CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01544 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01544

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/23/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Christopher Snowden
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 27-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to drug involvement and substance misuse. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding the applicant's history of using various controlled substances, including marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogenic drugs, and Ketamine, with allegations spanning from 2012 to December 2022.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, acknowledging his past drug use but asserting that he had ceased all illegal drug use since December 2022. He provided explanations for his drug use, attributing it to social circumstances and personal challenges. The applicant presented evidence of his efforts to rehabilitate, including negative drug test results and completion of an online drug awareness course. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns regarding his drug history, particularly the frequency and recency of his substance use.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant's past drug use raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness, and despite his claims of abstinence and rehabilitation, the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate a long-term commitment to avoiding illegal substances.
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. 23-01544

deniedAug 23, 2024· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of drug use. The Statement of Reasons detailed his use of cocaine from approximately April 2017 until at least December 2022, hallucinogenic drugs (including LSD, PCP, and mushrooms) from about May 2014 until at least February 2017, and Ketamine from approximately October 2016 until at least January 2017.

The applicant admitted to these allegations. While he claimed abstinence from all drugs since December 2022 and received positive endorsements from colleagues, the judge determined that the 18-month period of abstinence from cocaine was insufficient to mitigate the risk of recurrence.

Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's past drug involvement raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance. Disqualifying conditions 25(a) and 25(c) were raised, and while mitigating condition 26(a) was applied, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using cocaine, hallucinogenic drugs, and Ketamine over several years.
The judge found that 18 months of abstinence from cocaine was insufficient to mitigate recurrence risks.
The applicant's past drug use raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Substance Misuse
DC ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance

Mitigating

MC ¶ 26(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur or Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge determined that the applicant's abstinence period was too short to mitigate concerns.

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, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 25, 2023
Answer filedOct 9, 2023
Hearing heldJun 20, 2024
Decision dateAug 23, 2024

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Importance of Sustained Abstinence From Drug Use
Reliability and Trustworthiness Concerns Due to Past Drug Use

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 had a history of drug involvement, including cocaine, hallucinogenic drugs, and ketamine use. Despite the applicant's claims of infrequent use and efforts to cease drug use, the judge concluded that the security concerns related to drug involvement were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.b	used cocaine with varying frequency from about April 2017 until at least December 2022	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	used hallucinogenic drugs (such as LSD, PCP, mushrooms, etc.) with varying frequency from about May 2014 until at least February 2017	Against Applicant	DMT or Other HallucinogenWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.d	used Ketamine with varying frequency from about October 2016 until at least January 2017	Against Applicant	KetamineWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	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.