CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00393 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 18-00393

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date3/18/2019
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert J. Kilmartin
Government Counsel: Kelly M. Folks
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old architect employed by a federal contractor, who had previously held a security clearance since 2007 without incident. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H, related to drug involvement and substance misuse. The core allegations included the applicant's admission to using marijuana sporadically from 1999 until May 2017, including during the period he held a security clearance.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant acknowledged his past marijuana use but claimed it was due to a misinterpretation of local laws regarding marijuana legalization. He stated that he had not used marijuana since May 2017 and provided evidence of disassociating from friends who used drugs. The applicant also submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from any future drug involvement. He presented positive character references and evidence of his professional accomplishments, which supported his reliability and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he had mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H. The judge noted the applicant's candor in self-reporting his drug use, the passage of time since his last use, and his proactive steps to ensure that such behavior would not recur. The judge determined that the applicant's past drug involvement did not cast doubt on his current reliability and granted him eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00393

grantedMar 18, 2019· Hon. Robert J. Kilmartin· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 38-year-old architect whose eligibility for a security clearance was reviewed under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to past marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons alleged sporadic social marijuana use between 1999 and May 2017, including after he submitted a Security Clearance Application in December 2006 and received a clearance. However, it also noted that his drug involvement was no longer a security concern due to steps taken to prevent recurrence.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline H were raised, but the administrative judge applied mitigating conditions. The applicant demonstrated a commitment to abstain from drug use through a signed statement of intent and proactively disassociated from friends who used marijuana.

The judge ultimately granted the applicant eligibility for access to classified information, finding that the passage of time since his last drug use, combined with his demonstrated commitment to abstinence and disassociation from drug-using associates, successfully mitigated the security concerns.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to abstain from drug use with a signed statement of intent.
He disassociated from friends who used marijuana, showing proactive steps to mitigate risks.
The time elapsed since his last drug use contributed to the judge's finding of mitigation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome Drug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 15, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateMar 18, 2019

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Time Elapsed Since Last Drug Use in Security Clearance Decisions
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana on sporadic social occasions between 1999 and May 2017, including after receiving a security clearance. However, the judge concluded that the applicant's drug involvement no longer poses a security concern due to his acknowledgment of the issue and the steps he has taken to prevent recurrence. The outcome of the case was granted, allowing the applicant to retain his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana on sporadic social occasions between 1999 and May 2017, including after he submitted a Security Clearance Application in December 2006 and received a clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	Applicant's drug involvement no longer remains a security concern as he has taken steps to ensure such behavior does not recur.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.