ISCR Case 96-0265.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0265.h1

grantedMar 21, 1997· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite a history of concerns under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). Allegations included late payments, accounts referred to collection, and potentially bounced checks, with funds from parents and credit card advances used for drug purchases. The applicant also had a history of extensive drug use, including marijuana (from weekly to daily use between September 1990 and June 1994), hashish, LSD, mushrooms, opium, and Zanex. He also purchased and sold marijuana multiple times to friends and tested positive for codeine in a pre-employment evaluation.

However, the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for cannabis dependence from June to July 1994 and declined inpatient treatment in April 1993. Mitigating factors included his positive credibility and actions since June 1994, demonstrating a commitment to a drug-free life. He also received good performance reviews from both former and present supervisors and moved to another part of the country to support his recovery and aspirations.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's past conduct was mitigated by his rehabilitation efforts and credible testimony. Key reasons for the grant included his participation in outpatient treatment, the absence of drug use after June 1994, and positive performance reviews supporting his reliability.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation by participating in outpatient treatment for cannabis dependence.
There was no evidence of drug use after June 1994, indicating a significant period of recovery.
Positive performance reviews from supervisors supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedIllegal Drug Involvement
H2raisedIllegal Drug Possession, Purchase, Sale, or Distribution

Mitigating

H1appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent
H3appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Use Drugs in the Future
H4appliedSatisfactory Completion of a Drug Treatment Program Prescribed by a Credentialed Medical Professional

Key Rule Quoted

“The granting (or continuance) of a security clearance under this Directive may only be done upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 1996
Answer filedJun 11, 1996
Hearing heldJan 6, 1997
Decision dateMar 21, 1997

Cite For

Mitigation of Illegal Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Demonstrated Intent to Maintain a Drug-free Lifestyle
Impact of Rehabilitation on 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a–1.p	16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

1.a–1.p

16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a–1.p	16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a–1.p

16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was making late payments to his creditors, some of his accounts were referred for collection, and he may have bounced a few checks.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was using money from his parents and obtaining cash advances from his credit cards to purchase drugs.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c–1.p	14 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was making late payments to his creditors, some of his accounts were referred for collection, and he may have bounced a few checks.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant was using money from his parents and obtaining cash advances from his credit cards to purchase drugs.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.c–1.p

14 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana from once a week in September 1990 to daily and sometimes more than daily use from September 1991 to June 1994.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant purchased marijuana on a weekly basis and sold the drug between ten and fifteen times to friends.	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant used hashish on one occasion before 1993 and one occasion after 1993.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant used LSD on two occasions in 1991 and 1992.	For Applicant	LSD	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant used mushrooms and opium on one occasion in the fall of 1991 or 1992.	For Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant used Zanex in the last summer of 1992.	For Applicant	Benzodiazepine Misuse	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant's outpatient treatment for approximately a month from June to July 1994 was for cannabis dependence.	For Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant tested positive for codeine in a preemployment evaluation for his present employer.	For Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant declined inpatient treatment in April 1993.	For Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant's positive credibility and his actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	Applicant's good performance reviews from his former and present supervisor establish substantial reasons why Applicant warrants a security clearance.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant's move to another part of the country to continue his recovery while realizing his aspirations.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.m	Applicant's actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.n	Applicant's positive credibility and his actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.o	Applicant's good performance reviews from his former and present supervisor establish substantial reasons why Applicant warrants a security clearance.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.p	Applicant's move to another part of the country to continue his recovery while realizing his aspirations.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana from once a week in September 1990 to daily and sometimes more than daily use from September 1991 to June 1994.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant purchased marijuana on a weekly basis and sold the drug between ten and fifteen times to friends.

For Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant used hashish on one occasion before 1993 and one occasion after 1993.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant used LSD on two occasions in 1991 and 1992.

For Applicant

LSD

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant used mushrooms and opium on one occasion in the fall of 1991 or 1992.

For Applicant

Psilocybin

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant used Zanex in the last summer of 1992.

For Applicant

Benzodiazepine Misuse

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant's outpatient treatment for approximately a month from June to July 1994 was for cannabis dependence.

For Applicant

Treatment Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.h

Applicant tested positive for codeine in a preemployment evaluation for his present employer.

For Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.i

Applicant declined inpatient treatment in April 1993.

For Applicant

Treatment Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.j

Applicant's positive credibility and his actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.k

Applicant's good performance reviews from his former and present supervisor establish substantial reasons why Applicant warrants a security clearance.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.l

Applicant's move to another part of the country to continue his recovery while realizing his aspirations.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.m

Applicant's actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.n

Applicant's positive credibility and his actions since June 1994 demonstrate he intends to stick to his firmly held conviction to maintain a drug-free life in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.o

Applicant's good performance reviews from his former and present supervisor establish substantial reasons why Applicant warrants a security clearance.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.p

Applicant's move to another part of the country to continue his recovery while realizing his aspirations.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES