CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01939 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01939

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/23/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 52-year-old individual who had worked for a government contractor since January 2020 and had previously served in the U.S. Army. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct), H (drug involvement and substance misuse), and J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose a termination due to a positive drug test, multiple arrests, and a history of drug use.
The applicant admitted to most of the allegations in the SOR, including being fired for testing positive for marijuana in 2019 and having a history of drug use and various criminal offenses. He denied two specific allegations related to adultery and theft but acknowledged his involvement in other incidents, including destruction of property and providing false information to law enforcement. In mitigation, he claimed to have abstained from drug use since 2019 and provided a written statement promising to avoid illegal substances in the future.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns. The judge found that the applicant's admissions demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor, which raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge emphasized that the applicant's deliberate omissions on his security clearance application and his history of drug use and criminal conduct were serious enough to deny his eligibility for a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 22-01939

deniedAug 23, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old male applicant, with a background in military service and government contracting, was denied a security clearance. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant admitted to providing false information on his March 2022 security clearance application by failing to disclose a job termination within the past seven years due to a positive urinalysis. Additionally, he failed a urinalysis test for marijuana in April 2019, which led to his termination from a government contractor role. The applicant also had a history of criminal conduct, including an August 2003 arrest for unlawful use and possession of marijuana.

These issues collectively raised doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his drug use and employment termination.
He tested positive for marijuana in 2019, leading to his termination from a government contractor position.
The applicant has a history of multiple arrests and criminal conduct, which raises concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant's false statements on the SCA were not considered minor and occurred recently.
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant claimed abstinence from drug use since 2019 but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate concerns.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's recent drug use and dishonesty indicated a lack of rehabilitation.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 9, 2022
Answer filedDec 14, 2022
Hearing heldApr 11, 2023
Decision dateAug 23, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to False Statements on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Drug Involvement on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline H
Consideration of Criminal History in Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline J

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 that the applicant deliberately provided false information on his security clearance application by failing to disclose his termination due to a positive drug test. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not successfully mitigate the concerns regarding his personal conduct. The application for a security clearance was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant deliberately gave false information on his March 2022 security clearance application when he failed to disclose that he was fired from a job within the past seven years because of a positive urinalysis test.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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 against the applicant on the drug involvement allegation, specifically regarding a positive urinalysis test for marijuana in April 2019. The applicant admitted to the use of marijuana and acknowledged the circumstances surrounding his termination from employment due to this positive test. The overall outcome was a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed a urinalysis test for marijuana in April 2019.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations under Guideline J, specifically regarding his arrest for unlawful use and possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. The applicant admitted to the allegations but was unable to sufficiently mitigate the concerns raised by his history of drug use and other criminal behavior, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was arrested in August 2003 for unlawful use and possession of a controlled substance marijuana.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.