CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00539 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00539

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/13/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Applicant's Counsel: Louis Kosnett
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 32-year-old engineer seeking a security clearance for his employment with defense contractors. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed allegations under Guideline H, concerning drug involvement and substance misuse, and Guideline E, related to personal conduct. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had used THC (marijuana) while holding a security clearance, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using THC on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2022, primarily for anxiety and stress relief. He acknowledged that his use occurred while he was employed in sensitive positions and despite being aware of the zero-tolerance policy regarding substance use. In mitigation, he presented evidence of psychological counseling and a negative drug screening, along with character references attesting to his integrity.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the mitigating factors were insufficient. The judge noted that the applicant's deliberate use of THC while holding a security clearance did not meet the criteria for mitigation, as it raised significant concerns about his judgment and compliance with regulations. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining trust and reliability in individuals granted access to classified information.
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. 23-00539

deniedNov 13, 2023· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old engineer with a Master's degree was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The government alleged the applicant used controlled substances in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose and engaged in conduct demonstrating questionable judgment, raising doubts about reliability and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant used THC while already holding a security clearance. This action was deemed to reflect poor judgment and unreliability, and was characterized as immature and irresponsible conduct that failed to meet the required standards for a security clearance.

While the applicant presented evidence of rehabilitation efforts, the judge determined these mitigating circumstances were insufficient to overcome the disqualifying factors. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant used THC while holding a security clearance, demonstrating poor judgment and unreliability.
The applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to overcome the disqualifying factors.
The applicant's conduct was deemed immature and irresponsible, failing to meet the necessary standards for security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26rejectedMitigating Conditions for Drug InvolvementThe applicant's drug use occurred while holding a security clearance and was not infrequent enough to mitigate concerns.
AG ¶ 17rejectedMitigating Conditions for Personal ConductThe applicant's acknowledgment of his behavior and steps taken were insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 4, 2023
Answer filedJun 4, 2023
Hearing heldOct 4, 2023
Decision dateNov 13, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement While Holding a Clearance
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Mitigating Circumstances in Drug Use Cases

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation, determining that the applicant engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment that raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness. The applicant's attempts at mitigation were not accepted, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant has engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant used marijuana (THC) on multiple occasions while holding a security clearance, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Despite the Applicant's claims of seeking counseling and ceasing use, the judge concluded that the mitigating factors were not applicable, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant has used controlled substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.b–1.g	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified		—	—	—

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.