CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00093 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00093

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/30/2023
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-00093) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-00093) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 25-year-old network technician who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline H, concerning drug involvement and substance misuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana from May 2015 to at least March 2022 and had allegedly continued this use after submitting a security clearance application in April 2022.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to using marijuana until March 2022 but denied using it after submitting the application. He explained that his marijuana use began as a means to manage back pain from an injury and provided some medical documentation regarding his condition. The applicant also indicated that he had since adopted alternative pain management strategies, such as yoga and physical therapy, and had ceased associating with drug users.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting him eligibility for a security clearance. The judge found that the applicant's marijuana use had ended before he submitted his security clearance application and that he had taken significant steps to mitigate the security concerns, including disassociating from drug-using associates and adopting healthier pain management practices. The judge concluded that the applicant's past behavior was unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his current reliability and trustworthiness.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-00093

grantedNov 30, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 25-year-old network technician whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to past marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant used and purchased marijuana from May 2015 to at least May 2022, and specifically that he used marijuana after completing a security clearance application on April 7, 2022. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 25(a) and AG ¶ 25(c).

However, the applicant admitted to using marijuana for pain management until March 2022, clarifying that his use ceased before submitting his security clearance application. He demonstrated that he has since adopted alternative methods for pain relief and disassociated from individuals who use drugs.

The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a) and AG ¶ 26(b), finding the applicant's reasons for past use credible and noting his commitment to rehabilitation. Based on the applicant's cessation of marijuana use, evidence of alternative pain management, and disassociation from drug-using associates, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant ceased marijuana use in March 2022, prior to submitting his security clearance application.
He provided evidence of alternative pain management methods and disassociated from drug-using associates.
The judge found the applicant's reasons for past marijuana use credible and noted his commitment to rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment and Actions Taken to Overcome Substance Misuse

Key Rule Quoted

“The illegal use of controlled substances... can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness...”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2023
Answer filedMar 30, 2023Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision issued on remand.
Decision dateNov 30, 2023Decision granted after remand.

Cite For

Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Consideration of Totality of Circumstances in Security Clearance Decisions
Importance of Rehabilitation and Alternative Pain Management Methods in Adjudications

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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant used and purchased marijuana from May 2015 to at least March 2022, but did not use marijuana after completing a security clearance application in April 2022. The applicant's conduct was deemed mitigated, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used and purchased marijuana from May 2015 to at least May 2022.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Documented Rehabilitation Evidence
1.b	Applicant used marijuana after completing a security clearance application on April 7, 2022.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	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.