Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 08, 2004, 12:18 AM
It's hard to answer your question since you don't provide an in-context citation, but I suspect that "before record closed" refers to the evidentiary record that is before the administrative judge.
Posted by c_wiz
 - Dec 07, 2004, 10:29 PM
what is meant in these clearance decsions rendered by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals when it says "before record closed".  does this mean before sf-86 was filled out or before it started being processed, or what..
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 07, 2004, 04:11 PM
I don't have the answers to your question, but to research it yourself, you might refer to Security Clearances and National Security Information: Law and Procedures written by Sheldon I. Cohen for the Defense Personnel Security Research Center. This book may be downloaded as a 17.5 mb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/security-clearances.pdf

You might also review some of the recent industrial security clearance decsions rendered by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals:

http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/

Posted by c_wiz
 - Dec 07, 2004, 06:48 AM
Is there anything that can be done to show mitigation of future use when taking into account the recentness of use?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 07, 2004, 05:38 AM
You could falsely deny your past drug use and use countermeasures to pass your polygraph, but I do not advocate this course of action. I think persons seeking security clearances have an ethical obligation to answer the relevant questions truthfully.

Past use of marijuana (even frequent use) does not necessarily preclude one from ever holding a security clearance, but the recentness of your marijuana use may well pose a problem. However, if you lie about your marijuana use and it comes to light in the course of a background investigation, it will be very difficult for you to ever hold a security clearance.
Posted by c_wiz
 - Dec 07, 2004, 05:18 AM
I am considering interviewing for a job that requires a TS clearance (paperwork to be filed when you start the job), and a lifestyle poly.  I have used marijuana frequently in the past and within the last 2 years.  

I assume I will be asked about drug use during a lifestyle poly and being caught lying on the SF-86 will be grounds for denial of clearance.  Is there any way I would be able to deny past drug use, or past use within the last 2 years (i have a passed drug test from about 1.5 yrs ago) on the SF-86 and the poly.  

basically should I even attempt to secure this job with my recent use of marijuana or should I wait a few years to allow enough time for mitigation of the use.