CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01517 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01517

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/4/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Applicant's Counsel: Ryan C. Nerney
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under the drug involvement and substance misuse guidelines, as well as criminal conduct. The core allegations included two positive drug tests for cocaine in December 2020 and January 2021, and a subsequent discharge from the Air Force under other than honorable conditions due to these incidents.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations but claimed that he unknowingly ingested cocaine through cigarettes given to him by patrons at a bar while intoxicated. He asserted that he had undergone substance abuse counseling, was diagnosed as free of drug abuse issues, and had taken online courses to understand the impacts of drug use. However, he denied any intentional ingestion of cocaine and did not report the bar incident to investigators, which could have potentially corroborated his account.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns regarding his drug use and criminal conduct. The judge noted the lack of credible evidence supporting the applicant's claims of unknowing ingestion and emphasized the seriousness of the drug-related allegations, ultimately denying his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 22-01517

deniedMar 4, 2024· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to drug involvement and criminal conduct. The applicant tested positive for cocaine in December 2020 and again in January 2021, while already holding a security clearance. These positive tests led to allegations of cocaine use during that period.

As a result of the first failed urinalysis, the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in January 2021 for wrongful use of a Schedule II controlled substance. Following the second failed urinalysis, he was charged with a UCMJ Article 121 violation for wrongful use of cocaine. The applicant subsequently sought and received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating circumstances to overcome the disqualifying conditions related to drug involvement and criminal conduct. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant tested positive for cocaine on two occasions while holding a security clearance.
He received non-judicial punishment under the UCMJ for wrongful use of a controlled substance.
The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
DC ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
DC ¶ 25(f)raisedAny Illegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information or Holding a Sensitive Position
DC ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
DC ¶ 31(e)raisedDischarge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces for Reasons Other Than Honorable

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”
— Exec. Or. 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2022
Answer filedFeb 2, 2023
Hearing heldSep 18, 2023initially heard as scheduled
Decision dateMar 4, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Drug-related 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement, specifically regarding positive cocaine tests and use while holding a security clearance. The applicant's claims of rehabilitation and abstinence were noted but did not mitigate the concerns raised by the positive drug tests and the circumstances surrounding them.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	tested positive in December 2020 for cocaine on a urinalysis test	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	tested positive in January 2021 for cocaine on a urinalysis test	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	used cocaine from December 2021 to January 2021, while granted a security clearance	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant received non-judicial punishment for wrongful use of a controlled substance and was charged with a violation of the UCMJ for a second failed urinalysis, leading to a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a.2.a	received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ in January 2021 based on his first failed urinalysis test for wrongful use of a schedule II controlled substance	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b.2.b	was charged with a violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (wrongful use of cocaine) in January 2021 based on a second failed urinalysis, for which Applicant sought and received a discharge under other than honorable conditions	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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