CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02821 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02821

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/26/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert J. Tuidar
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 23-year-old electrical engineer employed by a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance for the first time. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's admitted use and purchase of marijuana from July 2020 to April 2023, as well as transporting and selling marijuana across state lines, which is illegal in the state where he sold it.
The applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his past drug use and purchases but denied any intent to continue using marijuana in the future, stating that he had no desire to consume it due to his employment and personal reasons. He claimed to have disassociated from individuals who use drugs illegally. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions established disqualifying conditions under the guidelines, particularly regarding his illegal drug use and criminal conduct.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns. The judge noted that while the applicant denied future drug use, the recency and nature of his past behavior raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical for national security eligibility.
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. 23-02821

deniedSep 26, 2024· Hon. Robert J. Tuidar· hearing

Summary

A 23-year-old electrical engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant used and purchased marijuana with varying frequency from approximately July 2020 until at least April 2023.

Specific allegations included purchasing marijuana on multiple occasions during this period. Furthermore, on at least three occasions, the applicant purchased marijuana in one state and transported it to another, where a portion was sold to a friend. The applicant also stated an intent to use marijuana in the future. These actions raised disqualifying conditions related to drug involvement and criminal conduct.

While a mitigating condition concerning the passage of time since the drug involvement was considered, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a change in circumstances. The decision emphasized the paramount importance of national security, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to using marijuana from 2020 to 2023, including illegal transportation across state lines.
Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or change in circumstances was presented to mitigate security concerns.
The judge emphasized the paramount importance of national security in the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementApplicant acknowledged his drug involvement and disassociated from drug-using associates.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 12, 2024
Answer filedJan 24, 2024Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateSep 26, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation for Mitigating Security Concerns

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from July 2020 until at least April 2023, purchased marijuana on various occasions during that time, and transported marijuana across state lines for sale. However, the applicant's intent to use marijuana in the future was not established. The overall outcome was a denial of security clearance due to the applicant's drug involvement.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from about July 2020 until at least April 2023.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.b	Applicant purchased marijuana on various occasions from about July 2020 until about April 2023.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	On at least three occasions, Applicant purchased marijuana in State A and transported it to State B, where he sold a portion of the marijuana to a friend.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.d	Applicant intends to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations under Guideline J. Specifically, the applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana, which was deemed disqualifying conduct, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Cross-alleged information as set forth in SOR 1.b and 1.c.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

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.