CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 97-0569.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 97-0569.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0569.h1

grantedDec 23, 1997· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old woman, employed by a defense contractor, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons detailed her past drug use, specifically marijuana approximately thirty times and unprescribed Valium six to ten times, both occurring between January 1990 and December 1996. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions H1 and H2.

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions H1, H2, and H3. The applicant had ceased all marijuana use by December 1996 and unprescribed Valium use by at least 1996. She provided credible testimony affirming her intent to abstain from future drug use.

Additionally, favorable character references were submitted, supporting her reliability and trustworthiness. Based on this evidence, the judge found the applicant reformed and granted her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant had not used marijuana since December 1996 and had not used Valium without a prescription since at least 1996.
She provided credible testimony regarding her intent not to use drugs in the future.
Favorable character references supported her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedAny Drug Abuse.
H2raisedIllegal Drug Possession.

Mitigating

H1appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent.
H2appliedThe Drug Involvement Was an Infrequent Event.
H3appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future.

Key Rule Quoted

“In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 21, 1997
Answer filedSep 8, 1997
Hearing heldDec 5, 1997
Decision dateDec 23, 1997

Cite For

Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs Under Guideline H
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Drug Use
Importance of Character References in Security Clearance Cases

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 applicant had a history of marijuana and Valium use but has not used these substances since December 1996. The judge found credible the applicant's testimony regarding her intent not to use drugs in the future, supported by positive character references. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	From January 1990 through December 1996, applicant used marijuana on approximately thirty occasions.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	From January 1990 through December 1996, applicant used Valium that had not been prescribed for her on six to ten occasions.	For Applicant	Prescription Other Misuse	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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: December 23, 1997 In Re: Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 97-0569 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 21, 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) (copy appended) 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 and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. The applicant responded to the SOR in writing on September 8, 1997. The case was received by the undersigned on November 3, 1997, and a Notice of Hearing was issued on November 18, 1997. A hearing was held on December 5, 1997.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a thirty-five year old woman. She graduated from college in December 1996, and has been employed by a defense contractor since May 1997. From January 1990 through December 1996, applicant used marijuana on approximately thirty occasions and used Valium that had not been prescribed for her on six to ten occasions. Applicant testified that she last used marijuana at a graduation party in December 1996. She further testified that pursuing her professional career is now her top priority, and "there is no room" for marijuana in her future. She testified credibly that she will not use it again. She further testified that she has not used Valium since at least 1996, and has no intention of using it in the future. Letters from three people who know applicant well (a supervisor, a coworker and a friend) were admitted in evidence (Exhibits A, B and C). These letters establish that applicant is considered to be a reliable, trustworthy individual who performs well at her job.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth the Adjudication Policy (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: DRUG INVOLVEMENT Disqualifying Factors: 1. Any drug abuse. 2. Illegal drug possession. Mitigating Factors: 1. The drug involvement was not recent. 2. The drug involvement was an infrequent event. 3. A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future.

CONCLUSION

In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. If the Government meets its burden, it has established a prima facie case. Once the Government establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to applicant to produce evidence in refutation, extenuation, mitigation or reformation sufficient to establish that, notwithstanding the Government's prima facie case, he or she can be relied upon to safeguard classified information. In view of the Directive's requirement that a security clearance be granted only upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has a heavy burden. In this case, the Government established a prima facie case under Criterion H. The evidence establishes that from January 1990 through December 1996, applicant used marijuana on approximately thirty occasions, and used Valium that had not been prescribed for her on six to ten occasions. Applicant's illegal use of these drugs reflects adversely on her judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and reasonably suggests that she cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Applicant testified that she has not used marijuana since December 1996 and has not used Valium without a prescription since at least 1996. She further testified that she does not intend to use marijuana or Valium without a prescription in the future. Considering the evidence as a whole, including applicant's demeanor and conduct while testifying, I find this testimony to be credible and worthy of belief. In view of (1) applicant's approximately one year of abstinence, (2) her credible testimony that she does not intend to use marijuana or Valium without a prescription in the future, and (3) the very favorable documentary evidence concerning her reliability and trustworthiness, I conclude that applicant has reformed, and in all likelihood, will not use marijuana or Valium without a prescription in the future. For this reason, Criterion H is found for applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. _______________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

97-0569.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0569.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:09 PM] 97-0569.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0569.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:09 PM] 97-0569.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0569.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:09 PM]