CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01006 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01006

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/16/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Applicant's Counsel: Kyra Palmer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guidelines E (personal conduct), F (financial considerations), H (drug involvement and substance misuse), and J (criminal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns related to his past drug use, including an incident in the military involving ecstasy, and subsequent legal issues involving methamphetamine possession.
Key facts included the applicant's admission of past drug use and his involvement in a 2019 arrest for possession of methamphetamine, where he denied knowledge of the drugs in his vehicle. He acknowledged having baggies in his pocket from prior use but maintained that he was unaware of the drugs left in his car by a friend. The applicant also admitted to owing several debts but claimed to have made arrangements to address them. However, the administrative judge found the applicant's testimony lacking in credibility, concluding that he knowingly possessed and used illegal substances and provided false information during his background investigation.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge cited the applicant's lack of credibility, the seriousness of his drug-related offenses, and his failure to mitigate the financial concerns as reasons for the decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 22-01006

deniedNov 16, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of drug use, false statements, and unresolved financial obligations.

Specific allegations included three collection accounts: one for $3,069 to a bank, another for $483 to a telecommunications company, and a $16,364 debt remaining on an auto loan after repossession. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have possessed and used MDMA (ecstasy), and to have possessed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, citing a lack of credibility due to inconsistent statements regarding drug use and financial issues. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of resolving his debts or demonstrating responsible behavior, leading to the conclusion that the security risks remained unaddressed.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under multiple guidelines due to a history of drug involvement and false statements.
The applicant's credibility was questioned based on inconsistent statements regarding drug use and financial issues.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of resolving his financial debts or demonstrating responsible behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

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 issuedMar 24, 2023
Answer filedMar 31, 2023
Hearing heldOct 27, 2023
Decision dateNov 16, 2023

Cite For

Credibility Issues Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Financial Obligations Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Personal Conduct Concerns Due to False Statements 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on two collection accounts totaling $3,552, while ruling in favor of the applicant regarding a $16,364 auto loan debt after the vehicle was repossessed. The applicant admitted to the debts but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$3,069 collection account to a bank $3,069	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	$483 collection account to a telecommunications company $483	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	$16,364 due on an auto loan after the vehicle was repossessed $16,364	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 knowingly used MDMA and methamphetamine, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information. The findings were based on the applicant's past drug use and possession, which occurred while he was in a sensitive position.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Possession and use of MDMA (ecstasy)	Against Applicant	MDMA	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia	Against Applicant	Methamphetamine	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c–2.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

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.