CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02334 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02334

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old Master Expeditor for a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. The core allegations included the applicant's deliberate use of the illegal drug Ecstasy (MDMA) while holding a security clearance and his failure to disclose this drug use on his security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to using Ecstasy in January 2017, strategically timing his drug use to test positive on a military drug test in order to facilitate his discharge from the Army. He received an Article 15 punishment for this conduct, which included a reduction in rank and loss of pay. Although he claimed to have made positive changes in his life since then, he denied any intention of using drugs again and attributed his failure to disclose his drug use on the application to a misunderstanding of the question.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the disqualifying conditions under both guidelines were applicable. The judge found that the applicant's actions demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability, particularly given the deliberate nature of his drug use while in a sensitive position. The judge determined that the mitigating factors were not applicable, as the applicant's conduct was egregious and indicative of a lack of trustworthiness necessary for 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. 23-02334

deniedJul 16, 2024· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from allegations that the applicant engaged in questionable judgment and used controlled substances.

Specifically, the applicant intentionally used ecstasy while serving in a sensitive military position, with the explicit goal of forcing a discharge. This action was cited as a primary reason for the denial, demonstrating a lack of maturity and poor judgment. Further compounding these concerns, the applicant deliberately omitted this drug use from his security clearance application, which was considered a significant issue regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

The judge found no applicable mitigating factors, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessary maturity or integrity required for a security clearance. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally used ecstasy while holding a sensitive military position to force a discharge.
He failed to disclose his drug use on his security clearance application, which was deemed a deliberate omission.
The judge found no mitigating factors applicable, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the maturity or integrity necessary for a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 15, 2024
Answer filedJan 29, 2024
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateJul 16, 2024

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
The Importance of Full Disclosure on Security Clearance Applications

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant engaged in conduct involving questionable judgment, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The formal finding was against the Applicant, indicating that he did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns.

¶	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 GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant used Ecstasy (MDMA) while holding a sensitive position in the Army, which raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness. The formal finding was against the Applicant, indicating that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse.

¶	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	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse	—	—

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.