Former Confidential Informant Loses Security Clearance Appeal

A recent Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) case involved a former confidential informant (CI) who was caught selling marijuana at his college and subsequently got roped into becoming an informant by a Special Agent from an unknown agency. The DoD declined to grant him clearance eligibility based on criminal conduct, illegal drug involvement, and personal conduct. Here are the highlights of the case.

The applicant, while attending college in 2017, started buying and selling marijuana to make some easy money. He was observed doing this on three separate occasions by the Special Agent, who then approached him and told him if he became an informant and continued to buy marijuana and record the transactions via audio and video, he would make the felony charges he was facing go away.  The applicant worked for the agent as a CI, setting up three other sellers for the agent.

After graduating in 2019 he moved and never heard from the agent again. In September 2019, the applicant was offered a position by a defense contractor that required a security clearance, and he filled out the SF-86, omitting all of the information about having sold illegal drugs or having been charged with criminal conduct. In January 2020, the applicant was arrested due to an active fugitive warrant that was filed by the Special Agent that he had been a CI for. He ended up pleading guilty in court to reduced charges of selling marijuana and was put on probation until May 2025 by the judge.

During his appeal hearing, the applicant admitted to deliberately lying about the criminal charges and selling marijuana because he was afraid he would not get a clearance. Several witnesses testified to the applicant’s character and trustworthiness. The DOHA judge evaluated all of the information presented and determined that the criminal conduct and illegal drug involvement concerns were mitigated. However, the personal conduct concerns and deliberately not disclosing required information, was not mitigated and the appeal was denied.