Marijuana use/federal job Forum

[Anonymous User]

I hope you’re asking if it would be disqualifying, not whether you should disclose it.

No one here can tell you the answer to the former. Frankly, it may be up to the individual USA to help push things.

As to the latter, the FBI will absolutely find out if you were a habitual user. This isn’t a close questions.

If I found out someone in my office lied on their SF86, I have a duty to report that. Covering for a colleague isn’t worth my career, clearance, or mortgage payments.

[Anonymous User]

I hope you’re asking if it would be disqualifying, not whether you should disclose it.

No one here can tell you the answer to the former. Frankly, it may be up to the individual USA to help push things.

As to the latter, the FBI will absolutely find out if you were a habitual user. This isn’t a close questions.

If I found out someone in my office lied on their SF86, I have a duty to report that. Covering for a colleague isn’t worth my career, clearance, or mortgage payments.

My bad, I should have clarified that. I’m only asking if it’s disqualifying.

I’m disclosing any use within the past seven years—exactly what the SF86 says. I’m not lying about anything or covering things up, so I’m going to disclose the one instance that falls within that seven-year period.

Do individual USAs have sway with OARM determinations? That could me help a lot in particular, but the advice online that I’ve read made it seem like the process isn’t something that anyone has any influence over.

[Anonymous User]

Do individual USAs have sway with OARM determinations? That could me help a lot in particular, but the advice online that I’ve read made it seem like the process isn’t something that anyone has any influence over.

I don't think they really do; my experience (with the initial clearance and re-clearance after 7 years) is that it's entirely distinct from your USAO and the USAO doesn't know anything about it until OARM says you're good to go. I suppose you can't rule out random connections, but my impression is definitely that they don't have any say. Policy-wise, it doesn't make sense for individual offices to be able to affect clearances (or they'd just handle them to start with).

But in any case, I *really* don't think that one incident in college will be disqualifying.

(Random anecdote: I was once prepping a cooperating witness with a colleague and they asked the witness if they'd ever used illegal drugs. The witness said no, my colleague asked specifically about marijuana and they said no, and my colleague, not really believing them, said, Look, even I'VE used pot. Based on this colleague's age/time with the office, I'm pretty sure this is something they'd have disclosed on their background check.)

[Anonymous User]

Do individual USAs have sway with OARM determinations? That could me help a lot in particular, but the advice online that I’ve read made it seem like the process isn’t something that anyone has any influence over.

I don't think they really do; my experience (with the initial clearance and re-clearance after 7 years) is that it's entirely distinct from your USAO and the USAO doesn't know anything about it until OARM says you're good to go. I suppose you can't rule out random connections, but my impression is definitely that they don't have any say. Policy-wise, it doesn't make sense for individual offices to be able to affect clearances (or they'd just handle them to start with).

But in any case, I *really* don't think that one incident in college will be disqualifying.

(Random anecdote: I was once prepping a cooperating witness with a colleague and they asked the witness if they'd ever used illegal drugs. The witness said no, my colleague asked specifically about marijuana and they said no, and my colleague, not really believing them, said, Look, even I'VE used pot. Based on this colleague's age/time with the office, I'm pretty sure this is something they'd have disclosed on their background check.)

That confirms what I’ve heard about the clearance process. And I am also hopeful that incident in college won’t disqualify me.

I wonder if the reforms to the SF-86 will moot the whole thing and only ask about use within 90 days/5 years for hard drugs. But there’s been very little information online about when to expect the new forms to roll out.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity, if I used marijuana occasionally during 2L, but haven't used it in the past few months or so and would be 6+ months clean by the time I was asked, would that nuke my chance at getting anything in DOJ Honors? Or would there be more leeway given since it's all pre-bar?

Edit: or are the SF86 reforms likely to roll out before then so it wouldn't be an issue?

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity, if I used marijuana occasionally during 2L, but haven't used it in the past few months or so and would be 6+ months clean by the time I was asked, would that nuke my chance at getting anything in DOJ Honors? Or would there be more leeway given since it's all pre-bar?

Edit: or are the SF86 reforms likely to roll out before then so it wouldn't be an issue?

I think this is hard to answer. When I went through the honors program during my second clerkship (so I was interviewing about 18 months after I graduated), I was told that the only deal breakers were failure to pay taxes, defaulting on student loans, and post-bar drug use. So 2L drug use isn’t an automatic disqualification, especially given the anticipated changes in the form (and I went through this 10 years ago).

That said, it definitely has more potential to be a problem. As a sort of general rule, I don’t think 6-ish months is really long enough to show reform. But again, attitudes are clearly changing so it’s all a bit up in the air. The new forms might well roll out before you get hired, but my quick googling didn’t result in any clear timeline.

(Obviously if someone who had this experience can post it will be much more helpful than my vague anecdote!)