CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02383 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-02383

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/31/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: A. H. Henderson
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 34-year-old college graduate employed by a federal contractor since 2022. He faced security concerns under Guideline H, related to drug involvement and substance misuse, and Guideline E, concerning personal conduct. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had failed to disclose his past marijuana use during security interviews, fearing it would jeopardize his employment.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including his use of marijuana on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2016 and his failure to disclose this information during interviews with government officials. He explained that he did not realize marijuana use was illegal under federal law and expressed regret for his past actions. He claimed to have made a conscious effort to change his behavior and emphasized his commitment to honesty moving forward, particularly in light of his responsibilities as a husband and father.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that while he mitigated concerns related to drug involvement, he failed to mitigate the personal conduct concerns. The judge noted that the applicant's deliberate omissions during the security clearance process raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge emphasized that the applicant's age and the nature of his omissions indicated a lack of good judgment, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 22-02383

deniedAug 31, 2023· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old federal contractor and college graduate was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to deliberately providing false or misleading information during the security clearance process regarding his drug use.

While the applicant's drug involvement and substance misuse concerns were mitigated, the denial stemmed from his personal conduct. Specifically, he failed to make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his omissions before being confronted with the facts. This deliberate misrepresentation raised significant questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's intentional provision of false information, which is a disqualifying condition under Guideline E. Despite the mitigation of his drug use concerns, his failure to be forthright during the process ultimately led to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately provided false information during the security clearance process regarding his drug use.
He failed to make prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his omissions before being confronted with the facts.
His conduct raised questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledges Drug Involvement and Provides Evidence of Actions to Overcome the Problem

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 1, 2023
Answer filedFeb 13, 2023Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 31, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Drug Involvement Under Guideline E
Deliberate Provision of False Information During the Security Clearance Process
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H

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 the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E, specifically for deliberately providing false or misleading information during the security clearance process. The applicant's admissions regarding his drug use and the failure to disclose this information were significant factors in the decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Deliberately providing false or misleading information during the security clearance process.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse. The applicant had not used illegal drugs since 2018 and demonstrated a commitment to abstinence. However, the overall disposition of the case was denied due to concerns under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Mitigated drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—
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.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.