CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 96-0443.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 96-0443.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/7/1996
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Michael Kirkpatrick
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant had a history of marijuana use but determined that the evidence presented showed significant mitigation. The applicant's use was infrequent, and he demonstrated a clear intent not to use marijuana again. The decision was granted, allowing the applicant to retain his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 96-0443.h1

grantedNov 7, 1996· Hon. Michael Kirkpatrick· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 39-year-old married college graduate employed by a defense contractor, who sought to retain his security clearance despite a history of marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons detailed the applicant's marijuana use, which began in college in 1975 and continued with varying frequency. From 1975 to 1980, he used marijuana once or twice monthly, continuing at that rate until an arrest in April 1981.

Following his arrest, his usage decreased to once every two months to once yearly from 1981 to 1984. Between 1985 and 1991, he used marijuana only one or two times. From 1992 to February 1996, his use was approximately once per year, with the last two instances occurring in June 1995 and February 1996. These allegations raised security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), specifically Disqualifying Condition H1.

However, the judge applied Mitigating Conditions H2 and H3, finding that the applicant demonstrated a credible intent to abstain from future marijuana use. His past use was deemed infrequent and isolated, especially in recent years. Furthermore, he had taken steps to distance himself from drug-using associates and was subject to random drug testing. Based on these factors, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a credible intent not to use marijuana again.
His marijuana use was infrequent and isolated, particularly in recent years.
He has taken steps to distance himself from drug-using associates and is subject to random drug testing.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

H2appliedThe Drug Involvement Was an Isolated or Infrequent Event
H3appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Use or Abuse Any Drugs in the Future

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance will normally be denied or revoked if the evidence reflects use of marijuana on a frequent or a sustained basis.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 1996
Answer filedJul 10, 1996
Hearing heldOct 10, 1996
Decision dateNov 7, 1996

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Credibility of Applicant's Intent to Abstain From Drug Use
Consideration of Infrequent Drug Use 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had a history of marijuana use but determined that the evidence presented showed significant mitigation. The applicant's use was infrequent, and he demonstrated a clear intent not to use marijuana again. The decision was granted, allowing the applicant to retain his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant began smoking marijuana when he was in college, from 1975 until 1980. During those years, his frequency of usage was once or twice per month.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.b	After he graduated from college, he continued to smoke marijuana once or twice per month until April of 1981, when he was arrested.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.c	From 1981 to 1984, Applicant smoked marijuana from 'once every two months to once yearly.' From 1985 to 1991, he smoked marijuana only one or two times.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.d	From 1992 to February of 1996, Applicant smoked marijuana approximately once per year. The last two times that he smoked marijuana were on June 21, 1995, at his wife's birthday party, and in February of 1996.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Claimed Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation

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.