Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 36-year-old defense contractor, sought a Secret-Level security clearance despite a history of marijuana use and a prior falsification of her security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant had ceased drug use and demonstrated a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle, mitigating concerns under Guidelines E, H, and J. The applicant's proactive admission of her past inaccuracies was also considered a significant factor in her favor, leading to a granted decision.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she intentionally falsified material aspects of her personal background during the clearance screening process (2.a). On November 9, 1995, the Applicant completed an application for security clearance which required her to indicate whether she has ever used any illegal drug, and whether she has ever purchased or sold any illegal drug. The Applicant responded "no" to both questions. These were false answers to material questions pertaining to the Applicant's former involvement with illegal substances (2.b). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she abuses illegal substances (1.a). The Applicant admits to a history of marijuana use beginning in 1981, while in college. From 1981 to until 1983, the Applicant smoked marijuana about twice per month. The Applicant did not use marijuana again until 1992, when her husband died, which was an extremely difficult period in her life. From 1992 until November 1995, the Applicant used marijuana at times on a daily basis (1.b). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she intentionally falsified material aspects of her personal background during the clearance screening process (2.a). The Applicant subsequently came forward on her own volition and admitted that they were false. She stated that she falsified the application because she was in fear that she might not obtain her security clearance, and that she might ultimately lose her job (2.b). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she violated a federal criminal statute (3.a). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she violated a federal criminal statute (3.a).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions H, E, J. The judge applied mitigating conditions H, E, J. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle after ceasing marijuana use in November 1995; The applicant voluntarily corrected her false statements regarding drug use before being confronted by the government; The applicant's one-time slip-up in March 1996 was deemed an isolated incident with no likelihood of recurrence.

Why the applicant prevailed

• The applicant demonstrated a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle after ceasing marijuana use in November 1995.
• The applicant voluntarily corrected her false statements regarding drug use before being confronted by the government.
• The applicant's one-time slip-up in March 1996 was deemed an isolated incident with no likelihood of recurrence.

Conditions referenced

Key rule quoted

“The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.”

Procedural posture

• SOR issuedJul 26, 1996
• Answer filedSep 12, 1996Applicant elected for a written record.
• Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
• Decision dateNov 19, 1996

Cite for

• Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Cessation of Use
• Good Faith Correction of False Statements Under Guideline E
• Isolated Incidents of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J