CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03224 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-03224

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/29/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Raashid S. Williams
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 33-year-old individual seeking a security clearance for a position with a defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The SOR detailed the applicant's extensive history of substance abuse, including the use of multiple illegal drugs over an 18-year period, and indicated that the applicant had not demonstrated that granting a security clearance would be consistent with the national interest.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his drug involvement and substance misuse. He acknowledged his history of recreational drug use, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and other controlled substances, and described his attempts to quit using these substances. However, he did not provide any additional evidence or arguments in mitigation after receiving the government's file of relevant material. The applicant's lack of a formal response to the government's case and his admissions of drug use were significant factors in the decision.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his drug involvement. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and confidence in individuals granted access to classified information and noted that the applicant's extensive history of substance misuse raised significant doubts about his reliability and judgment.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against 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. 20-03224

deniedNov 29, 2021· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old prospective defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to extensive substance misuse over an 18-year period. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to mitigate concerns regarding drug involvement and was a recreational multi-substance abuser. His substances of choice included MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine. Additionally, the applicant had several police encounters resulting from his substance abuse.

Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(c), and AG ¶ 25(g). The denial was based on the applicant's admitted extensive drug use, including illegal substances and prescription drugs without a prescription.

Despite acknowledging his past use and expressing a desire to abstain, the applicant's history of substance abuse and lack of recent rehabilitation efforts raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. His expressed conditions regarding future marijuana use failed to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinuing such misuse, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to extensive drug use over an 18-year period, including illegal substances and prescription drugs without a prescription.
The applicant's history of substance abuse and lack of recent rehabilitation efforts raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's expressed conditions regarding future marijuana use failed to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinuing such misuse.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Including Purchase
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, or Failure to Clearly and Convincingly Commit to Discontinue Such Misuse

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 20, 2021
Answer filedMar 14, 2021Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateNov 29, 2021

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
Reliability and Trustworthiness Concerns Due to Extensive Drug Use History
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Efforts in Substance Abuse Cases

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding drug involvement and substance misuse. The applicant was identified as a recreational multi-substance abuser over an 18-year period, using various controlled substances including MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, and cocaine. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding drug involvement and substance misuse.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	MDMA	Frequent	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Heroin	Regular	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Psilocybin	Occasional	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	LSD	Occasional	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Prescription Stimulant Misuse	Occasional	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Benzodiazepine Misuse	Occasional	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was a recreational multi-substance abuser whose substances of choice during an 18-year period were MDMA, THC, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, amphetamine, alprazolam, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant had several encounters with the police as a result of his substance abuse.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementRelated Misconduct	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.