Loading case…

ISCR 97-0447.h1: Guideline H security clearance hearing, denied (1998) · CASE

ISCR Case 97-0447.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0447.h1

deniedFeb 11, 1998· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old systems programmer, employed by a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from her admitted use of multiple illegal drugs, including LSD, Ecstasy, and marijuana, from approximately 1993 until at least March 1997, the date of her Security Clearance Application.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to using LSD "one to two times a year" and Ecstasy "in excess of four times" during this period. She also used marijuana on two occasions within the same timeframe. The judge determined that her recent and potential drug abuse presented significant security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of drug use up to the time of her application, her expressed willingness to continue using illegal drugs in the future, and her failure to provide sufficient mitigating evidence regarding her drug involvement.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant admitted to using illegal drugs, including LSD and Ecstasy, up until the time of her application.
The applicant expressed a willingness to continue using illegal drugs in the future, indicating a lack of commitment to abstaining from drug use.
The applicant provided little to no evidence of mitigation regarding her drug involvement.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement

Key rule quoted

“The improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 20, 1997
Answer filedAug 19, 1997
Hearing heldFeb 11, 1998Determined on a written record.
Decision dateFeb 11, 1998

Cite for

Adverse Impact of Recent Drug Use on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigation Evidence in Drug Involvement Cases
Importance of Demonstrating Rehabilitation for Security Clearance Approval

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

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 37: “The Applicant is a 37 year old systems programer, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant's drug involvement included the use of LSD, Ecstasy, and marijuana from approximately 1993 until at least March 1997. The judge found that the applicant's recent and potential future drug use raised significant security concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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: February 11, 1998 In Re: SSN: Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 97-0447 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RICHARD A. CEFOLA

FOR GOVERNMENT Martin H. Mogul, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se

STATEMENT OF CASE

On June 20, 1997, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked. The SOR is attached. Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on or about August 19, 1997. Applicant elected to have this case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM) on October 21, 1997. Applicant was instructed to submit objections or information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of the FORM. Applicant received her copy on November 24, 1997, and submitted nothing in reply. The case was received by the undersigned for resolution on February 11, 1998. The issue raised here is whether the Applicant's admitted drug usage militates against the granting of a security clearance.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, and the File of Relevant Material. The Applicant is a 37 year old systems programer, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. Criterion H - Drug Involvement 1.a.~1.e. The Applicant used Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), also known as acid, "one to two times a year" from about 1993 until at least the date of her March 27, 1997, Security Clearance Application (Government Exhibit (GX) 5 at page 1). In her Application, she listed her use of acid as being from 1993 to present (GX 4 at page 7). More recently, in a sworn statement executed by the Applicant on May 22, 1997, she averred "I might continue using illegal drugs specifically acid . . . from time to time when I am with friends" (GX 5 at page 2). The Applicant used the illegal drug Ecstasy, "in excess of the four times . . . [she] listed on . . . [her] paperwork [her Application]" from about 1993 until at least the date of her March 27, 1997, Security Clearance Application (GX 5 at page 1). Again, in her Application, she listed her use of Ecstacy as being from 1993 to present (GX 4 at page 7). Also, again in her May 22, 1997, sworn statement, she averred, "I might continue using illegal drugs specifically . . . ecstacy from time to time when I am with friends" (GX 5 at page 2). The Applicant also used marijuana on two occasions from about 1993 until at least the date of her March 27, 1997, Security Clearance Application (GX 5 at page 1). Mitigation The Applicant offers little in the way of mitigation.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section F.3. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern; which must be given binding consideration in making security clearance determinations. The conditions should be followed in every case according to the pertinent criterion, however, the conditions are neither automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own common sense. Because each security clearance case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that these conditions exhaust the realm of human experience, or apply equally in every case. Conditions most pertinent to evaluation of this case are: Drug Involvement Condition that could raise a security concern: (1) any drug abuse (drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction); Conditions that could mitigate security concerns: none As set forth in the Directive,"[each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate: a. Nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances. b. Frequency and recency of the conduct. c. Age of the applicant. d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved. e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation. f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. The Government must make out a prima facie case under Criterion H (drug involvement) which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and her ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required. Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct, is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance. The improper or illegal involvement with drugs, raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places. If an applicant has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law in her private affairs, then there exists the possibility that an applicant may demonstrate the same attitude towards security rules and regulations.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant used LSD, the illegal drug Ecstasy, and marijuana from about 1993 until at least March of 1997 when she executed her Application. She thus last used illegal substances only a little more than seven months ago (the date of the Government's FORM ends the time line used for adjudication purposes in this case). In addition, in her May 22, 1997, sworn statement, she still avers that "might" use both LSD and Ecstasy in the future. Based on the foregoing, I must conclude that the Applicant's fairly recent and potential drug abuse is of present security significance. Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has not rebutted the Government's prima facie case regarding her drug involvement. The Applicant has thus not met the mitigating conditions of Criterion H, and of Section F.3. of the Directive. Accordingly, she has not met her ultimate burden of persuasion under Criterion H.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are: Paragraph 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT a. Against the Applicant. b. Against the Applicant. c. Against the Applicant. d. Against the Applicant. e. Against the Applicant. Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

97-0447.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0447.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:51 PM] 97-0447.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0447.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:51 PM] 97-0447.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0447.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:51 PM] 97-0447.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0447.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:51 PM]