LittleDabbie
Supporter
- 11,813
- 438
12/16/2014 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Recently, several states have decriminalized the use of marijuana, allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes or for limited recreational use. These changes to state law resulted in inquiries from a number of individuals about the impact to adjudications of persons proposed for eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.
The Department of Justice issued guidance making it clear that no state can authorize violations of federal law, including violations of the Controlled Substance Act, which identifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled drug. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, as amended, specifically prohibits a federal agency from granting or renewing a clearance to an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict, and under federal law, use of marijuana remains unlawful. Last, Executive Order 12564 mandates a drug-free workplace and drug-free federal workforce and expressly states that use of illegal drugs on or off duty by federal employees in positions with access to sensitive information may pose a serious risk to national security and is inconsistent with the trust placed in such employees as servants of the public.
Accordingly, in keeping with statute, executive order, and DOJ guidance, changes to state laws pertaining to marijuana use do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. An individual's disregard of federal law pertaining to the use, sale, or manufacture of marijuana remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. As always, adjudicative authorities are expected to evaluate claimed or developed use of, or involvement, with marijuana using the current adjudicative criteria.
When making eligibility decisions of persons proposed for, or occupying, sensitive national security positions, the adjudicative authority must determine if the use of, or involvement with marijuana raises questions about the individual's judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations; including federal laws.
Heads of agencies are expected to advise their workforce that legislative changes by some states and the District of Columbia do not alter federal law or existing National Security Guidelines. Agencies continue to be prohibited from granting or renewing a security clearance to an unlawful user of a controlled substance, which includes marijuana.
Questions pertaining to this article should be directed to Jon Hall at 661-277-5441, Edwards Air Force Base Personnel Security Office.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123434466
The Department of Justice issued guidance making it clear that no state can authorize violations of federal law, including violations of the Controlled Substance Act, which identifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled drug. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, as amended, specifically prohibits a federal agency from granting or renewing a clearance to an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict, and under federal law, use of marijuana remains unlawful. Last, Executive Order 12564 mandates a drug-free workplace and drug-free federal workforce and expressly states that use of illegal drugs on or off duty by federal employees in positions with access to sensitive information may pose a serious risk to national security and is inconsistent with the trust placed in such employees as servants of the public.
Accordingly, in keeping with statute, executive order, and DOJ guidance, changes to state laws pertaining to marijuana use do not alter the existing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. An individual's disregard of federal law pertaining to the use, sale, or manufacture of marijuana remains adjudicatively relevant in national security determinations. As always, adjudicative authorities are expected to evaluate claimed or developed use of, or involvement, with marijuana using the current adjudicative criteria.
When making eligibility decisions of persons proposed for, or occupying, sensitive national security positions, the adjudicative authority must determine if the use of, or involvement with marijuana raises questions about the individual's judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations; including federal laws.
Heads of agencies are expected to advise their workforce that legislative changes by some states and the District of Columbia do not alter federal law or existing National Security Guidelines. Agencies continue to be prohibited from granting or renewing a security clearance to an unlawful user of a controlled substance, which includes marijuana.
Questions pertaining to this article should be directed to Jon Hall at 661-277-5441, Edwards Air Force Base Personnel Security Office.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123434466
