CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02656 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02656

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/6/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 26-year-old engineer who sought a security clearance after previously holding a secret clearance during internships with federal contractors. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose past drug use, specifically marijuana, LSD, and cocaine, on his security clearance applications.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the drug use allegations but claimed that his omissions on the security clearance application were unintentional, attributing them to a misunderstanding of the application’s significance. He expressed remorse for his past decisions and stated that he no longer associates with individuals who use illegal drugs. The administrative judge found that while the applicant successfully mitigated concerns related to drug involvement, he did not adequately address the personal conduct issues stemming from his failure to disclose drug use, which was deemed a significant lapse in judgment.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying eligibility for access to classified information. The decision emphasized the importance of trust and reliability in the context of national security, concluding that the applicant's past conduct raised sufficient concerns that could not be mitigated.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 23-02656

deniedDec 6, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant's Statement of Reasons detailed several instances of undisclosed drug use. Specifically, the applicant failed to report marijuana use from May 2015 to at least December 2017, and LSD use and/or purchase in May 2016, in Section 23 of his security clearance application. Further allegations included marijuana use from May 2015 to May 2017, LSD use and purchase from May 2016 to January 2018, and a single instance of cocaine use in March 2020.

While the applicant successfully mitigated the drug-related concerns themselves, the denial stemmed from a lack of credibility regarding omissions in his application. The judge found the applicant's explanations for these omissions to be not credible, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The decision highlighted that the applicant did not voluntarily report his illegal drug use until January 2023, and his continued drug use after being informed of the need for a security clearance demonstrated poor judgment. These factors, particularly the lack of credibility concerning the unintentional omissions, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's explanations for omissions in his security clearance application were found lacking in credibility.
The applicant did not voluntarily report his illegal drug use until January 2023, raising concerns about his honesty and reliability.
The applicant's continued drug use after being informed of the need for a security clearance indicated poor judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Happened Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“A favorable clearance decision means that the record discloses no basis for doubt about an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 18-02085 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 3, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 26, 2023
Answer filedMar 5, 2024
Hearing heldSep 10, 2024
Decision dateDec 6, 2024

Cite For

Credibility Issues in Security Clearance Applications
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E

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 allegations under Guideline E, specifically regarding the failure to disclose illegal drug use on a security questionnaire. The applicant admitted to the allegations but claimed the omissions were unintentional. However, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not disclose under 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity' that he had previously used marijuana from May 2015 to at least December 2017, and he had used and/or purchased LSD in May 2016.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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, LSD, and cocaine at various times, but ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline H. Despite the admissions of drug use, the judge concluded that the applicant successfully mitigated the concerns related to drug involvement, leading to a favorable finding on these allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about May 2015 to about May 2017.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
2.b	Applicant used and purchased LSD with varying frequency from about May 2016 to January 2018.	For Applicant	LSD	Occasional	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
2.c	Applicant used cocaine on one occasion in March 2020.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

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.