CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00251 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00251

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: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 39-year-old corporate officer for a company providing engineering services to the Department of Defense. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were under Guideline H, concerning drug involvement and substance misuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had used and purchased marijuana frequently from September 2001 to February 2022 and intended to continue its use, despite acknowledging that marijuana possession was illegal under federal law.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, specifically regarding his marijuana use and intent to continue using it. He provided some mitigating information, including that he had not tested positive for drugs and had no drug-related arrests. However, he expressed a belief that his marijuana use should be considered an inalienable right and did not attend any therapy or counseling for substance use. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and intentions did not mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline H.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns related to drug involvement were not mitigated. The judge emphasized that the applicant's ongoing use of marijuana, despite its federal illegality, raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical for access to classified information.
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. 23-00251

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

Summary

A 39-year-old corporate officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to unresolved concerns regarding his marijuana use. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from approximately September 2001 to February 2022, and that he intended to continue this use in the future. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 25(a), 25(c), and 25(g).

The applicant admitted to frequent marijuana use over several years and expressed an intent to continue its use. While mitigating conditions under paragraphs 26(a), 26(b), 26(c), and 26(d) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The judge concluded that the applicant's actions and expressed intent were incompatible with the trustworthiness required for access to classified information. Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's conduct did not align with national security interests, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using marijuana frequently over several years.
He expressed intent to continue using marijuana in the future.
The judge found that the applicant's actions did not align with the trustworthiness required for access to classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedExpressed Intent to Continue Drug Involvement

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's intent to continue marijuana use indicates a likelihood of recurrence.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome Drug InvolvementThe applicant did not provide evidence of actions taken to overcome his drug involvement.
AG ¶ 26(c)notedAbuse of Prescription Drugs After Severe Illness
AG ¶ 26(d)notedCompletion of a Drug Treatment Program

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 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 2, 2023
Answer filedMar 29, 2023
Hearing heldAug 10, 2023
Decision dateNov 28, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Intent to Continue Drug Use in Security Clearance Decisions
Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Arise

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 September 2001 to February 2022, and expressed an intent to continue using marijuana in the future. The decision was denied based on the applicant's ongoing drug involvement and the associated security concerns.

¶	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 September 2001 to about February 2022.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	Applicant intends to continue to use marijuana in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—

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.