CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01176 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01176

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/4/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 22-01176) →See the appeal decision (Case 22-01176) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-01176) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Jeff A. Nagel
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under the drug involvement and substance misuse guideline, specifically alleging that the applicant used marijuana from April to June 2021, tested positive for marijuana during a routine drug screening in June 2021, and had used marijuana after being granted access to classified information. Additionally, the applicant was noted to have delinquent debts exceeding $13,000.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to testing positive for marijuana but denied using marijuana prior to the test, claiming instead that he had consumed CBD oil, which he believed did not contain THC. He acknowledged his failure to disclose this use to his employer and argued that he had ceased using THC-enhanced products. Regarding the delinquent debts, he stated that he was taking responsibility for them and was in the process of paying them off.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the drug concerns. The judge found that the applicant's explanations regarding the CBD oil were not credible, as he failed to provide evidence that the product he used was free of THC or that he had used it innocently. The judge also noted the applicant's lack of transparency regarding his drug use and the unresolved nature of his debts, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 22-01176

deniedDec 4, 2023· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline H for drug involvement and Guideline F for financial considerations. He partially admitted to marijuana use and a positive drug test while holding a clearance, but claimed to have resolved his financial issues. The judge found that the drug involvement concerns were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: accumulated two delinquent debts exceeding $13,000 (2.a). these debts have not been resolved and remain outstanding (2.b). used marijuana from about April 2021 through June 2021 (1.a). tested positive for marijuana in about June 2021 during a routine drug screening (1.b). used marijuana and tested positive for the substance after being granted access to classified information in about 2020 (1.c).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 24. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20. The decision turned on the following: The applicant's drug involvement was not mitigated despite claims of resolving financial issues.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's drug involvement was not mitigated despite claims of resolving financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant claimed to have resolved his delinquent debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

Decision dateDec 4, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Mitigating Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Drug Use 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had accumulated two delinquent debts exceeding $13,000, which remain unresolved. However, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding these financial considerations, indicating that the applicant is taking responsibility for the debts and is currently making payments.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	accumulated two delinquent debts exceeding $13,000 $13,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
2.b	these debts have not been resolved and remain outstanding	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor

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 against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement, specifically the use of marijuana. The applicant admitted to testing positive for marijuana while holding a security clearance and could not sufficiently prove that his use of CBD oil was the cause of the positive test. The decision was ultimately denied due to the applicant's failure to meet the evidentiary burden regarding his drug use.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	used marijuana from about April 2021 through June 2021	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	tested positive for marijuana in about June 2021 during a routine drug screening	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	used marijuana and tested positive for the substance after being granted access to classified information in about 2020	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Denied	—	—	—

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.