CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02297 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-02297

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/21/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. DeAngelis
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel P. Meyer
Case Summary
he administrative judge noted that Applicant's conduct raised significant concerns under Guideline E, which addresses personal conduct, and Guideline H, related to drug involvement. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of intentional omission of her ADHD diagnosis and falsification of information regarding her use of ADHD medication, as well as her positive drug tests for controlled substances during her military service.
The judge found that Applicant admitted to some allegations, including her failure to disclose her ADHD diagnosis and the circumstances surrounding her use of Adderall. She denied other allegations, claiming that her positive drug tests were due to unintentional ingestion of substances. In mitigation, Applicant presented evidence of her professional accomplishments and community involvement, as well as her current compliance with medical advice regarding her ADHD treatment. However, the judge determined that the evidence of her past conduct, particularly the deliberate omissions and falsifications, outweighed her mitigating factors.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny Applicant's security clearance, emphasizing that her past actions demonstrated a lack of candor and reliability, which are critical for maintaining national security. The judge concluded that the potential risk posed by her conduct could not be overlooked, and any doubts regarding her eligibility were resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 20-02297

deniedNov 21, 2023· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old senior program analyst for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns about dishonesty and a history of drug use. The applicant intentionally failed to disclose an ADHD diagnosis in 2008 to avoid a military academy medical waiver process. While at the academy, she tested positive for amphetamines, an incident that occurred 14 years prior. She also provided a false explanation for receiving Adderall, claiming it was from a friend rather than a previous prescription.

Further issues included a positive marijuana test in May 2016, administered by her employer less than 18 months after she began the job and signed a drug abuse waiver. Her testimony that she was unaware marijuana was illegal in the state where she used it in 2015 was deemed incredible. Additionally, in a 2020 interrogatory, she falsely stated she was prescribed Adderall in 2009, when the prescription actually dated back to middle school.

Despite some favorable factors, the judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate concerns regarding her dishonesty and drug use. The applicant's lack of candor during the investigation and her drug-related incidents were significant factors, leading to the denial of her clearance due to the importance of trust in national security roles.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate concerns regarding dishonesty and drug use.
The applicant's history of drug-related incidents and lack of candor during the investigation were significant factors in the denial.
The judge emphasized the importance of trust in national security roles.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)(3)appliedPattern of Rule Violations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2021
Answer filedSep 26, 2021Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 15, 2023
Decision dateNov 21, 2023

Cite For

Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Investigations
Impact of Drug-related Incidents on 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct related to drug use and failure to disclose relevant medical information. However, the applicant was found to have mitigated some concerns regarding her ADHD diagnosis and the circumstances surrounding her drug use, leading to a mixed outcome on the allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant intentionally failed to disclose her ADHD diagnosis before beginning class at the military academy in 2008 to circumvent its medical waiver process.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant tested positive for amphetamines while at the military academy and her subsequent punishment occurred 14 years ago when she was a teenager.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.c	Applicant falsely explained that she received the Adderall from a friend, rather than from a previous prescription, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.c.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.d	Applicant tested positive for marijuana on a random drug test administered by her employer in May 2016, less than 18 months after beginning the job and signing a waiver not to abuse drugs.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.e	Applicant's testimony that she was unaware marijuana was illegal in the state where she used it in 2015 was not only incredible, it undercut other viable mitigating testimony.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant stated in her 2020 interrogatory response that she was prescribed Adderall in 2009 when she was 19, when in truth, she was prescribed Adderall when she was in middle school.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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