Please do not fret. In my experience on this blog there are more people who judge you and try to use information against you rather than actually offer help and resources.
Though I suspect based upon the information you have provided your clearance will be revoked, I would encourage you to appeal.
Hire a Clearance Lawyer (Bigley & Ranish suggested) - provide all favorable performance appraisals, volunteer/community service activities, awards/certificates, as many character references from varying individuals as possible
Complete a security clearance medical evaluation (Kimberley Berlin recommended) - do not overstate your use and make clear your current understanding of federal laws, your intent to never use again, and the importance of your employment and duty to civil service. Include the favorable resulting report in your appeal.
Resolve any impending state charges. It’s is important to not be convicted, not receive any probation time, and expunge their record as soon as possible. You may need a civil lawyer to assist here. They may be able to use your resume and contributions to the community to make a deal with the states attorney.
If would recommend waiting a period of 6 months after submitting the appeal to write your federal senator to send an inquiry on your behalf to the agency of board hearing your appeal. Restate your regret, period of abstaining (should be since March 2019 according to your own information), and desire to return to your position in better character.
Best of luck to you!
Thank you Kip. I agree I’ve noticed this blog seems to have more people hell bent on people being denied than trying to help, others a bit more friendly.
I’ve already gone through those first two steps. Are you recommending me have the 2005 charge expunged?
Wow. I remember reading this story when you first posted. That’s great news, happy to hear that! Would you mind breaking out your timeline (e.g. E-Qip submitted date, SOR received date, etc)? And you said you hired an attorney? Who did you go with if you don’t mind me asking?
eQIP Dec 2018
Interview March 2019 (last use the weekend before this interview because I’m an idiot and didn’t think legal state use was an issue, WRONG)
SOR recieved Sept 2019
Response sent Dec 2019
Got the email today. I used Bigley Ranish and was evaluated by Kimberly Berlin. I’d already hired them before @kip advised but that person is spot on.
Im hoping you don’t even get a SOR but I knew my story would give you hope. Saw that your post had been locked, so glad you saw this.
The update hasn’t shown in my career portal yet but I’m assuming my security officers check of JPAS is the gospel for this stuff. I’ve got to meet with her soon as she’s anticipating a warning letter. I also offered to be drug tested so I’ll see if I’m enrolled in that as well, which will be easy because I am not messing around.
Much appreciated! Sounds like Christmas came early to you. I’ve already spoken with Bigley and Ranish, but I’ll speak with Kimberly Berlin as well.
If your career portal is anything like ours, I would assume it’ll take a while to update lol. When you say warning letter, do you mean from your command?
I think it’s to provide information to trained adjudicators so they can make a decision that they believe is consistent with national security interests based on the whole person concept.
I’d assume Tony has an otherwise exemplary record or specialized skillset that played into getting past the fact he used with a clearance.
He recieved a SOR. It’s obviously still an issue. I think this shows that the whole person concept had to have helped. I know it’s not the opinion of this forum but I find financial issues a bigger issue as it shows people can’t uphold their obligations and keep their lifestyle and finances in order which makes you vulnerable to being “bought” versus someone using marijuana where they’re honest about it and can’t be blackmailed over it. Still dumb to violate federal law but that doesn’t mean the person is terrible and can’t be trusted.
@Tony1 congratulations! Your process was much faster, in part (I’m sure) because you hired a clearance lawyer to reply to the SOR. This is very important, and as you can see the best option for acknowledging and replying to the DoD. Well done!
No it would be from the DOD CAF, pretty sure from what I’ve heard it’s basically if I do anything wrong in the next 2-3 years that my clearance can be revoked. Not sure but I will update you when I get it. I also offered to be drug tested so I may be enrolling in the testing program.
No offense but you sound sour. I would venture to guess that those who approved his clearance also care about national security and felt his actions were genuinely an error in judgment. Whole person concept.
Regardless, I’m happy for you @Tony1. We have people who work for the administration that have many many conflicts of interest that IMHO pose greater national issues than his usage.
Financial issues are often, not always but often, the result of issues beyond the applicants control. Loss of job, medical expenses, divorce, recession all sorts of things.
Drug use, in these cases, is always a choice. In this particular case, the idea that the applicant didn’t know any better isn’t believable and he noted that he would use again if his state legalized use. He used overseas which is a flag because it makes him a target. The negatives just pile up.
I’m with @fed-investigator . . . Why bother? Just allow use and get it over with.
Ed we don’t always agree and other times I think you’re spot on, this is one “Just allow use and get over it”.
I would think the applicant saying they would use in their state if it was legal shows exactly that they didn’t understand. Use abroad is definitely another dumb move though but we don’t know the situation around that here.
Sadly medical expenses are far beyond people’s control. Proper financial planning would certainly alleviate loss of job which possibly could be controlled and recession which def can’t be. Divorce? People choose to marry and you’ve gotta sign the papers to divorce. Regardless a very indebted person is a prime target.
Agreed. The law is BS anyway. Pot should be legalized or at least the usage not be part of the investigation process or part of any (private/public) background/drug check.
Funny since Bush, Clinton and Obama all admitted using marijuana. Wonder if they would be considered risks to national security? Lol.
None admitted to use while in office . . . None admitted to anything but use in their youth and Clinton didn’t have the balls to admit that inhaled.
That’s not what we are talking about here. Before allowing use by cleared personnel, congress would have to get off their collective asses and change the law. But, I disagree with that as well. Marijuana is not harmless. It’s actually extremely dangerous and it doesn’t always require abuse to be a serious issue.