CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02833 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02833

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/24/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Rhett E. Petcher
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 28-year-old individual seeking a security clearance, who faced allegations under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had willfully falsified his security clearance applications by denying illegal drug use and had engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and marijuana over several years.
The applicant admitted to using cocaine from December 2021 to December 2022 and marijuana from March 2014 to 2022, including during the period he held a security clearance. He acknowledged that his actions constituted criminal conduct and admitted to falsifying his security clearance applications. However, he did not provide any mitigating evidence or demonstrate efforts to address his substance misuse or the falsifications.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the disqualifying conditions under the relevant guidelines were established due to the applicant's admissions and lack of mitigating factors. The judge emphasized that the applicant's deliberate falsifications and recent drug use raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately determining that granting a security clearance would not be in the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 23-02833

deniedOct 24, 2024· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's admitted falsification on two security clearance applications (SCAs) and extensive illegal drug use.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to falsely answering "No" to questions about illegal drug use within the last seven years on SCAs submitted on March 15, 2023, and November 3, 2020. The applicant also falsely stated on the March 15, 2023, SCA that he had never illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a security clearance.

Further admissions revealed the applicant used cocaine from approximately December 2021 to December 2022, and marijuana from March 2014 to about 2022, with some of the marijuana use occurring while holding a security clearance. These actions constituted violations of criminal law. The administrative judge concluded that the applicant's conduct raised significant security concerns, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to falsifying his security clearance applications regarding illegal drug use.
The applicant's admissions of illegal drug use constituted criminal conduct.
The applicant failed to provide mitigating evidence to address the concerns raised by his conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification 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.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 16, 2024
Answer filedFeb 16, 2024
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateOct 24, 2024

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Illegal Drug Use as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guidelines H and J
The Importance of National Security in Adjudicative Decisions

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 against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that he deliberately falsified his security clearance applications regarding illegal drug use. The applicant's admissions of falsification and the nature of his drug use contributed to the decision to deny his eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he falsified his March 15, 2023, SCA when he answered 'No' to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs . . . In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances.'	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	On his March 15, 2023, SCA, Applicant answered 'No' to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs . . . While possessing a Security Clearance – Have you EVER illegally used . . . [a] controlled substance while possessing a security clearance.'	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits that he falsified his November 3, 2020, SCA when he answered 'No' to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs . . . In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances.'	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 against the applicant on allegations of drug involvement, specifically the use of cocaine and marijuana. The applicant admitted to using cocaine from December 2021 to December 2022 and marijuana from March 2014 to about 2022, with the latter occurring while he held a security clearance. The decision was ultimately denied due to the applicant's failure to mitigate the security concerns associated with his drug use.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits he used cocaine from about December 2021 to December 2022.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits he used marijuana from March 2014 to about 2022, while possessing a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

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 allegation of criminal conduct related to illegal drug use. The applicant admitted to using marijuana for eight years and cocaine for one year, which the judge ruled constituted criminal conduct and did not meet the burden of proof for mitigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant violated criminal law by his eight years of marijuana use, and his year of cocaine use.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.