CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 97-0628.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 97-0628.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0628.h1

deniedJan 29, 1998· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old defense contractor with a Master's Degree in Chemistry was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a long history of drug use. The applicant used marijuana from approximately 1980 until the summer of 1997, and cocaine with varying frequency, at times three times yearly, throughout the 1980s. Additionally, he used various forms of amphetamines and some barbiturates in the early 1980s.

The Administrative Judge noted that the applicant's last marijuana use was only four months prior to the decision, despite his assertion in a government form that he would not use marijuana after October 1997. The applicant did not rebut the government's initial case regarding his drug involvement.

While mitigating condition H3 was considered, the applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to overcome the security concerns raised by his extensive and recent drug use. The Administrative Judge concluded that the applicant's history indicated an ongoing risk, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, which raised security concerns.
The applicant's last use of marijuana occurred only four months prior to the decision, indicating ongoing risk.
The applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by his drug involvement.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Abuse
H2raisedIllegal Drug Possession

Mitigating

H3rejectedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the FutureThe applicant's recent drug use undermined his claim of intent not to use drugs.

Key Rule Quoted

“[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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 15, 1997
Answer filedOct 3, 1997
Hearing heldN/ADetermined on written record.
Decision dateJan 29, 1998

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Recent Drug Use in Security Clearance Determinations
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation or Intent Not to Use Drugs in the Future as a Basis for Denial.

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant's admitted drug usage, including marijuana and cocaine, raised significant security concerns. The applicant's recent marijuana use and history of drug involvement were deemed insufficiently mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency from about 1980, when he was in high school, until his last usage in the Summer of 1997.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant also used cocaine, with varying frequency, at times three times yearly, throughout the 1980's.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	He further used various forms of amphetamines, and some barbiturates in the early 1980's.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant avers in his response to the Governments FORM that he would not use marijuana after October 1997.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.e	The Applicant has not rebutted the Government's prima facie case regarding his drug involvement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

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: January 29, 1998 In Re: SSN: Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 97-0628 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RICHARD A. CEFOLA

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 15, 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 October 3, 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 November 7, 1997. Applicant was instructed to submit objections or information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of the FORM. Applicant received his copy on November 11, 1997, and Applicant's reply was received on or about December 17, 1997. The case was received by the undersigned for resolution on December 19, 1997. 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, the File of Relevant Material and Applicant's Response. The Applicant is 34 years of age, has a Masters Degree in Chemistry, 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 marijuana, with varying frequency from about 1980, when he was in high school, until his last usage in the Summer of 1997 (Government Exhibit (GX) 5 at page 1). He "[s]moked marijuana regularly (weekly) until [the] late eighties" (GX 5 at page 1). His use of marijuana "curtailed after [the] late eighties" until at least the date he executed his August 11, 1997, sworn statement (GX 5 at pages 1 and 2). The Applicant avers in his response to the Governments FORM that he "would not use marijuana after October 1997 . . . [a] demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future" (Applicant's Response (Response), and GX 5 at page 1). The Applicant also used cocaine, with varying frequency, at times three times yearly, throughout the 1980's (GX 5 at page 1). He further used various forms of amphetamines, and some barbiturates in the early 1980's (GX 3, and GX 5 at page 1). Mitigation The Applicant avers that he will not use drugs in the future.

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 Conditions 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); (2) illegal drug possession . . . . Condition that could mitigate security concerns: (3) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future; 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 his 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 his private affairs, then there exists the possibility that an applicant may demonstrate the same attitude towards security rules and regulations.

CONCLUSION

The Applicant used cocaine throughout the 1980's, and also used marijuana over a period of about 17 years. In light of the fact that his marijuana use ended only a little more than four months ago (the date of the Applicant's Response to the Government's FORM ends the time line used for adjudication purposes in this case), and that in his August 11, 1997, sworn statement he averred that might use the drug until October; I must conclude that the Applicant's fairly recent use of marijuana is of present security significance. Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has not rebutted the Government's prima facie case regarding his drug involvement. The Applicant has thus not met the mitigating conditions of Criterion H, and of Section F.3. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has not met his 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. For 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

97-0628.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0628.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:23 PM] 97-0628.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0628.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:23 PM] 97-0628.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0628.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:23 PM] 97-0628.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0628.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:03:23 PM]