applicant continued drug use after submitting his SF 86, contradicting his claims of cessation.
The applicant's inconsistent statements raised questions about his credibility and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement
E2raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedDec 9, 2004Received by applicant on January 18, 2006.
Answer filedFeb 15, 2006Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on the written record.
Decision dateJul 31, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Recent Drug Use and Lack of Credibility
Impact of Inconsistent Statements on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Full Disclosure on SF 86 in Security Clearance Determinations

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on personal conduct concerns related to drug involvement. The applicant failed to accurately disclose the extent and period of drug use on his SF 86, which raised questions about his credibility and reliability. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to accurately state the extent and period of the drug use on his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	—	—

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: denied

The applicant was found to have a significant history of drug involvement, including marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy use, spanning from 1998 to 2005. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline H, citing ongoing drug use and a lack of credible evidence for rehabilitation or mitigation. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Used marijuana from the fall of 1998 until the spring of 2005.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Used cocaine and ecstasy during the period October 2001 and February 2002.	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Used prescription drugs without a prescription for a one year period between August 2000 and January 2002.	Against Applicant	Prescription Other MisuseWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Continued to use marijuana after submitting his SF 86 application for a security clearance in July 2004.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Minimized the period of usage on his SF 86, indicating that he had not used drugs since 2003.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Stated on the SF 86 that he only used drugs for a short time in college and had not been involved with drugs for several years.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Continued to use drugs even after filing the SF 86 in 2004 when he should have known that drug use was a critical factor in obtaining a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: July 31, 2006

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

CR Case No. 05-10510

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns based on drug involvement between 1998 and 2005, and failure to accurately state the extent and period of the drug use on his SF 86. Since the last drug use was only one year ago and after submission of his SF 86, no mitigating conditions are applicable. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated December 9, 2004, to 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 Applicant. It was received by Applicant on January 18, 2006. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement dated February 15, 2006, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on May 24, 2006. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did submit additional material on June 11, 2006. The case was assigned to me on June 20, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all the allegations in the SOR but offered some explanatory information in his answer and his response to the FORM. After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact: Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a defense contractor working as a scientist. He received his college degree and 2001 and has been employed by the contractor since 2002. He used marijuana during his college years and for four years thereafter. The total period of use was from the fall of 1998 until the spring of 2005 as admitted in his interrogatory (Exh. 6). He also used cocaine and ecstasy during the period October 2001 and February 2002. He used prescription drugs without a prescription for a one year period between August 2000 and January 2002.

Even after Applicant submitted his SF 86 application for a security clearance in July, 2004, he continued to use marijuana for a over a year by his own admission. While he reported the drug use at Question 27 on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), he minimized the period of usage indicating that he had not used drugs since 2003. He also stated on the SF 86 that he only used drugs for a short time in college and had not been involved with drugs for several years. He added a statement at Question 43 that it was not "something I could ever see myself doing in the future". Yet he continued to do so.

In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated that he had not used drugs for at least a year, had recently married and purchased a home and would not "risk my family, home or career on something as juvenile and stupid as drug use".

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and

maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "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. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:

The government alleges disqualifying condition (DC) 1 under Guideline H concerning drug involvement. Drug involvement is always a security concern because it raises questions about a person's willingness or ability to protect classified information. Any drug abuse is a condition that may be disqualifying. The following definition is provided: "Drug abuse includes "the use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction." (E2.A8.1.1.3) Applicant admitted use of drugs over approximately seven years from 1998 until 2005. His various statements concerning the period of use and when he ceased use raises questions about his credibility. His statements on the SF 86 regarding his intention to cease using drugs was equivocal, and he continued to use drugs even after filing the SF 86 in 2004 when he should have known that drug use was a critical factor in obtaining a security clearance. Since Applicant abused marijuana within the last two years, continued his use over a long period of time, and offered no credible evidence to show that it would not recur, no mitigating conditions are applicable.

Security concerns on personal conduct under Guideline E were raised by Applicant's use of drugs even after filing his SF 86 where he stated his intention not to use drugs. His conduct shows questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that he may not properly safeguard classified information. (E2.A5.1.1.) The false and inconsistent statements made by Applicant indicates a cavalier approach to giving straightforward answers. No evidence was offered to mitigate those security concerns. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

The "whole person" concept recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant has held a position of trust with his company for four years but offered no evidence to counter the proof and admission of the conduct that disqualify him from holding a security clearance. By electing to submit his case on the record without a hearing, he lost the opportunity to present additional evidence in person concerning whole person factors that could have been evaluated.

Thus, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

05-10510.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT John Bayard Glendon, Esq. , Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-10510.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:41 PM] 05-10510.h1