CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00240 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00240

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/28/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 34-year-old building operations controller employed by a government contractor. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to Guideline H, concerning drug involvement and substance misuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana from approximately July 2005 to September 2022, with a specific incident of use occurring just one week prior to her interview with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR and provided mitigating information, including her regret regarding her past marijuana use and her efforts to abstain from illegal drugs. She reported that she had not used marijuana since September 2022 and had distanced herself from individuals who use marijuana. The applicant also submitted character statements attesting to her reliability and stability, as well as a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug use in the future.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns related to her drug involvement were not sufficiently mitigated. The judge noted that while the applicant had taken steps to address her past behavior, the timing and nature of her marijuana use raised ongoing questions about her reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately determining that granting her access to classified information was not clearly consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-00240

deniedNov 28, 2023· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old building operations controller was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of marijuana use and substance misuse. The Statement of Reasons specifically alleged that the applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from approximately July 2005 to September 2022. This raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 25(a) and 25(c).

While mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 26(a) and 26(b) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The administrative judge determined that the applicant's marijuana use was recent, raising doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the denial was based on insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a clear pattern of abstinence from drug use. Furthermore, the applicant's admissions of drug use after submitting her security clearance application indicated a lack of judgment, contributing to the decision to deny her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's marijuana use was recent and raised doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness.
Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a pattern of abstinence from drug use was demonstrated.
The applicant's admissions of drug use after her security clearance application indicated a lack of judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's recent marijuana use continued to cast doubt on her reliability.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome Drug InvolvementThe applicant did not establish a sufficient pattern of abstinence.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 2, 2023
Answer filedMar 21, 2023
Hearing heldAug 11, 2023
Decision dateNov 28, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Recent Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Substance Misuse Cases
Importance of Demonstrating a Pattern of Abstinence for 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from about July 2005 to September 2022. Despite the applicant's admissions and expressions of remorse, the judge concluded that the applicant's drug involvement was disqualifying and denied eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from about July 2005 to about September 2022.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.