CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00442 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00442

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/13/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Gatha L. Manns
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 58-year-old machinist employed by a federal contractor since May 2001, who sought a security clearance after previously holding one since December 2001. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose ongoing marijuana use and purchases while holding a security clearance, as well as previous drug-related arrests.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, including his continuous marijuana use since 1980 and his failure to disclose this information during his security clearance application and background interview. He acknowledged that he had purchased marijuana while holding a security clearance and had only recently obtained a medical marijuana card. The applicant provided character references praising his work ethic but did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns regarding his drug use and dishonesty.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his drug involvement and personal conduct. The judge noted that the applicant's ongoing marijuana use, particularly while holding a security clearance, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 22-00442

deniedJun 13, 2023· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old machinist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to a 1986 arrest for possession of a controlled substance and to using and purchasing marijuana from May 2001 onward, including while holding a Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance.

Further issues arose from the applicant's deliberate falsification of information. He intentionally failed to disclose his marijuana use and purchases on his September 2021 security clearance application (SCA) and during his November 2021 background interview with a DOD investigator.

The judge concluded that the applicant's admitted drug use while holding a clearance, combined with his pattern of dishonesty in failing to disclose this information, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, his eligibility for access to classified information was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana while holding a security clearance.
He intentionally failed to disclose his drug use on his security clearance application and during a background interview.
The applicant's pattern of dishonesty and ongoing drug use raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedProviding False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 2, 2022
Answer filedJun 9, 2022
Hearing heldApr 26, 2023
Decision dateJun 13, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Pattern of Dishonesty Impacting 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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of personal conduct related to falsification of his security clearance application and lack of candor during an interview. The applicant admitted to using marijuana while holding a DOD security clearance and failed to disclose this information, which raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his September 2021 SCA by intentionally failing to disclose his use and purchase of marijuana while holding a DOD security clearance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	During his November 2021 background interview, he deliberately falsified his marijuana history when questioned by an investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a history of marijuana use and failed to disclose this information while holding a DOD security clearance. The applicant admitted to purchasing marijuana during this time and did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation for his actions. The outcome was a denial of the application for clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted that in August 1986, he was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted that he had also purchased marijuana while holding a DOD security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
2.a	Applicant intentionally failed to disclose, as required, that he had used and purchased marijuana from May 2001 to the time he submitted the SCA and while possessing a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his use and purchase of marijuana to an authorized DOD investigator during his November 2021 background interview.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

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.