SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States
Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States Login/Join 
The Unmanned Writer
Picture of LS1 GTO
posted
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Walking through a few things and The question arises; where a "kid" who's 22 years old and living in Colorado (first state to legalize recreational use) wants to become an officer in the military for a position requiring a TSSCI yet did buy some state-legal stuff - would they be nixed from a clearance, Clarence?

The whole idea where a state legalized a schedule 1 drug, and a very smart and very patriotic young-n-dumb partake then goes for a federal clearance... sounds like legalization pretty much kills the states' youth from classified military positions. Maybe there should be big warning signs at the vendor's entrance?







Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.


Help, I'm having premonitions of future flashbacks.

Only in an insane world are the sane considered insane.

Some people listen to the noise of the world,
And some people listen to the quiet.
 
Posts: 9604 | Location: It was Lat: 33.xxxx Lon: 44.xxxx now it's CA :( | Registered: March 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Remember, weed may be legal in a particular state(s), but is still illegal per federal laws. I suspect weed partaking may disqualify you from a clearance if they find out. In fact, I saw people get escorted off a federal location because of a DWI conviction and they were on premises under a "Public Trust" interim clearance (lowest level).
 
Posts: 497 | Location: Virginia Beach, VA | Registered: August 03, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
It’s my understanding that federal law takes precedent for the clearance process and that’s all still illegal drugs according to federal law no matter what the state is saying. It would have to be disclosed during the paperwork process and not sure what that does but I’m sure it doesn’t help.

I see reminders all the time that people who hold clearances CANNOT partake of drugs like pot even if living in a state that allows it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PASig,


 
Posts: 23593 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Aller Anfang ist schwer
Picture of Tavman
posted Hide Post
I held a TSSCI. I admitted to experimenting with pot in early high school. I don't think it's changed that much since I went through.

If he did it a few times and admits to it he should be fine. If it was a habit, and/or he tries to hide the fact it won't go well for him.
 
Posts: 1599 | Location: Fayetteville | Registered: May 23, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Stuck on
himself
posted Hide Post
Past use is not a disqualifier. Present use is a definite no go, even if you’re living is a state which allows it.


One night, lightning struck the oak tree.
 
Posts: 3916 | Registered: January 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bookers Bourbon
and a good cigar
Picture of Johnny 3eagles
posted Hide Post
He needs to disclose the pot use on his security clearance application. If the DOD does a Background check, they could develop leads outside of his references. When they find his buddy he did weed with, they need to already know he partook of the evil weed before hand. Of course, things could have changed. My clearance required an in person investigation.





A LIBERAL IS A MAN WHO WILL GIVE AWAY EVERY THING HE DOESN'T OWN.
 
Posts: 3420 | Location: Arkansas  | Registered: November 06, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Unmanned Writer
Picture of LS1 GTO
posted Hide Post
So regardless of federal law(s), how many high school seniors and college sophomores know that what is sold in a local store is actually against the law?

The point is, these recreational states are, in effect, screwing over its youth from clearances. Kind of like hosing over those who hand over id to buy some edibles from owning a firearm.







Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.


Help, I'm having premonitions of future flashbacks.

Only in an insane world are the sane considered insane.

Some people listen to the noise of the world,
And some people listen to the quiet.
 
Posts: 9604 | Location: It was Lat: 33.xxxx Lon: 44.xxxx now it's CA :( | Registered: March 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of PGT
posted Hide Post
past use within the period of the background investigation will likely render you unable to obtain the clearance. As said, they don't care if you did it WAY in the past but the scope of a Single Scope Background Investigation or SSBI is 10 years for a Top Secret which is the highest level DoD clearance. The SCI elibility is separate.
 
Posts: 1538 | Location: Leesburg VA | Registered: December 21, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
Weed is not legal under federal law. If drug use is a disqualifier for the DOD, that supersedes any state allowance of recreational use. People are free to seek employment elsewhere if getting high is more important to them than a federal job with such a hiring restriction.

Having smoked in the past is not necessarily a disqualifier; current use might be, and lying about it is an instant disqualifier at any time the lie is uncovered.




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 8711 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
ok, so let me see if I get this right

a federal job requires a TS clearance and will lead to a good high paying job and a nice career

smoking weed gets you wasted...and possibly costs you your career...

tell me again why doing drugs is OK?



Participating in a gun buy back program because you think criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbor has too many kids

"I'm only myself when I have a guitar in my hands." - George Harrison


 
Posts: 47047 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Stop Talking, Start Doing
Picture of Copefree
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
ok, so let me see if I get this right

a federal job requires a TS clearance and will lead to a good high paying job and a nice career

smoking weed gets you wasted...and possibly costs you your career...

tell me again why doing drugs is OK?


Rather, tell me why it matters if someone smokes weed?

I mean, we are talking about weed here.

Alcohol should be the disqualifier in my opinion, if you really think about it.


_______________
Mind. Over. Matter.
 
Posts: 4537 | Location: North of Seattle, Warshington | Registered: August 31, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
He’ll need to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Telling the truth is more valued than the appearance of squeaky clean look. I’ve seen people retain clearances with horrible divorces, financial issues, you name it. But they were upfront about the issues.

Only guys I saw have problems were those who didn’t disclose then eventually had to do a Polygraph. Usually didn’t work out well for them.

And obviously, once he joins, he’ll be subject to regular drug tests and the days of smoking reefer will be over. It’s grounds for automatic admin sep, especially for an officer.
 
Posts: 39402 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Not really from Vienna
Picture of arfmel
posted Hide Post
“Rather, tell me why it matters if someone smokes weed?”

Because it’s a violation of federal law.


If the kids affected honestly had no idea that marijuana use was against federal law, I’d be very surprised. They made a poor decision and now have to live with the consequences. Welcome to the grown-up world.




 
Posts: 23069 | Location: Young American Teen Club | Registered: January 30, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Unmanned Writer
Picture of LS1 GTO
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
ok, so let me see if I get this right

a federal job requires a TS clearance and will lead to a good high paying job and a nice career

smoking weed gets you wasted...and possibly costs you your career...

tell me again why doing drugs is OK?


Typical 16 - 20 year old kids do not understand their full potential nor understand "it's not against the law except per the feds." IMHO - they're being set up for failure because the state will not explain all the ramifications of handing over the ID to [legally] purchase weed.







Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.


Help, I'm having premonitions of future flashbacks.

Only in an insane world are the sane considered insane.

Some people listen to the noise of the world,
And some people listen to the quiet.
 
Posts: 9604 | Location: It was Lat: 33.xxxx Lon: 44.xxxx now it's CA :( | Registered: March 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of OMCHamlin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Walking through a few things and The question arises; where a "kid" who's 22 years old and living in Colorado (first state to legalize recreational use) wants to become an officer in the military for a position requiring a TSSCI yet did buy some state-legal stuff - would they be nixed from a clearance, Clarence?

The whole idea where a state legalized a schedule 1 drug, and a very smart and very patriotic young-n-dumb partake then goes for a federal clearance... sounds like legalization pretty much kills the states' youth from classified military positions. Maybe there should be big warning signs at the vendor's entrance?


Game over for DOD, even DOD contractor, no clearance, no employment. States can make it as "legal" as they want, Uncle Sam says "nix-nein, porcupine!"
 
Posts: 556 | Registered: September 27, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?

Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?
 
Posts: 3965 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Ice Cream Man
posted Hide Post
Well, they're tried as adults, are able to serve, vote, and, for the ones over 18, sign binding contracts, so I don't see why they shouldn't be held accountable for smoking pot.
 
Posts: 3519 | Location: Republic of Ice Cream, Myrtle Beach, SC | Registered: May 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?

Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?


Absolutely must disclose. Lying about it means instant firing without any other recourse. That means if it is discovered 10 years down the road, regardless of being clean all that time, the lack of discretion is the disqualifier, not necessarily the usage. Even if the feds were to legalize (don’t hold your breath), failing to be truthful about previous usage would be poison.




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 8711 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
quote:
Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?

Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?


Absolutely must disclose. Lying about it means instant firing without any other recourse. That means if it is discovered 10 years down the road, regardless of being clean all that time, the lack of discretion is the disqualifier, not necessarily the usage. Even if the feds were to legalize (don’t hold your breath), failing to be truthful about previous usage would be poison.


Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, but that isn't quite the question I'm asking.

My question: is the better strategy in applying for a security clearance to apply for it and answer honestly about previous pot use and risk a possible denial OR is it better to take another job that isn't impacted by the pot use for several years until the 10 year period has been reached and then apply for the job and security clearance?

I'm curious if a past security clearance denial impacts a later clearance application.
 
Posts: 3965 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?


Here is the thing. They are going to need to talk to A LOT of people that know you VERY WELL. They are going to ask all of those people A LOT of questions.

Maybe people who know that at one time you smoked some reefer. So maybe they are actually truthful and mention that they knew you smoked once or twice (and yes, they'll be asked all that and more).

<Insert WAMMY sound>

quote:
Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?

I don't know all the ins and outs of the investigation process, but I would bet some sort of integrity / lying found on a previous investigation would not be viewed favorably on future attempts.

Also, falsifying information on an SF-86 (security paperwork) is a felony. Its unclassified and available on the internet, several sections ask about illegal drug use.

----------------------------------

"YOUR USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS AND DRUG ACTIVITY

The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or drug activity. You are required to answer the questions fully and truthfully, and your failure to do so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision or action against you, but neither your truthful responses nor information derived from your responses will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.

(a) Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?)

(b) Have you ever illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; while possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting the public safety?

(c) In the last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, or cannabis for your own intended profit or that of another?

Penalties for Inaccurate or False Statements

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines of up to $10,000, and/or 5 years imprisonment, or both. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements. Because the position for which you are being considered is a sensitive one, your trustworthiness is a very important consideration in deciding your eligibility for a security clearance.

----------------------------------
Sure, they likely don't charge & convict people often (like how they fail to charge people for 4473 lies), but still.

A security clearance is a position of trust so honesty is required.
 
Posts: 39402 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States

© SIGforum 2018