Makes me wonder how many of our federal politicians have smoked while holding such clearances?

Obama, Clinton, Kerry, McCain, Biden, etc. I wonder if smoking during the Viet Nam war was excused for senators and Reps who later got clearances.

Although having been a smoker might indicate poor judgment in the past, I doubt that past action would have a big effect as long as it was not continuing. Alcohol and drugs do cause persons to use poor judgment and that is not compatible with a Security Clearance.

flashguy

I was under the impression they were tightening down on marijuana use:

Case Number: 17-03186.h1
Drugs; Personal Conduct
08/13/2018

Applicant used and purchased illegal substances (marijuana) over a number of years and falsified security applications he completed in 2016 with intentional omissions of his marijuana activities. Allegations of illegal substance abuse and falsification are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03186.h1

Additionally:

Case Number: 17-02425.h1
Drugs; Personal Conduct
08/08/2018

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under drug involvement and substance misuse, and personal conduct. Continued eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02425.h1

Peruse here:

http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2018.html

quote:

Originally posted by matai:
I was under the impression they were tightening down on marijuana use:

Case Number: 17-03186.h1
Drugs; Personal Conduct
08/13/2018

Applicant used and purchased illegal substances (marijuana) over a number of years and falsified security applications he completed in 2016 with intentional omissions of his marijuana activities. Allegations of illegal substance abuse and falsification are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03186.h1

Additionally:

Case Number: 17-02425.h1
Drugs; Personal Conduct
08/08/2018

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under drug involvement and substance misuse, and personal conduct. Continued eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02425.h1

Peruse here:

http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2018.html

The first case you cited is a denial for lying about drug use. The second case shows the person was believed to be honest, but provided information that mitigated concerns, and the clearance was granted.

As has been stated earlier, drug use itself is not necessarily a disqualifier, but lying is a disqualifier.

I can almost guarantee that first denial listed above was a military case. A lot of times recruiters tell these kids to lie and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory. Then while junior is at basic his friends back home are telling investigators about how much weed they smoked together and his clearance gets denied.

I do not understand the desire to take drugs - even recreational

I dislike taking aspirin

to me its all about judgement - if you take drugs, what does that say about your overall judgement?

this isn't an alcohol/weed discussion

this is only about weed

alcohol is legal, and its misuse is just as bad as anything else and again, its a judgement (or lack thereof) issue

I think it should be a disqualifier

there are a lot of people that didn't do drugs and should have first shot at those jobs

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
. . . and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory.

The recruit signs, certifying the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ are true and correct. If the recruit does not read the form, and insist on any errors/omissions being corrected, the recruit is both foolish AND dishonest. Even at age 18, it's not too much to expect them to be honest, both in their answers, and in certifying the form is true and correct.

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

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
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.

Okay, I got this (And Yes, I came into the US Navy in 1983, disclosing that I had tried "da reefer" as a youth. I was granted a waiver, screened, showed clean and allowed to serve in our Navy for 23 and a half years, until me retirement in 2006. I then re-obtained a clearance in 2006 to go to work as a defense contractor. I did not lie to them then, either. If you lie to them, about anything, and they catch you, you are d.o.n.e, finished, see-ya, outta here, capesh? DO NOT LIE to the clearing agency for ANY reason, they are not as dumb as we take them for, they WILL (depending on level of clearance applied for) go and interview folks all the way back to High School.

Yes, a past clearance denial will require a deeper screening and adjudication, most likely still a denial, unless you can present compelling evidence of an error.

You may want to consider a job that does not require a clearance for now. That is as clear as I can be, but I'll bet you will only hear what you are looking to hear.
Good luck.
Personally, I don't want anyone thinking about being dishonest in a position of trust in government or the military. We have enough of those now...

If you will note, in my first post in this thread on page 1, the post directly under your first post.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

hypothetical hy·po·thet·i·cal \ ˌhī-pə-ˈthe-ti-kəl noun

1 : involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis a hypothetical argument/discussion The theory is hypothetical.

2 : not real : imagined as an example She described a hypothetical case to clarify her point. a hypothetical question/situation/example

My hypothetical question was prompted by the O.P.'s question in how a basically good young person might have jeopardized a reliable productive lucrative career that required a security clearance with a bad decision regarding the use of pot and what their best course of action would be in that hypothetical scenario.

Although I suppose it's possible in the future I have no immediate plans to seek a job requiring a security clearance, so this was never about me.

Based on your reply I'm starting to think that a basic reading comprehension skills test should be part of a security background check...but I do thank you for taking the time to share your security clearance experience and I thank you for your service...

...oh,and you and I are in agreement on one point as I don't want anyone dishonest placed in a position of trust within our government or military either...but then again, my hypothetical question NEVER involved lying, falsifying, misleading, or omitting any info during the background check.

Modern Day Savage,
my thoughts on your hypothetical question.
1. most job applications have a question about ever being denied a clearance if it is potentially required for the job. It is best not to have a denial. If past behavior is bad enough to almost certainly get the denial, then waiting out the time frame would be best along with life style changes.

2. if it is only 50-50 for approval, make the life style changes and wait a few years before applying.


3. if it was only recreational use in school years and life style changes have already occurred, go ahead and apply. be truthful.


Life style changes - no illegal drug use, pre employment test and many jobs have random testing. Security officers in the workplace who are trained to spot users.

reputation on social media, with friends, family, and local LEO's. Change it for the better.

job history, show up on time and no un excused absences. Positive job place attitude.

improve credit history and driving record.

get involved in local community.

Common sense things to show investigators that you are what they want to approve.

As time goes on, and as MJ gains more mainstream acceptance, I think the DOD and other federal agencies are going to have time filling slots for skills they need if they automatically reject pot smokers. How would they do if they automatically rejected people who ever drink alcohol.

This is especially true as most private employers don't pay nearly as close attention.

There is a lot of good, accurate information being given here.

I currently hold a TS/SCI with Poly. To get (and hold) this clearance, I have to be 100% transparent about my behaviors, travels, habits, contacts and... well, everything.

Lying, about ANYTHING, is grounds for immediate disqualification. It's the #1 "gotcha" when applying for a clearance.

Trying weed as a kid may be excused. Habitual use, or secretive use will not. Same with alcohol.

One can lose their clearance for traffic violations! It's all about how you behave on a daily basis. If you routinely drive recklessly, you're going to get in trouble. If you behave in such a manner that you can be blackmailed or compromised as a result, you're going to find your clearance in jeopardy.

Two final thoughts: My wife's ex was a bastard, a wife-beater and a cheat. He had (and has) a clearance. Because he owns up to it. Also, there is no guarantee that a clearance is the ticket to a lush and rewarding future, despite what many believe. I've worked without a clearance and with a clearance, and having one has not added one additional penny to my income. YMMV.

I've long lost count of the number of soldiers, sailors, cops, firemen, and government employees or contractors that I've met who enjoy weed sometimes.

It's the most popular "drug" in the world, for decades. It's always been there, and people have always worked alongside those who enjoy it, they just didn't know it most of the time.

In virtually every example I've seen anyone with a clue knows before "surprise" tests happen, and unless they're taking hair follicles or swabs - a urine test is trivial to beat.

I'm not advocating anything in particular, just trying to insert some reality into this. Weed no more ruins someone or their career than an occasional beer would most of the time.

Alcohol, nicotine, and sugar remain considerably more problematic for society, all the while weed is demonized. But it's changing, day by day. Broader acceptance is inevitable.

One indicator of such is that Medical is now legal in deep-south States. It's simply a matter of time. Just look at this map. The Gray states are the only ones where it's 100% prohibited.



Dark Green: Recreational and Medical is legal.
Medium Green: Medical is legal.
Light Green: Medical with reduced THC is legal.
Gray is prohibited.
And the letter D means the state has Decriminalized it...

Seeing a trend?

Further, they have been various indications in the last many months that both the Left and the Trump administration are basically holding the broad topic of Weed Legalization in their back pocket as a Hail Mary in the event they need a huge boost in popularity. At some point it will be a race to see how can claim credit of doing it first, I suspect, but at the same time they seem to be saving it as a near-last-resort because they themselves aren't fans or they're worried about political fallout. I doubt Trump will do anything in his first term unless he seems likely to lose the reelection. It'll be interesting, regardless.

As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I've long lost count of the number of soldiers, sailors, cops, firemen, and government employees or contractors that I've met who enjoy weed sometimes.

In the case of the cops and perhaps the firemen, I had thought (but don't know for sure) that this would be reason for an immediate termination from employment, if caught. Even in "4:20 Friendly" states.

true?

If they are indeed in violation of their employment agreements, then they are being very foolish regardless of other factors, and honestly, I hope that if they are in violation that they get canned.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
In virtually every example I've seen anyone with a clue knows before "surprise" tests happen, and unless they're taking hair follicles or swabs - a urine test is trivial to beat.

Then you haven't "seen" any examples of military and federal employee drug testing. They are not given notice, and the urinalysis is not "trivial to beat."

I have direct knowledge of the reality of this testing, based on criminal investigations/prosecutions of those who tested positive during random drug testing, or commander or court ordered drug testing. Plenty of people have ruined their careers by mistakenly believing they could "beat" the testing.

You should stick to things you know, and stop giving bad advice, that could have serious consequences for those who might foolishly follow your bad advice.

I don't think stating your clearance level and even stating you currently hold a clearance is the smartest thing to do on the open internet.

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
I don't think stating your clearance level and even stating you currently hold a clearance is the smartest thing to do on the open internet.

How do you thumbs up on the internet?

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.

Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.

Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.

It should have been a schedule II, with consideration for medical use. You misunderstand my comment about being in people’s bodies. THC is a psychotropic compound, and therefore does not belong in the bodies of people involved in the tasks I specifically mentioned, anymore than someone behind the wheel. My point is that even if legalized for medicinal use, it should still be a disqualifier for those professions. I don’t think anyone wants a cop showing up for a critical incident under the influence. I do think it has limited medical value, but agencies should still be able to use it as a disqualifier as a condition of employment.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.

Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.

It should have been a schedule II, with consideration for medical use. You misunderstand my comment about being in people’s bodies. THC is a psychotropic compound, and therefore does not belong in the bodies of people involved in the tasks I specifically mentioned, anymore than someone behind the wheel. My point is that even if legalized for medicinal use, it should still be a disqualifier for those professions. I don’t think anyone wants a cop showing up for a critical incident under the influence. I do think it has limited medical value, but agencies should still be able to use it as a disqualifier as a condition of employment.

What about the literally hundreds, thousands even, of psychotropic drugs lawfully prescribed for depression, anxiety, sleep, pain, attention, and any number of other things? I don't think anybody is saying that those things should preclude a person from holding a certain job or receiving a security clearance. We all interact with people everyday who are prescribed things like benzodiazepines and amphetamines that, I'm some cases, are only able to succeed or only tolerable because of them. Why isn't marijuana any different?

That's the question that nobody can ever seem to answer. What makes this drug that is alternatively a "harmless plant" and a majorly impairing substance such a tremendous alternative to literally every other drug out there? I personally think that the legalization camp is driving the medical propaganda wagon on it. What about marinol? What about cannabidiol? Nobody seems to have any interest in cannabinoids that do not make you feel euphoric.

I admit that I'm kind of arguing both sides here. I think this whole movement is based on "wants" and not facts.