CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01561 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01561

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/1/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old Personnel Security Officer II employed by a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline H, related to drug involvement and substance abuse. The SOR detailed the applicant's extensive history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, ecstasy/MDMA, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine, with admissions of use spanning several decades.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, detailing his drug use history and providing context for his actions, including a significant medical event in 2017 that led to PTSD and anxiety. He claimed that his drug use was primarily experimental and that he had significantly reduced his usage in recent years, with his last use of marijuana occurring in March 2022. The applicant presented character witnesses who attested to his honesty and trustworthiness, and he submitted a letter of intent to abstain from drug use in the future.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the mitigating conditions did not apply to his case. The judge emphasized that the applicant's history of drug use raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, which were not sufficiently alleviated by his recent abstinence or the positive testimonials from his colleagues. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a high standard of trust for individuals granted 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. 23-01561

deniedFeb 1, 2024· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old Personnel Security Officer II was denied a security clearance due to extensive illegal drug involvement under Guideline H. The applicant admitted to a history of using marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine over several years. Specific allegations included the use of controlled substances causing impairment, an extensive history of illegal drug use, and recent use of marijuana in March 2022 and psilocybin mushrooms in June 2022.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant's drug involvement raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness. Disqualifying conditions were cited, including the extensive history of illegal drug use and the recent nature of that use.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant's last use of illegal drugs occurred as recently as June 2022, indicating a lack of established abstinence. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessary character or judgment required for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has an extensive history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine.
The last use of illegal drugs occurred as recently as June 2022, demonstrating a lack of established abstinence.
The applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite character or judgment for access to classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive Position

Key Rule Quoted

“The illegal use of controlled substances...can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2023
Answer filedOct 1, 2023
Hearing heldJan 9, 2024
Decision dateFeb 1, 2024

Cite For

Extensive History of Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
Failure to Establish a Pattern of Abstinence From Drug Use
Questions Regarding Reliability and Trustworthiness Due to Drug Involvement

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 and substance misuse. The applicant admitted to extensive illegal drug use, including marijuana, ecstasy/MDMA, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine, raising significant concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	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	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has an extensive history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, ecstasy/MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant's last use of marijuana occurred in March 2022, and he has used psilocybin mushrooms as recently as June 2022.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant has not demonstrated the level of maturity needed for access to classified information.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

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.