CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02491 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02491

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/2/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 29-year-old mechanical engineer employed by a defense contractor since 2014. He applied for a security clearance on May 11, 2021, but was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on December 8, 2021, citing security concerns under Guideline H, which pertains to drug involvement and substance misuse. The SOR detailed the applicant's extensive history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, and other controlled substances, raising questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his drug use but expressed a willingness to abstain from certain substances if required for his security clearance. However, he indicated that he might resume using them if they became legal or if he no longer held a clearance. The applicant had previously been denied a security clearance in 2016 for similar reasons, and there was no evidence of him having sought drug counseling or treatment. The administrative judge found that the applicant's past behavior and lack of credible commitment to abstain from drug use undermined his case for mitigation.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for a security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to his drug involvement, emphasizing that past actions are often more indicative of future behavior than stated intentions. The decision underscored the importance of trust and reliability in national security determinations.
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. 21-02491

deniedJun 2, 2022· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old mechanical engineer, employed by a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to extensive substance misuse over a 13-year period. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding drug involvement, admitted to frequent use of marijuana and other controlled substances, and did not demonstrate a commitment to future abstinence. These actions raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness, deemed inconsistent with the national interest.

The denial was based on several key factors. The applicant admitted to using multiple controlled substances over a long duration. Crucially, he indicated a willingness to abstain from drugs only if they remained illegal and he held a security clearance, failing to demonstrate a firm commitment to permanent abstinence.

Furthermore, there was no evidence presented of drug counseling or treatment, nor a commitment to disassociate from individuals who use drugs. The judge concluded that the applicant's history raised substantial doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using multiple controlled substances over a 13-year period.
He expressed a willingness to abstain from drugs only if they remained illegal and he held a security clearance.
There was no evidence of drug counseling or treatment, nor a commitment to disassociate from drug-using associates.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement

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 issuedDec 8, 2021
Answer filedJan 7, 2022Applicant elected for a written record decision.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJun 2, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Demonstrate Commitment to Abstain From Drug Use
Importance of Reliability and Trustworthiness in National Security Positions

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's drug involvement and substance misuse raised significant security concerns. The applicant admitted to frequent use of marijuana and other controlled substances over a long period, which the judge concluded undermined his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	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	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The allegation was withdrawn during the proceedings.	Withdrawn	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted to using marijuana and other controlled substances.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant's drug use was frequent and included multiple substances over a long period.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant failed to demonstrate a commitment to abstain from drug use in the future.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant's past drug use raises questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant's drug involvement is inconsistent with the national interest.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	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.