CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02333 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02333

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/30/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Bryan J. Olmos
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 54-year-old aircraft maintenance technician who had previously served in the U.S. Air Force and held a Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed allegations under Guideline H concerning drug involvement and Guideline E regarding personal conduct. The core allegations included the applicant's past marijuana use from 2008 to November 2017, multiple drug-related arrests, and the deliberate falsification of his October 2020 security clearance application by failing to disclose these arrests.
In his response to the Statement of Reasons, the applicant admitted to past marijuana use but claimed he had not used it since 2009. He acknowledged his arrests but asserted that charges from 1992 and 1996 were dropped and that he was not impaired during the 2017 incident. He contended that he was unaware of the need to report offenses outside the 10-year scope of the application and believed he could not conceal public information from the DOD. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised by his history of drug use and dishonesty.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, concluding that his past drug use, coupled with the intentional omission of relevant information on his application, raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. The judge emphasized that the applicant's actions were inconsistent with the standards required for maintaining a security clearance, ultimately determining that granting clearance was not clearly consistent with the national interest.
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. 21-02333

deniedJun 30, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old aircraft maintenance technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a history of drug use and multiple drug-related arrests, coupled with the deliberate falsification of his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant used marijuana from approximately 2008 to at least November 2017, with varying frequency. His record included arrests for possession of a controlled substance in February 1992, possession of marijuana in January 1996, and felony possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia in November 2017. Additionally, he tested positive for marijuana in a March 2009 urinalysis.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to disclose these drug-related arrests on his October 2020 security clearance application. The administrative judge determined that these actions, particularly the falsification and the drug use while holding a Department of Defense security clearance, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the unfavorable decision.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of drug involvement, including multiple arrests for drug-related offenses.
He falsified his security clearance application by omitting drug-related arrests, raising concerns about his honesty and reliability.
The applicant's drug use occurred while he held a Department of Defense security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 17, 2021
Answer filedJan 10, 2022Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJun 30, 2022

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
The Importance of Honesty and Reliability in Security Clearance Determinations

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant deliberately falsified his October 2020 security clearance application by failing to disclose his drug-related arrests. The applicant's conduct raised significant personal conduct concerns, which were not mitigated, leading to a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his October 2020 security clearance application by not disclosing his drug-related arrests.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

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

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 used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2008 to at least November 2017, including while holding a security clearance. The applicant had multiple arrests related to drug possession and tested positive for marijuana in 2009. The judge concluded that the applicant's drug involvement and substance misuse raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about 2008 to at least November 2017.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in February 1992.	Against Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana in January 1996.	Against Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant tested positive for marijuana in a March 2009 urinalysis test.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was arrested for felony possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia in November 2017.	Against Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

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.