RECRUITMENT AND DRUG USE

Document Type: 
Collection: 
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
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 31, 1983
Content Type: 
MEMO
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85B01152R000400460006-0.pdf205.36 KB
Body: 
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