RECRUITMENT AND DRUG USE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 19, 2007
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: March 31, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400460006-0
0
0
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional) DD/A Registry
FRO
EXTENSION
NO.
Director of Security
DATE
1, 1 MAR 1983
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
RECEIVED FORWARDED
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw o line across column after each comment.)
DDA
ZD 24 Headquarters
1 ~9e
;98'
2.
Q ,~
A
1963
r? n
;~ `U',~ 4
3.
4
4
APR 198
r:,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 61 O USE PREVIOUS
I-79 EDITIONS -
Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400460006-0
 Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400460006-0
3 1 MAR 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Special Assistant to the DCI
for Interdepartmental Affairs
erector of Security
SUBJECT: Recruitment and Drug Use
1. You have raised a number of issues concerning drug
use and its impact on the Recruitment Program, particularly as
it effects the Career Training Program (CTP).
2. I am including, as Attachment A, the "Policy on Drug
Abuse" dated 16 June 1982 which was developed after consultation
with the Office of Medical Services, Office of Personnel, Office
of General Counsel and the Counterintelligence Staff, DDO. This
STAT
paper represents a coordinated effort of affected Agency components
to present an official formulation of Agency policy and was approved
as such by the DDCI on the date reflected above.
3. The enunciated policy has been distributed to appropriate
components of the Agency, to include the Office of Personnel, and,
as such, is available as guidance for recruiters and other persons
involved in reviewing qualifications of applicants. I would
parenthetically note that, over the years, during Recruiters
Conferences senior Office of Security officials have made them-
selves available to discuss the drug policy of the Agency. In
addition, since the establishment in 1980 of the Expeditor Unit,
which is manned by Office of Security careerists and retired
annuitants and located within the Recruitment and Placement
Directorate of the Office of Personnel, there has been a
continuing dialogue between field recruiters and Expeditor
personnel on drug tolerance levels of acceptability or nonaccept-
ability.
4. To augment the "Policy on Drug Abuse" I have recently
provided the Director of Personnel with a second paper,
"Implementation of the Drug Policy of the Central Intelligence
Agency," which appears as Attachment B. This should assist in
furtherance of and compliance with Agency policy. This paper
is expected to be shared with recruiters of the Office of
Personnel.
Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0
 Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0
5. Given the above two papers as guiding documents, I believe
that the Office of Security applies the Agency policy in a uniform
manner. It is our belief that the application of anything less
than a single policy would leave the Agency with no real policy
to which it can lay claim. I think, you will find that there is
enough flexibility in the policy to not unduly hamstring the
recruitment process. However, I believe it only fair to state
that, indeed, our Agency standards for drug use constitute
somewhat of a problem in-our recruitment of personnel. We find
that we must.reject people with many good points to offer because,
as a counterbalance, they engage in a lifestyle which includes
either use of illegal drugs or illegal abuse of prescribed drugs.
Considering the demands for integrity that the Agency places on
its employees one must accept that there must remain a perceived
"problem" in this area or begin to accept a serious denigration
of the quality of our employees in the future. With our gauge
of past conduct as a predictor of future behavior I do not believe
the Agency should compromise its standards for the sake of
expediency of meeting recruiting goals when the future conse-
quences could be so dire.
6. We have no formal data on the chronology of change in
our drug policy, but suffice it to say, with the full cooperation
of the Office of Medical Services we have moved from a most
restrictive attitude to the presently accepted standards. While
we continue to review those standards we do not believe it prudent
to escalate tolerance levels beyond those stated as the current
policy.
7. The Office of Security cannot address the full spectrum
of CT resumes that are rejected for drug use since we-only see
those that get to a very viable stage of processing. What our
figures do tell us, though, is that during the current fiscal
year 16 percent of all personnel contacted by the Expeditor
Unit are rejected at that stage. The figure for CT candidates
reads out at 18 percent and it is the belief of the Chief of
the Expeditor Unit that the additional 2 percent figure is not
drug related, but is attributable to the theft and dishonesty
area.
8. We have run a review of cases of CT candidates that have
been entered into formal security processing (i.e., polygraph,
field investigation) since the January 1981 class. The survey
encompassed some0 candidates, of whom or 29 percent, were STAT
disapproved. Of those turned down or 25 percent, wer SiHl
disapproved solely on the basis of rug use, while another SiHl
representing 37 percent of the rejects, had drug use as mere y
one of multiple issues which brought about the adverse deter-
mination. Drugs were, therefore, a matter of concern in 62 percent
of the CT cases during this period. It is interesting to
2 '
Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0
 Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0
note that, during FY 1981 and 1982, drugs were one of the contrib-
uting factors in 57 percent of all Staff applicant cases that
were disapproved.
9. CT classes entering on duty between January 1981 and
April 1982 received polygraph interviews concurrent with their
Assessment and Evaluation (A&E) by the Psychological Services
Division. This had the effect of processing personnel who had
really not been fully vetted as desirable CT candidates. It
is interesting to note that 32 percent of the candidates entering
security processing in that manner became Security Disapproval
cases. The last three classes, July and October 1982 and
January 1983, have completed their A &E and were considered
fully acceptable candidates prior to initiation of security
processing. The security rejection rate of candidates. for these
classes has fallen to 23 percent.
10. Should you need further details in support
requirements please do not hesitate to
Chief, Clearance Division on extension
of your
STAT
STAT
STAT
Distribution:
Orig - Adse
1 - ER
1 - DDA
1 - D/Pers
Approved For Release 2007/10/19: CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0