Again, there was a history of uses and the Government did not know about that history. Certainly, the Government did not know of the one-time use WHILE occupying a position of public trust.
The standards are higher for those in public trust and national security positions than those who are not. The main difference between these positions is really the access to type of information. So, as a federal contractor/employee, you are expected to uphold that standards. Failure to do so is frown upon. We all make mistakes, sure. However, by not disclosing it while in the position when you know it is against the rule/law⌠doesnt look good.
While Guideline E is tough to prove for the Government, but it is also tough to mitigate for applicants/holders, in my opinion. Guideline E is also usually accompaied by other Guidelines. By waiting a few years, issue will be non-issue. From what I gather, it takes 9 year for an issue to become non-issue. Plus, some agencies have low to zero tolerance for something like this.
I would have disclosed the one time use in my old Contractor position if A: I was more knowledgeable about the federal government and the clearance process B. My contracting company was more forthcoming about drug use.
I was a recent college grad with no idea what a TS or Public Trust clearance was. I read all the paperwork but it was a lot to absorb and did not remember all the details. I was told many times that I did not hold a clearance and was not a federal employee. 5 years later, Iâm approaching 30, been a contractor for half decade now for 4 agencies and understand the lingo and what you can and canât do. Iâm light-years ahead knowledge wise and mature of where I was just starting my first job out of college in my early/mid 20s. If I knew to disclose the use, I definitely would have. I was just dropped in a office and told to answer the phone for Tier 1 IT support, barely any guidance from my employer. It was a dumb mistake and I will tell my investigator about it.
Well Ed the option is blindly move forward and if one gets a denialâŚthey wait for SOR, and appeal, and time has passedâŚso at times waiting a few years gives a higher percent chance of approval. Each agency has their interpretations. Once a person is an adult for a few years I find not much credibility on âwell I really didnât pay attention or understand what I was signing,â particularly as a college graduate. Once you pass the age of majorityâŚyou are responsible. He already has time on his side if he held no position of trust. I can see it going either way. I am waiting on the re-investigation from one of mine who smoked while cleared. She claims it was one of, and no longer associates with the person she used with. But she was ad adult and used drugs wile cleared. Moving forward I think we will see that lighten up across the board IMHO. We are at almost full employment, and we still need more cleared people. It would not surprise me to see the standard on MJ lessened.
I donât see this as being done âblindlyâ. Iâm suggesting eyes wide open and prepared to defend with valid mitigating factors. Hereâs the way that this is going to change . . .
The government will continue to deny for minor drug use (as in the this case.)
The applicants will continue to appeal.
Judges will be applying the âwhole person conceptâ and looking at mitigating factors and providing rulings that show that minor use of a more and more ubiquitous substance doesnât show a major character flaw.
The government agencies will watch their denials being overturned and will open up their guidelines.
The same thing has, to a large extent, already happened with financial issues. Since the financial crash of 2007-10, more people now have financial issues, both current and past, and many who would have been denied years ago are getting clearances.
I see your point, and I agree the tsunami of MJ approved states is growing: medical, recreational, etc. Most of the current crop running for election speak of increasing that speed in which it is approved. I honestly would think if a person simply lays it all on the table and is honest, it negates blackmail. Does it really pass the litmus test of âyou are trustworthyâ if we wait 12 months since last use vice 9 months? Iâm not seeing a big difference there. But it speaks to a willingness to violate rules. But even that over time as a law begins to be ânotâ enforcedâŚit isnât really a law and should be stricken. But, until thenâŚit is what it is. I have no doubt we miss out on stellar folks who used and we accept folks who do not useâŚbut are stinkers.
As far showing character, having smoked a little grass shows âdisregard for the lawâ about as much as cruising the turnpike at 80MPH does. I live in Jersey and people donât really get pulled over for speeding any more. Recklessly swapping lanes while doing 80 in a 65 yes but not because of the speed. What kind of character does it take to rack up 40 parking tickets in two years but, as long as you pay the fines, this isnât even reportable.
If someone goes to CO and smokes a little, then comes home and discovers a job opportunity that requires a clearance, isnât the same as someone who applies for a clearance and THEN smokes which still isnât the same as someone who gets a clearance and then smokes.
None-the-lessâŚit remains the standard we are judged by currently. And someone determined if you indicate no use 12 monthsâŚthat is enough to believe you will not use in the future. Conduct is the true indicator If a person follows the rules, but it may very well ONLY speak to that certain item and no other. All of it falls on a scale I suppose. My client informed me they absolutely do not care if you have revoked license, as long as you do not try to drive while revoked. If you pay the fines for the 40 tickets and driving is restored? Welcome back. Getting pulled over for speeding is quite arbitrary. Traveling in and out of the Northern Va corridor if you arenât prepared to do a minimum of 80 you are impeding the flow. Even at 85 you will get passed regularly. Does it mean you are not trustworthy? No, but it does mean you will not always follow the rules. In the case of drugs, my client says no use 12 months for random or low use, 18 months for heavier use and up to 3 years if the class of drugs was significantly higher (cocaine, Meth etc). I concur on the last few sentences. And I am waiting to hear on one guy who did use after being cleared for a piece if time. I am most interested to see how this pans out.
I closed my investigation. I accepted a better, higher paying job with Booz Allen. Iâll reconsider a cleared fed job in a few years when I donât have to check any boxes. I was very furtunate to have this opportunity with Booz and its much better position career-wise. The State job was low paying and more administrative in nature and Booz was a Senior SME job.
Hey All, Iâm back after a year. Got another offer from State that requires a TS (not a TS/SCI like last time) and what do you think my odds are now with another year on my belt?
Iâm back after a year. Got another offer from State that requires a TS (not a TS/SCI like last time) and what do you think my odds are now with another year on my belt? Itâs been 5 years now and add another year to the other items I listed.
You will have to disclose everything from your original post on the SF-86, as it all falls within the scope of the questions. Having another year with no use obviously helps but you still have the âtrustâ concern that was so heavily discussed. So the answer is still, no one really knows for sure. The fact you used while in a position of Public Trust may not even be addressed or it might.
My gut feeling is that more than enough time has passed for mitigation, so my advice would be to go for it.