CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00792 · CASE

ISCR Case 18-00792denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00792

deniedNov 15, 2018· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 25-year-old defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline H due to marijuana use from 2013 to 2017. Despite claiming abstinence since 2017, the judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate concerns about reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used marijuana on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017, including after stating an intention to abstain.
The applicant did not provide a signed statement of intent to abstain from future drug use.
The applicant's short period of abstinence was deemed insufficient to demonstrate reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's frequent marijuana use and subsequent use after claiming abstinence did not support this condition.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant did not provide evidence of actions taken to overcome substance misuse.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 23, 2018
Answer filedJun 14, 2018Applicant elected for a written record decision.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateNov 15, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation and Abstinence From Substance Misuse
Importance of a Signed Statement of Intent to Abstain From Drug Use

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 history of marijuana use raised significant security concerns under Guideline H. Despite the applicant's claims of abstinence, the judge determined that the frequency of past use and subsequent use after stating an intent to abstain undermined his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

1.a Applicant used marijuana on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: )

)

ISCR Case No. 18-00792

) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

______________

Decision ______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On April 23, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines effective June 8, 2017 (AG).

Applicant answered the SOR on June 14, 2018, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the 11/15/2018

Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 9, 2018. The evidence included in the FORM is identified as Items 5-6 (Items 1-4 include pleadings and transmittal information). The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on July 21, 2018. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not file any objections nor submit any additional evidence. Items 5-6 are admitted into evidence without objection. The case was assigned to me on October 31, 2018.

Findings of Fact

In Applicant’s answer, he admitted (with explanations) the allegation in the SOR. I adopt his admission as a finding of fact. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 25 years old. He is single with no children. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since May 2016. He holds a bachelor’s degree.1

The SOR alleges Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency from approximately February 2013 to September 2017. Applicant admitted, in his security clearance application (SCA) completed in August 2016, using marijuana from 2013 to 2016 on a twice-monthly basis. He further stated in his SCA that he did not intend to use marijuana in the future. He told a defense investigator in January 2018 that he used marijuana two additional times, in June and November 2017, since completing his SCA. He again expressed his intention not to use marijuana in the future. Applicant was aware marijuana was illegal at the time of his use. He has not received any treatment or counseling for his marijuana use. Since Applicant submitted this case for an administrative determination, I was not able to judge his credibility based on demeanor.2

Policies

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,

1 Item 5.

2 Items 5-6.

reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.”

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

Analysis

Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement and substance misuse:

The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any "controlled substance"

as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above.

AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. One condition is potentially applicable in this case, to wit:

(a) any substance misuse.

Applicant used marijuana on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017. I find that the above disqualifying condition applies.

AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Two potentially apply in this case:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and

(b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:

(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;

(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and

(3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug

involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future

involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security

eligibility.

Applicant’s use of marijuana was frequent and, given his long-term pattern of use, his claimed abstinence beginning in 2017 is not sufficiently attenuated to be considered remote. Even more troubling than his frequent use was his two uses of marijuana in 2017, after he completed his SCA and stated his intent not to use in the future. He, once again, stated he will not use in the future, but based on his past actions, it is difficult to lend credence to such stated intention. He did not provide a signed statement of intent abstaining from all future illegal drug use, which acknowledged any future misuse would be grounds for revocation of his security clearance. Applicant’s short abstention is insufficient to convince me that recurrence is unlikely. His frequency of past use and his use of marijuana after stating his intent not to use cast doubt upon his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 26(b) do not apply.

Whole-Person Concept

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guideline and the whole-person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that he used marijuana on numerous occasions and he used marijuana after completing his SCA and stating his intent not to use marijuana in the future..

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse.

Formal Findings

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline H:

AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a:

Against Applicant

Conclusion

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge