CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02402 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02402

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/19/2025
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02402) →See the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-02402) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-02402) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-02402) →
Participants
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her early 30s who sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included her history of marijuana use from high school until 2023, misuse of prescription Adderall, and selling her prescription medication in 2021.
The applicant admitted to the drug-related concerns but denied any misconduct related to personal conduct, asserting that she had cooperated fully with the security process. She provided evidence of her efforts to abstain from drug use, including a commitment to refrain from further involvement with drugs, a supportive relationship, and negative drug test results. The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made some positive changes, her history of drug use and the circumstances surrounding it were disqualifying factors. The judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were fully established, particularly due to the applicant's past drug use and the potential for future substance misuse.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for security clearance, citing her "lifelong abuse of drugs" and the insufficient time elapsed to demonstrate a consistent pattern of abstinence. The judge's decision was based on a comprehensive review of the applicant's drug-related conduct, although the applicant's appeal argued that the judge's analysis was arbitrary and capricious.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. ISCR Case No. 23-02402

unknownFeb 19, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A woman in her early thirties faced security clearance denial under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from her admitted history of drug use, specifically marijuana and cocaine, and the sale of prescription Adderall. These actions were identified as disqualifying conditions under the applicable guidelines.

While the applicant presented claims of rehabilitation and community support, which were considered as mitigating factors, the judge initially found her conduct to be disqualifying. This decision led to an appeal.

The appeal resulted in a remand of the case. The purpose of the remand was to conduct further analysis regarding her drug use and to re-evaluate the presented mitigating factors. As a result, there is currently no final outcome on her security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, and selling prescription medication.
The judge found that the applicant's drug involvement raised significant security concerns under both Guideline H and Guideline E.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress
AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe judge concluded that the applicant did not establish a pattern of abstinence.
AG ¶ 26(d)rejectedSatisfactory Completion of a Prescribed Drug Treatment ProgramThe applicant had not completed a prescribed drug treatment program.
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to ExploitationThe applicant disclosed her drug involvement to her boyfriend and employer.

Key Rule Quoted

“A judge’s decision can be arbitrary or capricious if: "it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions..."”
— ISCR Case No. 95-0600, 1996 WL 480993 at *3 (App. Bd. May 16, 1996)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 22, 2024
Decision dateFeb 19, 2025Decision was appealed.

Cite For

Analysis of Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline H and E
Consideration of Drug Use in the Context of Personal Conduct
Impact of Community Support on Security Clearance Decisions

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

Full decision

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