CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00361 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00361

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Jenny G. Bayer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but faced allegations under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse), Guideline F (financial considerations), and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns regarding the applicant's history of drug use, including marijuana, LSD, and ecstasy, as well as his financial delinquencies.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his drug use and financial issues. He acknowledged using marijuana regularly until June 2023 and admitted to having delinquent debts totaling over $13,000. The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to periods of unemployment and a lack of financial literacy. He expressed a desire to improve his financial situation and stated that he had begun working with a company to address inaccuracies in his credit file. However, he did not provide evidence of resolving the debts listed in the SOR.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that while the applicant refuted the personal conduct concerns, he failed to sufficiently mitigate the drug involvement and financial considerations issues. The judge emphasized the importance of maintaining national security and noted that the applicant's continued association with drug use and unresolved financial problems raised significant concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 23-00361

deniedJan 17, 2025· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old painter was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The applicant's Statement of Reasons detailed several issues, including the falsification of his financial record on an August 2022 Security Clearance Application (SCA). Financial concerns also included a $12,884 charged-off credit card debt, a $756 delinquent medical debt, and a $274 charged-off utility account.

Regarding drug involvement, the applicant used and purchased marijuana from approximately November 2006 to August 2022, including while holding a sensitive position. In June 2016, he tested positive for marijuana on an employer-administered urinalysis. Furthermore, he expressed an intent to continue using marijuana and associated with individuals who use the substance.

While some mitigating factors were considered for past drug use, the judge found that the applicant's recent and ongoing marijuana use, coupled with unresolved financial issues, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. The financial problems were attributed to unemployment and immaturity, with no evidence of debt resolution provided. Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's ongoing marijuana use raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Financial issues were attributed to periods of unemployment and immaturity, with no evidence of resolution provided.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Holding a Sensitive Position
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's ongoing marijuana use and expressed intent to continue using it raised doubts about his reliability.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond ControlWhile conditions contributed to financial issues, the applicant did not provide evidence of responsible actions taken.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 9, 2023
Answer filedJul 12, 2023
Hearing heldApr 25, 2024via video teleconference
Decision dateJan 17, 2025

Cite For

Ongoing Marijuana Use as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline H
Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
The Importance of Demonstrating Resolution of Financial Debts for Clearance Approval

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 that the applicant falsified his response to the financial record section of his security clearance application. Despite this finding, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on the personal conduct concerns, indicating that the falsification was not intentional. The overall outcome of the case was a denial of the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified his response to 'Section 26-Financial Record' of his August 2022 SCA.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, which included a charged-off credit card debt, a delinquent medical debt, and a charged-off utility account. The applicant admitted to these debts but did not provide sufficient evidence of mitigation to overcome the financial concerns raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has a $12,884 charged-off credit card debt. $12,884	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant has a $756 delinquent medical debt. $756	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant has a $274 charged-off utility account. $274	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 and purchased marijuana from November 2006 to August 2022, including during the time he held a sensitive position. He tested positive for marijuana in June 2016 and expressed an intent to continue using it. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used and purchased marijuana, with varying frequency, from approximately November 2006 to August 2022.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	His use of marijuana during this period occurred while holding a sensitive position.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In about June 2016, he tested positive for marijuana on a urinalysis test administered by his then-employer.	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	He expressed an intent to continue using marijuana in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	He continues to associate with individuals who use marijuana.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f–1.k	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

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.