CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01941 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01941

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/11/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old senior analyst seeking a security clearance for employment with a Department of Defense contractor. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding the applicant's past marijuana use, a positive drug test resulting in termination from employment, and misrepresentations made on his security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to using marijuana on various occasions, including a positive drug test in November 2020, which led to his termination. He acknowledged that he had not been truthful about the circumstances of his departure from his previous job and his drug use on the security clearance application. In his response to the SOR, he expressed regret for his actions and took responsibility, stating he would not use marijuana again and had taken steps to ensure future compliance with security requirements.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns were not mitigated. The judge noted the applicant's admissions and lack of persuasive evidence to demonstrate a change in behavior or a commitment to abstain from drug use. The ruling emphasized the importance of trustworthiness and reliability in individuals with access to classified information, ultimately determining that granting the security clearance was not consistent with national security interests.
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. 22-01941

deniedJul 11, 2023· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old senior analyst was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted marijuana use and the falsification of his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant used marijuana on various occasions between 1996 and November 2020. In about November 2020, he was terminated from employment for failing a random drug test, testing positive for marijuana, and attempting to falsify the test results. On his security clearance application dated April 7, 2022, the applicant falsely stated he was laid off due to COVID, deliberately omitting the true reason for his termination. He also falsely answered "No" to a question about illegal drug use, failing to disclose his marijuana use in November 2020.

The administrative judge found that the applicant's admitted marijuana use and the subsequent employment termination, combined with his deliberate misrepresentations on the application, raised significant unmitigated security concerns. No evidence of rehabilitation or changed behavior was presented to mitigate these issues, leading to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana and failing a drug test, which resulted in his termination from employment.
The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his drug use and employment termination.
The judge found that the applicant's security concerns were not mitigated by any evidence of rehabilitation or changed behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2022
Answer filedFeb 20, 2023Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 11, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Importance of Honesty in Security Clearance Processes

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on multiple allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E. The applicant was determined to have deliberately failed to disclose critical information regarding his employment termination and illegal drug use on his security clearance application. The judge concluded that the applicant's personal conduct raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.b	On April 7, 2022, Applicant responded to the question on his SCA about why he left employment and stated he was laid off because of COVID, deliberately failing to disclose the information about his termination.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	On April 7, 2022, Applicant responded to the question on his SCA about illegal use of drugs and stated, 'No,' deliberately failing to disclose his marijuana use in November 2020.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana on various occasions and failed a drug test, which led to his termination from employment. The findings were against the applicant, resulting in a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana on various occasions between 1996 and November 2020.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
2.a	In about November 2020 Applicant was terminated from his employment for failing a random drug test by testing positive for marijuana and for attempting to falsify the results of a drug test.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (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.