CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01022 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-01022

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/8/2023
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance and faced allegations under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse), Guideline J (criminal conduct), and Guideline E (personal conduct) as outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Department of Defense on August 5, 2021. The core allegations included the applicant's past illegal drug use, a drug-related arrest in 2006, and two DUI charges in 2012 and 2014.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including his drug use and the circumstances surrounding his arrests, while denying others related to personal conduct. He provided explanations for his past actions, citing a lack of attention during the completion of his security clearance application and expressing remorse for his past behavior. The applicant indicated that he had not used illegal drugs since 2017 and had distanced himself from individuals who use drugs. He also demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a drug-free lifestyle and acknowledged the impact of his past actions on his career.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant had successfully mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating a significant passage of time since his last drug use and criminal activity, as well as evidence of rehabilitation and a commitment to abstaining from drugs in the future. The judge found the applicant to be credible and candid, which contributed to the decision to grant the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For 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. 21-01022

grantedMay 8, 2023· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old male applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed a history of drug use, including marijuana and cocaine from 2006 to 2017. He was arrested in 2006 and charged with possession and intent to distribute marijuana. Additionally, he faced a 2012 DUI charge, resulting in a 2014 conviction.

It was determined that the applicant did not deliberately falsify his 2006 FBI FD-316 form, as his drug-related arrest and charge occurred after its completion. Disqualifying conditions were raised, but several mitigating conditions were applied.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's demonstrated significant period of abstinence from illegal drugs since 2017. He took responsibility for his past drug use and criminal conduct, showing credible remorse and a commitment to change. Furthermore, his current living situation includes supportive family members who are also abstaining from drug use.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a significant period of abstinence from illegal drugs since 2017.
He took responsibility for past drug use and criminal conduct, showing credible remorse and commitment to change.
The applicant's current living situation includes supportive family members who are also abstaining from drug use.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Occurred Long Ago
AG ¶ 26(b)(1)appliedDisassociation From Drug-using Associates
AG ¶ 26(b)(2)appliedChanged Environment
AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedOmission of Relevant FactsThe applicant credibly testified that omissions were due to oversight.
AG ¶ 16(g)rejectedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal ActivityThe applicant does not socialize with individuals who use illegal substances.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 5, 2021
Answer filedSep 18, 2021
Hearing heldDec 2, 2022via video teleconference
Decision dateMay 8, 2023

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not deliberately falsify his 2006 FBI FD-316 regarding a drug-related arrest, as the arrest occurred after the form was completed. The applicant's personal conduct concerns were mitigated, leading to a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant did not deliberately falsify his 2006 FBI FD-316 because his 2006 drug-related arrest and charge occurred after he completed the form.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b–3.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana and cocaine from 2006 to 2017 and was arrested in 2006 for possession and intent to distribute marijuana. However, the applicant demonstrated sufficient mitigation through a pattern of abstinence and disassociation from drug-using associates, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana and cocaine from 2006 to 2017, and he was arrested in 2006 and charged with possession and intent to distribute marijuana.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Documented Severed Ties to Using Friends

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the criminal conduct allegations. The applicant had a history of arrests for drug-related offenses and DUI, but the judge determined that sufficient time had passed without recurrence of criminal activity, leading to a conclusion that the applicant mitigated the concerns related to criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in 2006 and charged with possession and intent to distribute marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
2.b	He was also charged in 2012 with DUI and convicted in 2014 of DUI.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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

Full decision

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