On forms for secret clearance, subject disclosed drug use. 1 instance of MDMA 4 months prior, and 1 instance of Marijuana 3 years prior. Subject is granted clearance.
2 1/2 years later subject applies for a TS clearance but discloses previously undisclosed drug use that occurred during their secret investigation. Instance involved 1 time use of MDMA and Marijuana on the same date. Subject has not used since the incident and has not used while holding the clearance. Subject has distanced himself from parties involved.
Is the subject’s Secret clearance immediately suspended or revoked, or is the subject allowed to explain his case and continue with the TS investigation?
I’ve seen it work out for some people, typically not though. People always forget the most important part to lying - be committed. You already admitted to the behavior so it’s out of your hands now…
The investigation continues the ROI submitted and someone else will make the suitability determination. This is both an Honesty and Drug issue and Subject should be confronted during interview.
Every case is unique, I agree. The point I’m trying to make is that out of the cases I’ve read regarding undisclosed use, use while cleared, etc. it typically results in denial.
The applicant appears to have been candid (good); however, the undisclosed use happened during his/her last investigation (bad). That has to be weighed using whole person concept and mitigation applied.
Adjudicators may not see a significant difference between drug use, while cleared, and drug use during the clearance process. I’m not sure that I do either. It shows poor judgement to use after your SF86 is submitted.
I concur with Ed. Once you have read an SF86 and see the degree of hair splitting put into drug questions, it is fairly clear they need know about any use, possession, transfer, handling etc. It is known non legal behavior, save a few states. Even in those places people are aware they are in a cutting edge “progressive” area and it is clearly known other states and federal law prohibit. I have a pending situation where a cleared person wanted to upgrade for more responsibility and that required a TS and poly. I fully explained the standards on drugs and finances. Upon review of his SF86 I see drug use while cleared. I have no choice but report it to clearance department for his file. He claims and I believe it was a one of use, first time use, none since. But he had a clearance for several years when this took place. I expect a reinvestigaiton request based on my note-to-file request. Had I merely submitted the SF86 I would expect denial of upgrade and revocation.
People who try to upgrade from S to TS w/full scope poly really need to take a long hard look at their past and calculate, as accurately as possible, what their odds of getting cleared are prior to submitting any request or documents for upgrade.
For example, some of these people on this forum who post questions like: “ I’ve had a secret for the past 3 years and I’m in the process of upgrading to TS w/full scope AND I didn’t disclose past drug use for secret AND I blew through an 8-ball with my boys on vacation two months ago. What are my odds of getting cleared after I fully disclose everything?”… I read this stuff and just ask myself, “why?”. Why in the hell would anyone think that is going to work out for them? Adjudicators aren’t idiots, they know exactly why you’re “ coming clean”. You are coming clean because you’re staring down the barrel of a poly you can’t beat… From my perspective, the good thing is these people who lack critical thinking skills are weeded out of government as a result.
Reminds me of a phrase from my days in Corrections regarding drug addiction. It was something like “overcame addiction via incarceration.” Meaning the only reason they aren’t currently using is the fact they are currently incarcerated (and not yet established how to get contraband). Coming clean because one faces a poly doesn’t always end favorably. I remain surprised one of our employees spoke to using while cleared. Had they waited a year or three before attempting to upgrade I think it would have worked out better. Now we are in the waiting phase to see how it is handled. I will speak to it anonymously in future posts.
Dave . . . I don’t think that these people think that adjudicators are idiots . . . I think that see THEIR problem as a small one . . . Even an Eight Ball on vacation just doesn’t get everybody’s attention.